Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2001/02/14 - Agenda Packet CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA WEDNESDAY FEBRUARY 14, 2001 7:00 PM Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center Council Chamber 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California I. CALL TO ORDER Roll Call Chairman McNiel__ Vice Chairman Macias Com. Mannerino Com. Stewart Com. Tolstoy I1. ANNOUNCEMENTS II1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Adjourned Meeting January 10, 2001 January 24, 2001 Adjourned Meeting January 24, 2001 IV. CONSENT CALENDAR The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non- controversial. They will be acted on by the Commission at one time without discussion. If anyone has concern over any item, it should be removed for discussion. A. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-75 - MASTERCRAFT HOMES - A design review of the detailed site plan and building elevations for Tract 14382, consisting of 38 single family lots in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located west of Etiwanda Avenue and north of Wilson Avenue - APN: 225-071-70. B. VACATION OF A 30-FOOT WIDE EASEMENT FOR GENERAL PUBLIC ,AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES (V-177)- RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES - A request to vacate a 30-foot wide easement for general public and public utility purposes, located on the north side of Base Line Road, east of Rochester Avenue - APN: 22'7-091-45. Related File: Tract 16051. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS The following items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice their opinion of the related project. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address the Commission by stating your name and addre;~s. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. Please sign in after speaking C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - 98-08 - BASELINE[ BARGAIN CENTER - A request to revoke the Conditional Use Permit for the operation of a retail establishment in the General Commercial District, located at 9456 Roberds Street - APN 202-091-08. D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 00-04 - AMERICAN BEAUTY DEVELOPMENT CO. - A request to establish a Development Agreeme,nt for the development project known as the Victoria Arbors on approximately 300.64 acres of land in the Mixed Use District of the Victoria Community Plan, generally bounded by Base Line Road to the north, Etiwanda Avenue to the east, Foothill Boulevard to the south, and Day Creek Channel to the west - APN: 227-201-04, 13 through 18, 22, 28 through 31, 33, and 36; 227-161-28, 31, 33, 35, 36, and 38; 227-171-08, 11, 12, 20, 22, 23, and 25; and 227-211-40. E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 01-04 - AMERICAN BEAUTY DEVELOPMENT CO. - A request to establish a residential Master Plan for a development project known as the Victoria Arbors for approximately 300.64 acres of land, in the Mixed Use District of the Victoria Community Plarl,' generally bounded by Base Line Road to the north, Etiwanda Avenue to the east, Foothill Boulevard to the south, and Day Creek Channel to the west - APN: 227-201-04, 13 through 18, 22, 28 through 31, 33, and 36; 227-161-28, 31, 33, 35, 36, and 38; 227-171-08, 11, 12, 20, 22, 23, and 25; and 227-211-40. F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVF PARCEL MAP 15641 - AMERICAN BEAUTY DEVELOPMENT CO. - A request to subdivide approximately 300.64 acres into 35 lots for financing purposes for a mixed use development project known as the Victoria Arbors, generally bounded by Base Line Road to the north, Etiwanda Avenue to the east, Foothill Boulevard to the south, and Day Creek Channel to the west - APN: 227-201-04, 13 through 18, 22, 28 through 31, 33, and 36; 227-161-28, 31, 33, 35, 36, and 38; 227-171-08, 11, 12, 20, 22, 23, and 25; and 227-211-40. Page 2 G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 15974 - AMERICAN BEAUTY DEVELOPMENT CO. - A residential subdivision of 554 single family lots and including a 10-acre parcel for a school and approximately 17.33 acres of park and open space on approximately 190 acres of land, within a development project known as the Victoria Arbors, in the Mixed Use District of the Victoria Community Plan, generally bounded by Base Line Road to the north, Etiwanda Avenue to the east, future Church Street to the south, and Day Creek Channel to the west - APN: 227-161-28, 31, 33, 35, 36, and 38; 227-171-08, 11, 12, 20, 22, 23, and 25; and 227-211-40. VI. NEW BUSINESS H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-66 - THE B. IVAN GROUP- A request to construct a 26,895 square foot industrial building on 2.17 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 13), located at the southeast corner of Sixth Street and Rochester Court - APN: 229-263-04. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-72 - FRITO LAY - A request to construct a 25,242 square foot office addition at the existing Frito Lay Facility on 37 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 5), located at 9535 Archibald Avenue - APN: 210-071-28. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. J. UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM NUMBER 139 - LOWE'S - A request to establish a Uniform Sign Program for the Lowe's Home Improvement Store and adjacent buildings consisting of two restaurants and a bank on 20 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7), located at the southeast corner of Milliken Avenue and Foothill Boulevard - APN: 229-011-32. K. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-72 MODIFICATION - CONCORDIA HOMES - A request to amend the previously approved design review for 55 homes within Tentative Tract 15911 to be a gated community with private-streets in the Low-Medium Residential District (4 to 8 dwelling units per acre), located on the northeast corner of East Avenue and the Southern Pacific right-of-way - APN: 227-141-11 and 12. 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 Page 3 IX. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11:00 p.m. adjc,urnment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission. THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL ADJOURN TO A WORKSHOP IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING IN TI-IE RAINS ROOM TO DISCUSS A MASTER PLAN FOR VICTORIA ARBORS - AMERICAN BEAUTY. 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 February 8, 2001, at least 72 hours pdor to the meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga. Page 4 Vicinity Map Planning Commission February 14, 2001 ! Hillside Banyan \ __ 19th/210 Fw~ C Baseline r D, E ~ F, G Arrow J 4th ~ '- H City of Rancho Cucamonga Victoria Planned Cormnunity /~ CITY HALL THE CITY OF ~ANCHO CUCAMONGA Staf:f Report DATE: February 14, 2001 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Thomas Grahn, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00°75 - MASTERCRAFT HOMES -A design review of the detailed site plan and building elevations for Tract 14382, consisting of 38 single family lots in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Nodh Specific Plan, located west of Etiwanda Avenue and north of Wilson Avenue - APN: 225-071-70. SITE DESCRIPTION: The project site is located on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue, north of Wilson Avenue (see Exhibit "A"). Tract 14139 is located directly to the north. Tracts 14380 and Tract 14381 are located directly to the east. Tract 13527 is located to the south and west. The site is currently vacant and was rough graded several years ago. ANALYSIS: A. Backqround: On September 28, 1988, the Planning Commission approved Tract 13527 for the subdivision of 88 acres into 252 single-family lots. Prior to tract recordation and design review, Tract 13527 was broken down into smaller tracts (e.g., Tracts 13527, 1437'9, 14380, 14381, and 14382). Tracts 14379, 14380, 14381, and 14382 have since been recorded. Tract 14379 contains 35 lots and was developed by Centex Development. Tracts 14380 and 14381 contain a total of 114 lots; Tract 14381 is currently being developed by Mastercraft Homes. B. General: This project will utilize floor plans and various elevations previously approved for the different design review applications for Tract 14380 and 14381. These architectural designs were previously reviewed by the Design Review Committee and subsequently approved by the Planning Commission. Development Review 96-27 was reviewed by the Committee on December 17, 1996, and approved by the Planning Commission on January 27, 1997. Development Review 98-11 was reviewed by the Committee on August 4, 1998, and approved by the Planning Commission on August 31, 1998. Development Review 99-03 was reviewed by the Committee on May 18, 1999, and approved by the Planning ITEM A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 00-75 - MASTERCRAFT HOMES February 14, 2001 Page 2 Commission on June 9, 1999. Development Review 99-64 was reviewed by the Committee on December 14, 1999, and approved by the Planning Commission on January 12, 2000. The architectural designs include single- and two-story units, front-on and side-on garage options, and reverse footprints for all units. The floor plans range in size from 2,820 to 4,143 square feet. The floor plans have three elevations each that were designed to reflect the architectural styles of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan (see Exhibit "C"). The architectural styles include: Ranch, Bungalow, San Juan, Santa Barbara, and Country. C. Neiqhborhood Meetin,q: On January 11,200i, the applicant held a Neighborhood Meeting at' the Caryn Elementary School to present the proposed project to the existing property owners north of the project site. A total of 12 people were present in addition to representatives of the applicant. The applicant presented their project and responded to questions concerning proposed grading, unit placement, unit height, and off-site improvements. D. Design Review Committee: The Design Review Committee reviewed the project on January 16, 2001 (see Exhibit "D"). The elevations utilized for (.';ommittee review on this project, Development Review 00-75, are identical to the elevations utilized for Committee review on a series of related and adjacent developments (Tract 14380 which includes Development Review 96-27, Development Review 98-11, and Development Review 99-03, and Tract 14381 which contains Development Review 99-64). As the elevations presented to the Committee had not been revised to reflect comments frorn the previous application's odginal Design Review Committee meeting and Planning Commission approval, the Committee addressed the same design comments on the current project's design. The Committee (McNiel, Stewart, Henderson) reviewed the project and recommended approval subject to the following: 1. Provide a hip roof element above the bathroom window projection on the second floor of the Plan 4 elevation. 2. Provide shutters on the front elevation of Plan 4B. 3. Revise the openings on the turret element of the Plan 4A elevation. Since the original Design Review Committee meeting, the appliCant has submitted revised elevations to reflect these comments. The elevations are provided as an attachment to this report (see Exhibit "C"). E. Gradinq Committee: The Grading Committee reviewed the project on January 16, 2001, and recommended approval of the project Grading Plan. F. Environmental Assessment: On October 28, 1998, the Planning Commission approved a time extension for Tentative Tract 13527. The tract is located in an area identified as potential habitat for endangered or threatened species and contains indicator species of sage scrub habitat. As a result, habitat assessments werE; required to determine potential impacts. The report concludes that because of the highly disturbed nature of the site, lack of suitable habitat, and the extensive surrounding development, further development of the site will not result in adverse effects to endangered or threatened species or their habitat. The Planning Commission adopted a Negative Declaration; hence, no further review is necessary. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 00-75 - MASTERCRAFT HOMES February 14, 2001 Page 3 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review 00-75 through adoption of the attached Resolution and Conditions. Brad Buller City Planner BB:TG:Is Attachments: Exhibit"A"- Vicinity Map Exhibit"B" - Grading Plan Exhibit "C" - Floor Plans and Elevations Exhibit"D" - Design Review Committee Comments dated January 16, 2001 Resolution of Approval Remainder Tract 14139 Tract 13527 Etiwanda Avenue Vicinity Map City Boundary Tract 14379 ~T[T] Tract '14380 (DR 96-27) ~:> ~ Tract 14380 (DR 98-11) · '~ ~====~ Tract 14380 (DR 99-03) Wilson Avenue T~~1.J~.~ 9,~-~j. i-'TI/ III1~/ ~ ~ Etiwanda Avenue Tract 1 2659 Project: DR 00-75 Title: Vicinity Map Exhibit: "A" Date: 2/14/2001 TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 14382 a. .. - ALT. MASTER BEDROOM ~OPT. COURTYARD 8ou~,~ ~OOT~OE FLOOR PLAN REAR ELEVATION RIGHT ELEVATION L~FT £LI~¥ATION F R 6~" I~L'I~V ATION *" RANCH ,o .-:~ .... .J II, ~1 ~ · ' o..~.t,,. .., -t-~,l'tl ////!.x.....' "_~,=~ " ,.~;~, ._ -~'~ .... , ,', .......... ~ ~ ~~ ~,j :: ~ ~ - ~. PARTIAL ROOF FRAMING FLOOR PLAN ADDENDA LEFT ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION ====~------~ 10 : ....... : ~ ~ I I~1 1 I',~! ~'~ ,, r<?e,: ;; .:, ,' ~ON~ ELEVATION , . ~ ~ , ~jU~ ROOF PLAN '~'---. . ~ [ [ ' '. ' ' I, L ........ J~ I~l --0 ,, ..... FLOOR PLAN ADDENDA 11 ~ ~ : RI~ ELEVATION 'N8TALLAT~N HOTK~ '~~. . LEFT ELEVATION~ I ~ECTION A-A [~5~.ELEVATI N ~ ~TiC VEN~LATJON NOTF8 ~0~ PLAN ADDENDA .............. ~RE FOOTAGE CONCRETE TI1. I[ ~----'-- ~ "~"'"~'~ ~"=~" RIGHT ELEVATION LEFT ELEVATION ~'== --'~"'~' 14 REAR EI. EVA'rlOH ROOF PLAN ,~ ~ -..-.., ~.'-~, - .=.~ RIGHT ELEVATION m~ LEFT ELEVATION BEAR ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION FLOOR PLAN ADDENDA ~,,. ~.~. SAN JUAN ~==- ~-~--~ 17 ' ; [~- I II~ll' ~ * ' ' ,INSTALLATION~--~NOTE[' ~ .... RIGHT ELEVATION E LEFT ELEVATION FALTER BATH BEDflOOu .~ OPTIONAL FIREPLACE !ONAL &=..E~.N.~ER TAIN. CENTER BEDROOM 4 & BATH 4 OPTION BEDROOM 4 OPTION SECOND FLOOR PLAN --~..~1~==.~________~, '. 2 1 FIRST FLOO'R PLAN .-~.::--'-~'~A'=;= 20 ROOF PLAN REAR ELEVATION RIGHT ELEVATION LEFT ELEVATION ~OOF ~ REAR ELEVATION INSTALLATION NO~E~ A~ V[N~A~N NOT~I ~ L~ ~ .... ; ~ .... __~ ~ .... ~ ~ '~'~'~:~. FRONT ~LEYATION .. =---- .~.~'~ ~ RANCH ,_ ~ ~=:~ 3 1 ~.o_o. F PLA. CON~R''' T'' ~_ELEVATIoN ~N~ ELEVATION =~ ......... 34 RIGHT ELEVATION LEFT ELEVATION ROOF PLAN REAR ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION ......· - SANTA BARBARA RIVIVAL ?~I~.H.~ ELEVATI N LEFT ELEVATION I ~ . FRONT ELEVATION ATTIC VE~ATION NOTEI FLOOR PLAN ADDENDA ' 39 RIGHT ELEVATION ROOF PLAN LEFT ELEVATION ?~E~.R..ELEVATION ~.~ - ' ~' i.i~i,' ' ~'' '~'; ' '~ - ,~~ ~~ ~ ..... F~ ELEVATION FLOOR PLAN ADDENDA ~ ~ '~'~.... RIGHT ELEVATION ROOF PLAN LEFT ELEVATION --=:= --' ~"~'~ 42 FIRST FLOOR PLAN OPTIONAL DECK * M.BED ', L ~/~-~ ~ ~ ,, _ " ' ~ 'd ~ L ~ ..--, 'SECOND FLOOR PLAN RIGHT ELEVATION LEFT ELEVATION TILE ~OoF . ~...~ REAR ELEVATION RIGHT ELEVATION L£FT ELEV.~"FION F--'F-'~.--'-'t ................... ~'1 , I ,. =~=ZZZXPLAN REAR ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION ~ :~ ATT~ VENT~ATION NOTE8 COU~Y RIGHT ELEVATION LEFT ELEVATION '- · . ELEVATION "~ FRONT ELEVA' ION RIGHT ELEVATION ~l I[ IH,t-HI II I I1~1 II IIL~r-"mlII:2~OI~II'--IIZ.211 I LEFT ELEVATION CONe. FLAT REAR ELEVATION ROOF PLAN CONCRETE INSTALLATION NOTE. ATTIC VE~ATgON NOTE8 FRONT ELEVATION RIGHT ELEVATION i:~ t~l EFJ EEl EtB L:E_I,~II':E I II ii II II II II II II II I~ Il I1 II 11 II II II II II LEFT ELEVATION .... ; ~ t REAR ELEVATION ....... '°" ROOF ..... ~U~Y .... ~ 68 RIGHT ELEVATION LEFT ELEVATION LIBRARY OPTION BEDROOM 6 OPTION · , .' · ; SECOND FLOOR PLAN ~ .......... 72 FRONT ELEYATION "- ,~ SANTA BARBARA REVIVAL ~ ..... 80 at ~DrOOU e O,TW. RIGHT ELEVATION ROOF PLAN , LEFT ELEVATION ~ ~=:~ 81 _:_ ~;~'~ REAR ELEVATION ' COUNTRY IhISTALLATION NOT~[9 RIGHT ELEVATION ~ · ROOF PLAN ........' LEFT ELEVATION COUNTRY 84 ~EAR ELEVATION Z ,-I ..I 12. UJ FRONT ELEVATION '- RANCH ~ ...... 86 .............. -- RIGHT ELEVATION :~'- IIIIIIIIIIIII q I I LEFT ELEVATION CONSENT CALENDAR COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Tom Grahn January 16, 2001 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-75 - MASTERCRAFT HOMES - A design review of the detailed site plan and building elevations for Tract 14382, consisting of 38 single family lots in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Nodh Specific Plan, located west of Etiwanda Avenue and north of Wilson Avenue - APN: 225-071-70. Desitin Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Larry Henderson Staff Planner: Tom Grahn The elevations utilized for Development Review 00-75 are the same eievations used on the previous applications, Development Review 96-27, Development Review 98-01, Development Review 99-03, and Development Review 99-84. These elevations have not been revised to reflect the comments from the previous application's Design Review Committee meeting, so the same comments were incorporated into this projects design. 1. Provide a hip roof element above the bathroom projection on the Second floor of the Plan 4 elevation. 2. Provide shutters on the front elevation of Plan 4B. 3. Revise the openings on the turret element of the Plan 4A elevation. EXHIBIT "D" RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 00-75, FOR THE DESIGN REVIEW OF DETAILED SITE PLAN AND ELEVATIONS FOR TRACT 14382, CONSISTING OF 38 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) OF THE ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED WEST OF ETIWANDA AVENUE AND NORTH OF WILSON AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF APN: 225-07~1-70. A. Recitals. 1. Mastercraft Homes filed an application for the approval of Development Review No. 00-75, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 14th day of February 2001, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a meeting on the application and concluded said meeting on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission dudng the above- referenced meeting on February 14, 2001, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located west of Del Norte Place, north of Altura Ddve, and west of Cervantes Place (generally north of Wilson Avenue and west of Etiwanda Av.enue); and b. The property to the north and east of the project site consists of existing single. family homes and the property to the west and south is designated for residential use and is currently vacant; and c. The project, with the recommended conditions of approval, complies with all development standards of the City of Rancho Cucamonga; and d. The development of 38 single family units on 11.88 acres of land is consistent with the Low Residential designation of the General Plan; and e. The application contemplates the development of 38 single-family residential lots within Tract 14382, originally subdivided under Tract 13527. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 00-75 - MASTERCRAFT HOMES February 14, 2001 Page 2 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to 'this Commission dudng the above- referenced meeting on February 14, 2001, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; b. That the proposed design is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code, the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; c. That the proposed design is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code and the Etiwanda North Specific Plan; and d. That the proposed design, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to .the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below. Plannin.q Division 1) All applicable conditions as contained in Planning Commission Resolutions 88-200, 88-200A, 90-119, and 90-'120 shall apply. 2). Rear yard drainage swales shall not exceed a maximum slope of 6 pement. 3) Provide a minimum of 1~5 feet of fiat, usable rear yard area adjacent to the rear of each structure. The usable rear yard area shall not exceed 5 percent slope. 4) Provide, where possible, a minimum 18-foot area in front of each garage that does not exceed 5 percent slope. Maximum driveway slope shall not exceed 15 percent. 5) Driveways for side-on garage units shall not exceed a width of 12 feet from the front property line to the turnaround area in front of the garage. 6) Driveway widths shall not exceed 16 feet at the curb. 7) Masonry return walls shall be provided between each unit. The walls shall be provided a decorative finish to match the building elevations. 8) Comer side yard walls shall be provided. The walls shall be provided a decorative finish to match the building elevations. The walls shall be set back a minimum of 5 feet behind the sidewalk. Landscaping shall be provided between the wall and the sidewalk and maintained by the homeowner. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 00-75 - MASTERCRAFT HOMES February 14, 2001 Page 3 En,qineedn.q Division: 1) Install 12-inch pipe in each pdvate cross lot drainage easement and a transition structure to each curbside drain outlet. 2) Individual rear yard drains can be less than 12-inch diameter, but still require a curbside drain outlet and appropriate transition structure. 3) Provide dissipation facilities where cross lot drains from Lots 2 through 7 and the temporary emergency access road discharge to a future development phase to the south (Tract 13527). 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2001. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman A'I-I'EST: 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 14th day of February 2001, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TH C I T Y OF ~AN Cli 0 C U CAM ONGA Staff Report DATE: February 14, 2001 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Dan James, senior Civil Engineer BY: Willie Valbuena, Assistant Engineer SUBJECT: VACATION OF A 30-FOOT WIDE EASEMENT FOR GENERAL PUBLIC AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF BASE LINE ROAD, EAST OF ROCHESTER AVENUE (V-177) - RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES - A request to vacate a 30-foot easement for general public and public utility purposes, located on the north side of Base Line Road, east of Rochester Avenue -APN: 227-091-45. Related File: Tract 16051 BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: Richmond American Homes is currently processing Tract 16051 for a residential subdivision of 77 single-family lots on 15.63 acres of land. In conjunction with this processing, Richmond American Homes has requested the vacation of a 30-foot wide general public and public utility easement that is contiguous to the property. Said easement is located on the north side of Base Line Road and was dedicated to the City per Parcel Map 5687 recorded on May 19, 1980. Once vacated, said easement area will be part of Tract 16051. Utility companies, other agencies and various City divisions have been notified of the proposed vacation and were asked for comments. There were no objections to the vacation from any of the groups notified. The vacation is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code because the general public and utility easement is presently unusable and therefore will be part of Tract 1605'1. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make the finding through minute action that the proposed vacation is in conformance with the General Plan. Respectfully submitted, Senior Civil Engineer DJ: WV:sc Attachments: Vicinity Map Legal Description (Exhibit "A") Plat (Exhibit 'B") ITEM B · HIGHLAND AVE. PROJECT LocATIoN ~ E ROAD N CITY OF IT~: ,~'I¢IiWTY' RANCHO CUCAMONGA TrrLE: V'- l ENGII~.ERII~G DIVISION EX~IRIT RIGHT OF WAY VACATION BEING A PORTION OF PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 5697, RECORDED 1N BOOK 56, PAGES 9 AND 10, OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARD]NO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 1; SAID POINT BEING 60.00 FEET NORTH OF 'Ilz~E CENTERLINE OF BASELINE ROAD; THENCE WES'rEPLY NORTH 89° 55'25" WEST 829.01 FEET ALONG A LINE PARALLEL ~l rH AND 60.00 FEEl' NORTH OF TIlE CEN I'~RLJNE OF BASELINE ROAD 'FO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTHEAST AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 20,00 FEET; THENCE NoRTHWESTERLy 31.54 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90* 21 '34" TO A POINT ON TH~ EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF ROCHESTER AVENUE AS SHOWN ON SAID PARCEL MAP NO, 5687; SAID POINT ALSO BEING 44,00 FEET EAST OF THE CEN'I'ERLINE OF ROCHESTER AVENUE AS SHOWN ON SAID PARCEL MAP NO, 5687; THENCE NORTI-IERLY NORTH 00~ 26'09" EAST 30.00 FEET ALONO SAID RIGHT OF WAY TO A POINT OF CUSP TO A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTIIEAST AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 20,00 FEET AND TO WHICH A RADIAL BEARS NORTH 89°33'51" WEST; THENCE SoLrrI-IF~STERL¥ 31.54 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF ~0' 21 '34" TO A POINT ~0.00 FEET NORTH OF THE CENTERL1NE OF BASELI]VE ROAD; THENCE EASTERLY SOUTH 8~ 55'25" EAST 829.02 FEET ALONG A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 90.00 FEET NORTH OF T}lE CENT~RLINE OF BASELINE ROAD TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 5687; (Continued on Page 2) THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF: No. §781 ROGER C_~ODING, L_S. 5781 DATE LICENSE EXPIRES 6/30/04 Pago 1 of 2 EXHIBIT "A' RIGHT OF WAY VACATION (Continued) THENCE SOUTH 00° 26'56" WEST 30.00 FEET ALONG T"rIE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 5687 TO THE POINT OF ~BEGINNING. PARCEL COMPRISES 24,470 SQ FEET OR 0.562 ACRES. AS MORE PARTIC~JLARLY SHOWN ON ~ ATTACHED ]~[HIBrr "B". TI-US DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED UNDER THE SUPER'vISION OF: NO. ~781 · Exp.$/30/04, ROGER GOODING, L.S. 5781 DATE LICI~NSE ExPn~F_S 6/30/04 Pag~ 2 of 2 I,- l- ',W (w ' ~' SCALE:' 1"=100' PARCEL 1 "~7 I Y :~ PARCEL MAP NO, 50e~ t~ , ~ ~. F~ 902t~ . ~1. . - . ~ ~ ; -- _ _ TRACT NO, 8808 PREPARED UND~ mE ~PER~SION OF: ~ E X H I B IT' B' ROG~ GO~ING, LS. 5781 I G H T ,o ~ w A Y v A 0 A T m o N UCENSE EXPIRES 6/30/04 ~ February 8; 2001 City of Rancho Cucamonga Plam~ing l~v~sion PO Box 807 RavaghoCue&mcmga-, CA 91729 RE: Baseline Bargain Center Coadili~,a~ Use 1~98-08 Deal Commission Members: :.~ ;.. !: i:' · tn ~egards to your ~ecem letter ~egar~t~ revol~ing ~he ve~ai[ pevmi~ for the Baseline Bargain Center, we urge you to reconsider and allow the establishment to remain open ~vhite theY. mak~e armngemcnts:fo~ additional pa~king. The store prohdes agreat: service to the area. While perhaps once :we were the center of tow~;':now!the ~eighbovhoods in ~ are~ are.older withma,n'y: seniov~ am3 Iow. irte~me families. You yourselves are moving in senior housing complexes right down the street oa Baseline. Many of the stoves paU-oas watl~ t~ because they do not-h~ve: transportation. While,the 99¢ Store is nice, the Bargain Center is a different store offering a d~ffevem variety of items mqd i{ is a h¢!p,n,~! resource to-those of u~that ~op there. ~hile we are awa~e of some of the differer~esgou have ~ad with the ov-mevs~s~nc~e:it's opening, please consider the population that needs small discount stores like this. We were able to-watch pacer, ts buy Ch~[stmas~presems-fo~ ~theh: chitdrev,:this Deeembev gnd carts were filled with food.items asWell. The store is clean, the'owners helpful and frieml[y3.~Whe~:was the tas~-.time you:were into a!oea! store aml-}he:ov~ ealtee[ Y~ by yourfirst name? :Thank :you for your consideration ofour neighborhoods? ~needs: : February 13, 2001 Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission City Planning Division Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission: I am writing to PROTEST the city's action to revoke the conditional use permit Issued to Baseline Bargain Center. To revoke the conditional use permit at this late date without recourse when the permit was issued "'in error" by the planning commission is to disregard the city's culpability for jeopardizing the solvency of a small Dusiness. I am strongly in favor of authorizing the conditional use permit to remain in force until a timely resolution may be determined for the lnadeguate parking problem. Once the original business license was Issued, Bargain Baseline Center proceeded In good faith to operate as a sanctioned business In Rancho Cucamonga. As In any retail business, a considerable amount of capital In the form of cash and loans were Invested in this enterprise tn order to inltlate commerce. Baseline Bargain Center has even gone so far as to purchase addltonal land to develop adequate parking to support Its venture. This further demonstrates Its commitment to function as a legitimate revenue-producing member of the Rancho Cucamonga business community. Our teenage sons are taking classes in American government and history. They are learning that at the federal, state, and local levels, the purpose of all government in the United States is fundamentally to protect Its citizens, to uphold justice, and to promote enterprise. Our government holds its citizens responsible for their actions. In this case, we urge you, as Rancho Cucamonga city leaders, representatives, and employees to diligently and creatively determine a solution to this problem to prove that our city government is both responsible and fair. As twelve year residents of a city we love, as well as appreciative customers of Baseline Bargain Center, our family Is expectantly awaiting this proposal's resolution. Respectfully, Deborah A. Maycl'ln 6440 Via Cerena Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701 (909) 944-6645 PLEASE JOIN 'OUR PETITION We, the residents of the city of Alta Loma/Rancho Cucamonga - and surrounding communities - support Baseline Bargain Center in their effort to remain operational until they meet all requirements and are approved for a retail Conditional Use Permit (CUP) from the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Baseline Bargain Center carries a wide variety of brand name general merchandise at reduced prices. These reduced prices are very competitive with other local retail establishments, and provide significant cost savings for individuals and families with limited incomes. Furthermore, the location of Baseline Bargain Center is convenient for those of us who live and/or work locally. · Baseline Bargain center provides products and services to enhance our community. NAME ADDRESS PLEASE JOIN OUR PETITION We, the residents of the city of Alta Loma/Rancho Cucamonga -- and surrounding communities - support Baseline Bargain Center in their effort to remain operational until they meet all requirements and are approved for a retail Cond/tional Use Permit (CUP) from the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Baseline Bargain Center carries a wide variety of brand name general 'merchandise at reduced prices. These reduced prices are very competitive with other local retail establishments, and provide significant Cost savings for individuals and families with ~imited incomes. Furthermore, the location of Baseline Bargain Center is convenient for those of' us who live and/or work IocaJly. Baseline Bargain Center provides products and services to enhance our community. NAME ADDRESS THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORTI ..... ~-' '7'" "'L PLEASE JOIN OUR PETITION '- ~ residents of the city of Alta Loma/Rancho Cucamonga -- and surrounding ,unities - support Baseline Bargain Center in their effort to remain operational , they meet all requirements and are aPproved for a retail Conditional Use Permit ~UP) from the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Baseline Bargain Center carries a wide variety of brand name general merchandise at reduced prices. These reduced prices are very competitive with other local retail establishments, and provide significant cost savings for individuals and families with limited incomes. Furthermore, the location of Baseline Bargain Center is convenient for those of us who live and/or work locally. Baseline Bargain Center provides products and services to enhance our community. NAME ADDRESS THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT! PLEASE JOIN OUR PETITION We, the residents of the city of Alta Loma/Rancho Cucamonga - and surrounding communities - support Baseline Bargain Center in their effort to remain operational until they meet all requirements and are approved for a retail Conditional Use Permit (CUP) from the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Baseline Bargain Center carries a wide variety of brand name general merchandise at reduced prices. These reduced prices are very competitive with other local retail establishments, and provide significant cost savings for individuals and families with limited incomes. Furthermore, the location of Baseline Bargain Center is convenient for those of us who live and/or work locally. Baseline Bargain Center provides products and services to enhance our community. NAME ADDRESS / ~ ~ 'THANK FOR YOUR SUPPORT! PLEASE JOIN OUR PETITION We, the residents of the city of Alta Loma/Rancho Cucamonga - and surrounding communities - support Baseline Bargain Center in their effort to remain operational until they meet all requirements and are approved for a retail Conditional Use Permit (CUP) from the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Baseline Bargain Center carries a wide variety of brand name general merchandise at reduced prices. These reduced prices are very competitive with other local retail establishments, and provide significant cost savings for individuals and families with limited incomes. Furthermore, the location of Baseline Bargain Center is convenient for those of us who live and/or work locally. Baseline Bargain Center provides products and services to enhance our community. NAME ADDRESS ,'~n:,., ;Fd ........ I .,!I - I:~/ ~ ~ , ., . /~ f: ~. .' THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORTI PLEASE JOIN OUR PETITION We, the residents of the city of Alta Loma/Rancho Cucamonga - and surrounding communities - support Baseline Bargain Center in their effort to remain operational until they meet all requirements and are approved for a retail Conditional Use Permit (CUP) from the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Baseline Bargain Center carries a wide variety of brand name general merchandise at reduced prices. These reduced prices are very competitive with other local retail establishments, and provide significant cost savings for individuals and families with limited incomes. Furthermore, the location of Baseline Bargain Center is convenient for those of us who live and/or work locally. Baseline Bargain Cente~: provides products and services to enhance our community. NAME ADDRESS ~/~ ,%/ ~H/ANK YOU FOR YOUR SuppORT! PLEASE JOIN OUR PETITION We, the residents of the city of Alta Loma/Rancho Cucamonga -- and surrounding communities - support Baseline Bargain Center in their effort to remain operational until they meet all requirements and are approved for a retail Conditional Use Permit (CUP) from the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Baseline Bargain Center carries a wide variety of brand name general merchandise at reduced prices. These reduced prices are very competitive with other local retail establishments, and provide significant cost savings for individuals and families with limited incomes. Furthermore, the location of Baseline Bargain Center is convenient for those of us who live and/or work locally. Baseline Bargain Center provides products and services to enhance our community. NAME ADDRESS (.] - ~7~. :/".,, THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT! PLEASE JOIN OUR PETITION We, the residents of the city of Alta Loma/Rancho Cucamonga -- and surrounding communities - support Baseline Bargain Center in their effort to remain operational until they meet all requirements and are approved for a retail Conditional Use Permit (CUP) from the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Baseline Bargain Center carries a wide variety of brand name general merchandise at reduced prices. These reduced prices are very competitive with other local retail establishments, and provide significant cost savings for individuals and families with limited incomes. Furthermore, the location of Baseline Bargain Center is convenient for those of Us who live and/or work locally. Baseline Bargain Center provides products and services to enhance our community. NAME ADDRESS ,. ;'0~-~' ,~_. ,^, c o^ / ,~- . TH~N~ YOU FOR YOUR 8UPPORTI PLEASE JOIN OUR PETITION We, the residents of the city of Alta Loma/Rancho Cucamonga -- and surrounding communities - support Baseline Bargain Center in their effort to remain operational until they meet all requirements and are approved for a retail Conditional Use Permit (CUP) from the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Baseline Bargain Center carries a wide variety of brand name general merchandise at reduced prices. These reduced prices are very competitive with other local retail establishments, and provide significant cost savings for individuals and families with limited incomes. Furthermore, the location of Baseline Bargain Center is convenient for thOse of us who live and/or work locally. Baseline Bargain Center provides products and services to enhance our community. NAME ADDRESS K YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT! PLEASE JOIN' OUR PETITION We, the residents of the city of Alta Loma/Rancho Cucamonga -- and surrounding communities - support Baseline Bargain Center in their effort to remain operational until they meet all requirements and are approved for a retail Conditional Use Permit (CUP) from the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Baseline Bargain Center carries a wide variety of brand name general merchandise at reduced prices. These reduced prices are very competitive with other local retail establishments, and provide significant cost savings for individuals and families with limited incomes. Furthermore, the location of Baseline Bargain Center is convenient for those of us who live and/or work locally. Baseline Bargain Center provides products and services to enhance our community. NAME ADDRESS ~ TH~ YOU FOR YOUR 8UPPORT~ PLEASE JOIN OUR PETITION We, the residents of the city of Alta Loma/Rancho Cucamonga -- and surrounding communities - support Baseline Bargain Center in their effort to remain operational until they meet all requirements and are approved for a retail Conditional Use Permit (CUP) from the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Baseline Bargain Center carries a wide variety of brand name general merchandise at reduced prices. These reduced prices are very competitive with other local retail establishments, and provide significant cost savings for individuals and families with limited incomes. Furthermore, the location of Baseline Bargain Center is convenient for those of us who live and/or work locally. Baseline Bargain Center provides products and services to enhance our community. NAME ADDRESS ~t~f/4l]f~ ~[.)D~6qX~ fiZZ7 IW~L .,~,W,¢~ c/- f - / C o THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORTI PLEASE JOIN OUR PETITION We, the residents of the city of Alta Loma/Rancho Cucamonga -- and surrounding communities - support Baseline Bargain Center in their effort to remain operational until they meet all requirements and are approved for a retail Conditional Use Permit (CUP) from the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Baseline Bargain Center carries a wide variety of brand name general merchandise at reduced prices. These reduced prices are very competitive with other local retail establishments, and provide significant cost savings for individuals and families with limited incomes. Furthermore, the location of Baseline Bargain Center is convenient for those of us who live and/or work locally. Baseline Bargain Center provides products and services to enhance our community. NAME ADDRESS THANK YOU FOR PLEASE JOIN OUR PETITION We, the residents of the city of Alta Loma/Rancho Cucamonga -- and surrounding communities - support Baseline Bargain Center in their effort to remain operational until they meet all requirements and are approved for a retail Conditional Use Permit (CUP) from the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Baseline Bargain Center carries a wide variety of brand name general merchandise at reduced prices. These reduced prices are very competitive with other local retail establishments, and provide significant cost savings for individuals and families with limited incomes. Furthermore, the location of Baseline Bargain Center is convenient for those of us who live and/or work locally. Baseline Bargain Center provides products and services to enhance our community. NAME ADDRESS ' " .o~q ~L~.,'.~ S. ~,~ THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT! PLEASE JOIN OUR PETITION We, the residents of the city of Alta Loma/Rancho Cucarnonga - and surrounding communities - support Baseline Bargain Center in their' effort to remain operational until they meet all requirements and are =approved for a retail Conditional Use Permit (CUP) from the City of Rancho Cucamor~ga. Baseline Bargain Center carries a wide variety of brand name general merchandise at reduced prices. These reduced prices are very competitive with other local retail establishments, and provide significant cost savings for individuals and families with limited incomes. Furthermore, the location of Baseline Bargain Center is convenient for those of us who live and/or work locally. Baseline Bargain Center provides products and services to enhance our community. NAME ADDRESS Y / / THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT! PLEASE JOIN OUR PETITION We, the residents of the city of Alta Loma/P, ancho Cucamonga ~- and surrounding communities -- support Baseline Bargain Center in their effort to remain operational until they meet all requirements and are approved for a retail Conditional Use Perm/t (CUP) from the City of P,ancho Cucamonga. Baseline Bargain Center carries a wide variety of brand name general merchandise at reduced prices. These reduced prices are very competitive with other local retail establishments, and provide significant cost savings for individuals and families with limited incomes. Furthermore, the location of Baseline Bargain Center is convenient for those of us who live and/or work locally. Baseline Bargain Center provides products and services to enhance our community. NAME ADDRESS //' // ./,' THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT! PLEASE JOIN OUR PETITION We, the residents of the city of Alta Loma/Rancho Cucamonga -- and surrounding communities - support Baseline Bargain Center in their effort to remain operational until they meet all requirements and are approved for a retail Conditional Use Permit (CUP) from the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Baseline Bargain Center carries a wide variety of brand name general merchandise at reduced prices. These reduced prices are very competitive with other local retail establishments, and provide significant cost savings for individuals and families with limited incomes. Furthermore, the location of Baseline Bargain Center is convenient for those of us who live and/or work locally. Baseline Bargain Center provides products and services to enhance our community. NAME ADDRESS THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORTJ PLEASE JOIN OUR PETITION We, the residents of the city of Alta Loma/Rancho Cucamonga -- and surrounding communities - support Baseline Bargain Center in their effort to remain operational until they meet all requirements and are approved for a retail Conditional Use Permit (CUP) from the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Baseline Bargain Center carries a wide variety of brand name general merchandise at reduced prices. These reduced prices are very competitive with other local retail establishments, and provide significant cost savings for individuals and families with limited incomes. Furthermore, the location of Baseline Bargain Center is convenient for those of us who live and/or work locally. Baseline Bargain Center provides products and services to enhance our community. ,,,~l // / NAME ADDRESS ~-I. ,. 1/ THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT! PLEASE JOIN OUR PETITION We, the residents of the city of Alta Loma/Rancho Cucamonga -- and surrounding communities - support Baseline Bargain Center in their effort to remain operational until they meet all requirements and are approved for a retail Conditional Use Permit (CUP) from the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Baseline Bargain Center carries a wide variety of brand name general merchandise at reduced prices. These reduced prices are very competitive with other local retail establishments, and provide significant cost savings for individuals and families with limited incomes. Furthermore, the location of Baseline Bargain Center is convenient for those of us who live and/or work locally. Baseline Bargain Center provides products and services to enhance our community. NAME ADDRESS ~c,~/~.~ ~_0 {}:,~ /o~,>~ ~-.X,~..~+:u~c' ¢/'7~ THANN YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT! PLEASE 'JOIN OUR PETITION We, the residents of the city of Alta Loma/Rancho Cucamonga - and surrounding communities - support Baseline Bargain Center in their effort to remain operational until they meet all requirements and are approved for a retail Conditional Use Permit (CUP) from the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Baseline Bargain Center carries a wide variety of brand name general merchandise at reduced prices. These reduced prices are very competitive with other local retail establishments, and provide significant cost savings for individuals and families with limited incomes. Furthermore, the location of Baseline Bargain Center is convenient for those of us who live and/or work locally. Baseline Bargain Center provides products and services to enhance our community. NAME ADDRESS THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT! PLEASE JOIN OUR PE:TITION We, the residents of the city of Alta Loma/Rancho Cucamonga -- and surrounding communities - support Baseline Bargain Center in their effort to remain operational until they meet all requirements and are approved for a retail Conditional Use Permit (CUP) from the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Baseline Bargain Center carries a wide variety of brand name general merchandise at reduced prices. These reduced prices are very competitive with other local retail establishments, and provide significant cost savings for individuals and families with limited incomes. Furthermore, the location of Baseline Bargain Center is convenient for those of us w~io live and/or work locally. Baseline Bargain Center provides products and services to enhance our community. NAME ADDRESS THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT! PLEASE JOIN OUR PETITION e, the residents of the city of Alta Loma/Rancho Cucamonga -- and surrounding ~rnmunities - support Baseline Ba. rgain Cente_r~ in their effort to remain operational ~til they meet all requirements an(~ are approveu for a retail Conditional Use Permit ;UP) from the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 'Baseline Bargain Center carries a wide ~riety of brand name general merchandise at reduced prices. These reduced prices re very competitive with other local retail establishments, and provide significant cost avings for individuals'and families with limited incomes. Furthermore, the location of laseline Bargain Center is convenient for those of us who live and/or work locally. laseline Bargain Center provides products and services to enhance our community. ADDRESS __ NAME , c~ cl -- YOU FORYOUR SUPPORT! PLEASE JOIN OUR PETITION We, the residents of the city of Alta Loma/Rancho Cucamonga - and surrounding communities - support Baseline Bargain Center in their effort to remain operational until they meet all requirements and are approved for a retail Conditional Use Permit (CUP) from the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Baseline Bargain Center carries a wide variety of brand name general merchandise at reduced prices. These reduced prices are very competitive with other local retail establishments, and provide significant cost savings for individuals and families with limited incomes. Furthermore, the location of Baseline Bargain Center is convenient for those of us wllo live and/or work locally. Baseline Bargain Center provides products and services to enhance our community. NAME ADDRESS THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT! PLEASE JOIN OUR PETITION We, the residents of the city of Alta Loma/Rancho Cucamonga - and surrounding communities - support Baseline Bargain Center in their effort to remain operational until they meet all requirements and are approved for a retail Conditional Use Permit (CUP) from the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Baseline Bargain Center carries a wide variety of brand name general merchandise at reduced prices. These reduced prices are very competitive with other local retail establishments, and provide significant cost savings for individuals and families with limited incomes. Furthermore, the location of Baseline Bargain Center is convenient for those of us who live and/or work locally. Baseline Bargain Center provides products and services to enhance our community. NAME ADDRESS I THANK YOU FOR YOUR PLEASE JOIN OUR PETITION We, the residents of the city of Alta Loma/Rancho Cucamonga -- and surrounding communities - support Baseline Bargain Center in their effort to remain operational until they meet all requirements and are approved for a retail Conditional Use Permit (CUP) from the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Baseline Bargain Center carries a wide variety of brand name general merchandise at reduced prices. These reduced prices are very competitive with other local retail establishments,~ and provide significant cost savings for individuals and families with limited incomes. Furthermore, the location of Baseline Bargain Center is convenient for those of us wllo live and/or work locally. BaSeline Bargain Center provides products and services to enhance our community. NAME ADDRESS THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT! We, the residents of the City of Alta Loma/Ranch~) Cucamonga support the general merchandise liquidation store known as Baseline Bargain Center located at 9456 Roberds Street. Baseline Bargain Center cardes a wide vadety of brand name general merchandise at liquidation pdces. These liquidation pdces are very competitive with all other local retail establishments, and provide significant cost savings for individuals and families with limited incomes. Furthermore, the location of Base#ne Bargain Center is.very convenient for those of us who live locally. Baseline Bargain Center provides products and services to enhance the living standards of the residents of our community. ~:~-~ ~-~ NAME ';J~A-T'UR E We, the residents of the City of Alta Loma/Rancho Cucamonga support the general merchandise liquidation store known as Baseline Baqlain Center located at 9456 Roberds Street. Baseline Bargain Center cardes a wide variety of brand name general merchandise at liquidation pdces. These liquidation pdces are very competitive with all other local retail establishments, and provide significant cost savings for individuals and families with limited incomes. Furthermore, the location of Base#ne Bargain Center is very convenient for those of us who live locally. Baseline Bargain Center provides products and services to enhance the living standards of the residents of our community. We, the residents of the City of Alta Loma/Rancho Cucamonga support the general merchandise liquidation store known as Baseline Bargain Center located at 9456 Roberds Street. Baseline Bargain Center carries a wide variety of brand name general merchandise at liquidation prices. These liquidation prices are very competitive with all other local retail establishments, and provide significant cost savings for individuals and families with limited incomes. Furthermore, the location of Baseflne Bargain Center is very convenient for those of us who live locally. Baseline Bargain Center provides products and services to enhance the living standards of the residents of our community. We, the residents of the City of Alta Loma/Rancho Cucamonga support the general merchandise liquidation store known as Baseline Bargain Center located at 9456 Roberds Street. Baseline Bargain Center cardes a wide vadety of brand name general merchandise at liquidation pdces. These liquidation pdces are very competitive with all other local retail establishments, and provide significant cost savings for individuals and families with limited incomes. Furthermore, the location of Base#ne Bargain Center is very convenient for those of us who live locally. Baseline Bargain Center prov~es products and services to enhance the living standards of the residents of our community. ~- We, the residents of the City of Alta Loma/Rancho Cucamonga support the general merchandise liquidation store known as Baseline Bargain Center located at 9456 Roberds Street. Baseline Bargain Center cardes a wide vadety of brand name general merchandise at liquidation prices. These liquidation pdces are very competitive with all other local retail establishments, and provide significant cost savings for individuals and families with limited incomes. Furthermore, the location of Baseline Bargain Center is very convenient for those of us who live locally. Baseline Bargain Center provides products and servides to enhance the living standards of the residents of our community. NAME SIGNATURE We, the residents of the City of Alta Loma/Rancho Cucamonga support the general merchandise liquidation store known as Baseline Bar!~ain Center located at 9456 Roberds Street Baseline Bargain Center carries a wide variety of brand name general merchandise at liquidation pdces. These liquidation pdces are very competitive with all other local retail establishments, and provide significant cost savings for individuals and families with limited incomes. Furthermore, the location of Base#ne Bargain Center is very convenient for those of us who live locally. Baseline Bargain Center provides products and services to enhance the living standards of the residents of our community. We, the residents of the City of Alta Loma/Rancho Cucamonga support the general merchandise liquidation store known as Baseline Bargain Center located at 9456 Roberds Street. Baseline Bargain Center carries a wide vadety of brand name general merchandise at liquidation pdces. These liquidation prices are very competitive with all other local retail establishments, and provide significant cost savings for individuals and families with limited .incomes. Furthermore, the location of Baseline Bargain Center is very convenient for those of us who live locally. Baseline Bargain Center provides products and services to enhance the living standards of the residents of our community. NAME ~ We, the residents of the City of Alta Loma/Rancho Cucamonga support the general merchandise liquidation store known as Baseline Bargain Center located at 9456 Roberds Strcct. Baseline Bargain Center cardes a wide vadety of brand name general merchandise at liquidation pdces. These liquidation pdces are very competitive with all other local retail establishments, an,d provide significant cost savings for individuals and families with limited incomes. Furtheimore, the location of Base#ne Bargain'Center is very convenient for those of us who live locally. Baseline Ba.rgain Center prov~es products and ~,ervices to enhance the living standards of the residents of our community. -" .^uE r ../ PLEASE JOIN OUR PETITION We, the residents of the city of Alta Loma/Rancho Cucamonga - and surrounding communities - support Baseline Bargain Center in'their effort to remain operational until they meet all requirements and are approved for a retail Conditional Use Permit (CUP) from the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Baseline Bargain Center carries a wide variety of brand name general merchandise at reduced prices. These reduced prices are very competitive with other local retail establishments, and provide significant cost savings for individuals and families with limited incomes. Furthermore, the location of Baseline Bargain Center is convenient for those of us who live and/or work locally. Baseline Bargain Center provides products and services to enhance our community. NAME ADDRESS THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT! PLEASE JOIN OUR PETITION We, the residents of the city of Alta Loma/Rancho Cucamonga - and surrounding communities - support Baseline Bargain Center in their effort to remain operational until they meet all requirements and are approved for a retail Conditional Use Permit (CUP) from the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Baseline Bargain Center carries a wide variety of brand name general merchandise at reduced prices. These reduced prices are very competitive with other local retail establishments, and provide significant cost savings for individuals and families with limited incomes. Furthermore, the location of Baseline Bargain Center is convenient for those of us who live and/or work locally. Baseline Bargain Center Provides, products and services to enhance our community. NAME ADDRESS I ~ ~ ~0 lC,/ff~ ~ l ~ ~. ~. ~ 1~ 2 ~ ~ ~g z~ ~ ~ NK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT! PLEASE JOIN OUR PETITION We, the residents of the city of Alta Loma/Rancho Cucamonga - and surrounding communities - support Baseline Bargain Center in their effort to remain operational until they meet all requirements and are approved for a retail Conditional Use Permit (CUP) from the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Baseline Bargain Center carries a wide variety of brand name general merchandise at reduced prices. These reduced prices are very competitive with other local retail establishments, and provide significant cost savings for individuals and families with limited incomes. Furthermore, the location of Baseline Bargain Center is convenient for those of us who live and/or work locally. Baseline Bargain Center provides products and services to enhance our community. / ~AME ADDRESS THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT! PLEASE JOIN OUR PETITION We, the residents of the city of Alta Loma/Rancho Cucamonga -- and surrounding communities - support Baseline Bargain Center in their effort to remain operational until they meet all requirements and are approved for a retail Conditional Use Permit (CUP) from the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Baseline Bargain Center carries a wide variety of brand name general merchandise at reduced prices. These reduced prices are very competitive with other local retail establishments, and provide significant cost savings for individuals and families with limited incomes. Furthermore, the location of Baseline Bargain Center is convenient for those of us who live and/or work locally. Baseline Bargain Center provides products and services to enhance our community. NAME ADDRESS THANK YOU FO~ YOU~ SUPPORT! PLEASE JOIN OUR PETITION We, the residents of the city of Alta Loma/Rancho Cucamonga -- and surrounding communities - support Baseline Bargain Center in their effort to remain operational until they meet all requirements and are approved for a retail Conditional Use Permit (CUP) from the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Baseline Bargain Center carries a wide variety of brand name general merchandise at reduced prices. These reduced prices are very competitive with other local retail establishments, and provide significant cost savings for individuals and families with limited incomes. Furthermore, the location of Baseline Bargain Center is convenient for those of us who live and/or work locally. Baseline Bargain Center provides products and services to enhance our community. r. , ~I~AME.A-¢~~] · _ ADDRESS PLEASE JOIN OUR PETITION We, the residents of the city of Alta Loma/Rancho Cucamonga - and surrounding communities - support Baseline Bargain Center in their effort to remain operational until they meet all requirements and are approved for a retail Conditional Use Permit (CUP) from the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Baseline Bargain Center carries a wide variety of brand name general merchandise at reduced prices. These reduced prices are very competitive with other local retail establishments, and provide significant cost savings for individuals and families with limited incomes. Furthermore, the location of Baseline Bargain Center is convenient for those of us who live and/or work locally. Baseline Bargain Center provides products and services to enhance our community. NAME ADDRESS _~~ . .~ ~1~ Z~ eL/,~,dT- ~ o ~T~ n,- ~ THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT! PLEASE JOIN OUR PETITION We, the residents of the city of Alta Loma/Rancho Cucamonga -- and surrounding communities - support Baseline Bargain Center in their effort to remain operational until they meet all requirements and are approved for a retail Conditional Use Permit (CUP) from the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 'Baseline Bargain Center carries a wide variety of brand name general merchandise at reduced prices. These reduced prices are very competitive with other local retail establishments, and provide significant cost savings for individuals and families with limited incomes. Furthermore, the location of Baseline Bargain Center is convenient for those of us who live and/or work locally. Baseline Bargain Center provides products and services to enhance our community: NAME ADDRESS THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPOET! PLEASE JOIN OUR PETITION We, the residents of the city of Alta Loma/Rancho Cucarnonga -- and surrounding communities - support Baseline Bargain Center in their effort to remain operational until they meet all requirements and are approved for a retail Conditional Use Permit (CUP) from the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Baseline Bargain Center carries a wide variety of brand name general merchandise at reduced prices. These reduced prices are very competitive with other local retail establishments, and provide significant cost savings for individuals and families with limited incomes. Furthermore, the location of Baseline Bargain Center is convenient for those of us who live and/or work locally. Baseline Bargain Center provides products and services to enhance our community. ,- ..... : NAME ADDRESS THANK YOU FOR YOUR 8UPPORTI PLEASE JOIN OUR PETITION We, the residents of the city of Alta Loma/Rancho Cucamonga -- and surrounding communities - support Baseline Bargain Center in their effort to remain operational until they meet all requirements and are approved for a retail Conditional Use Permit (CUP) from the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Baseline Bargain Center carries a wide variety of brand name general merchandise at reduced prices. These reduced prices are very competitive with other local retail establishments, and provide significant cost savings for individuals and families with limited incomes. Furthermore, the location of Baseline Bargain Center is convenient for those of us who live and/or work locally. Baseline Bargain Center provides products and services to enhance our community. NAME ADDRESS 4' X- ~ ~ ~-~ Lo-,,~.~- C~, ~4 ["to i -~.~..~ ~)~ .~,.~ .,~.~ ~..~' ~" ~,., .4', ~,-~ THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT! PLEASE JOIN OUR PETITION We, the residents of the city of Alta Loma/Rancho Cucamonga -- and surrounding communities - support Baseline Bargain Center in their effort to remain operational until they meet all requirements and are approved for a retail Conditional Use Permit (CUP) from the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Baseline Bargain Center carries a wide variety of brand name general merchandise at reduced prices. These reduced prices are very competitive with other local retail establishments, and provide significant cost savings for individuals and families with limited incomes. Furthermore, the location of Baseline Bargain Center is convenient for those of us who live and/or work locally. Baseline Bargain Center provides products and service:s to enhance our community. NAME ADDRESS THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORTI ~x, PLEASE JOIN OUR PETITION We, the residents of the city of Alta Loma/Rancho Cucam0nga - and surrounding communities - support Baseline Bargain Center in their effort to remain operational until they meet all requirements and are approved for a retail Conditional Use Permit (CUP) from the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Baseline Bargain Center carries a wide variety of brand name general merchandise at reduced prices. These reduced prices are very competitive with other local retail establishments, and provide significant cost savings for individuals and families with limited incomes. Furthermore, the location of Baseline Bargain Center is convenient for those of us who live and/or work locally. · Baseline Bargain Center provides products and services to enhance our community. NAME ADDRESS . PLEASE JOIN OUR P,ETITION We, the residents of the city of Alta Loma/Rancho Cucarnonga - and surrounding communities - support Baseline Bargain Center in their effort to remain operational until they meet all.requirements and are approved for a retail Conditional Use Permit (CUP) from the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Baseline Bargain Center carries a wide variety of brand name general merchandise at reduced prices. These reduced prices are very competitive with other local retail establishments, and provide significant cost savings for individuals and families with limited incomes. Furthermore, the location of Baseline Bargain Center is convenient for those of us who live and/or work locally. Baseline Bargain Center provides products and services to enhance our community. NAME ADDRESS · / ~ ~ · YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT! PLEASE JOIN OUR PETITION We, the residents of the city of Alta Loma/Rancho Cucamonga -- and surrounding communities - support Baseline Bargain Center in their effort to remain operational until they meet all requirements and are approved for a retail Conditional Use Permit (CUP) from the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Baseline Bargain Center carries a wide variety of brand name general merchandise at reduced prices. These reduced prices are very competitive with other local retail establishments, and provide significant cost savings for individuals and families with limited incomes. Furthermore, the location of Baseline Bargain Center is convenient for those of us who live and/or work locally. Baseline Bargain Center provides products and services to enhance our community. NAME ADDRESS IoZ~ A~D~ ~ ~.e 1~q~~ THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT! We, the residents of the City of Alta Loma/Rancho Cucamonga support the general merchandise liquidation store known as Baseline Bargain Center located at 9456 Roberds Street. Baseline Bargain Center carries a wide vadety of brand name general merchandise at liquidation prices. These liquidation prices are very competitive with all'other local retail establishments, and provide significant cost savings for individuals and families with limited incomes. Furthermore, the location of Baseline Bargain Center is very convenient for those of us who live locally. Baseline Bargain Center provides products and services to enhance the living standards of the residents of our community. , ,.. ~.~AME SIG~ATUR~ We, the residents of the City of Alta LomaJRancho Cucamonga support the general merchandise liquidation store known as Baseline Bargain Center located at 9456 Roberds Street_ Baseline Bargain Centercar~es a wide vadety of brand name general merchandise at liquidation pdces. These liquidation pdces are very competitive with all other local retail establishments, and provide significant cost savings for individuals and families with limited incomes. Furthermore, the location of Basefine Bargain Center is very convenient for those of us who live locally. Baseline Bargain Center provides products and services to enhance the living standards of the residents of our community. NAME SIGNATURE. : RUDOLPH-HENDRICKSON Apartments for Active Seniors 6628 Amethyst Street · Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91737 We, the Senior Citizen residents of the City of Alta Loma/Rancho Cucamonga support the general merchandise liquidation store known as Baseline Bargain Center located at 9456 Roberds Street. Baseline Bargain Center carries a wide variety of brand name general merchandise at liquidation prices. These liquidation prices are very affordable to those of us on limited and fixed incomes. Furthermore, the location of Baseline Bargain Center is convenient for those of us who have difficulty coordinating transportation, or who want to avoid the congestion of other retail establishments. Baseline Bargain Center provides products and services to enhance the living standards of the residents of our community. NAME SIGNATURE RUDOLPH-HENDRICKSON Apartments for Active Seniors 6628 Amethyst Street · Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91737 We, the Senior Citizen residents of the City of Alta Loma/Rancho Cucamonga support the general merchandise liquidation store known as Baseline Bargain Center located at 9456 Roberds Street. Baseline Bargain Center carries a wide variety of brand name general merchandise at liquidation prices. These liquidation prices are very affordable to those of us on limited and fixed incomes. Furthermore, the location of Baseline Bargain Center is convenient for those of us who have difficulty coordinating transportation, or who want to avoid the congestion of other retail establishments. Baseline Bargain Center provides products and services to enhance the living standards of the residents of our community. NAME SIGNATURE RUDOLPH-HENDRIC;f(SON Apartments for Active Seniors 6628 Amethyst Street · Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91737 We, the Senior Citizen residents of the City of Alta Loma/Rancho Cucamonga support the general merchandise liquidation store known as Baseline Bargain Center located at 9456 Roberds Street. Baseline Bargain Center carries a wide variety of brand name general merchandise at liquidation prices. These liquidation prices are very affordable to those of us on limited and fixed incomes. Furthermore, the location of Baseline Bargain Center is convenient for those of us who have difficulty coordinating transportation, or who want to avoid the congestion of other retail establishments. Baseline Bargain C'enter provides Products and services to enhance the living standards of the residents of our community. NAME ~ SIGNATURE U~.'v" '~ ' ~ ~_._. ' I We, the residents of the City of Alta Loma/Rancho' Cucamonga support the general merchandise liquidation store known as Baseline Bargain Center located at 9456 Roberds Strcct. Baseline Bargain Center cardes a wide vadety of brand name. general merchandise at liquidation pdces. These liquidation prices are very competitive with all other local retail establishments, and provide significant cost savings for individuais and families with limited incomes. Furthermore, the location of Baselfne Bargain Center is very convenient for those of us who live locally. Baseline Bargain Center provides products and services to enhance the living standa.rds of the residents of our community. ~.0 :._~:~L~ NAME SIGNATURE RUDOLPH-HENDRICKSON Apartments fOr Active Seniors 6628 Amethyst Street · Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91737 We, the Senior Citizen residents of the City of Alta Loma/Rancho Cucamonga support the general merchandise liquidation store known as Baseline Bargain Center located at 9456 Roberds Street. Baseline Bargain Center carries a wide variety of brand name general merchandise at liquidation prices. ThesE; liquidation prices are very affordable to those of us on limited and fixed incomes. Furthermore, the location of Baseline Bargain Center is convenient for those of us who have difficulty coordinating transportation, or who want to avoid the congestion of other retail establishments. Baseline Bargain Center provides products and services to enhancethe living standards of the residents of our community. RUDOLPH-HENDRICKSON Apartments for Active Seniors 6628 Amethyst Street · Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91737 We, the Senior Citizen residents of the City of Alta Loma/Rancho Cucamonga support the general merchandise liquidation store known as Baseline Bargain Center located at 9456 Roberds Street. Baseline Bargain Center carries a wide variety of brand name general merchandise at liquidation prices. These liquidation prices are very affordable to those of us on limited and fixed incomes. Furthermore, the location of Baseline Bargain Center is convenient for those of us who have difficulty coordinating transportation, or who want to avoid the congestion of other retail establishments. Baseline Bargain Center provides products and services to enhance the living standards of the residents of our community. NAME SIGNATURE We, the residents of the City of Alta Loma/Rancho Cucamonga support the general merchandise liquidation store known as Baseline Bargain Center located at 9456 Roberds Street. Baseline Bargain Center cardes a ,wide variety of brand name general merchandise at liquidation prices. These liquidation prices are very competitive with all other local retail establishments, and provide significant cost savings for individuals and families with limited incomes. Furthermore, the location of · Baseline Bargain Center is very convenient for those of us who live locally. Baseline Bargain Center provides products and services to enhance the living standards of the residents of our community. NAME /~ 1.~ '~ SIGNATURE /-- ,,, / We, the residents of the City of Alta Loma/Rancho Cucamonga support the general merchandise liquidation store known as Baseline Bargain Center located at 9456 Roberds Street Baseline Bargain Center cardes a wide vadety of brand name general merchandise at liquidation pdces. These liquidation pdces are very competitive with all other local retail establishments, and provide significant cost savings for individuals and families with limited incomes. Furthermore, the location of Baseflne Bargain Center is very convenient for those of us who live locally. Baseline Bargain Center provides products and services to enhance the living standards of the residents of our community.. , . ' ' ): ~i : '~ ~'~ ~//-7 LO ~ We, the residents of the City of Alta. Loma/Rancho Cucamonga support the general merchandise liquidation store known as Baseline Bargain Center located at 9456 Roberds Street. Baseline Bargain Center carries a wide variety of brand name general merchandise at liquidation prices. These liquidation prices are very competitive with all other local retail establishments, and provide significant cost savings for individuals and families with limited incomes. Furthermore, the location of Baseline Bargain Center is very convenient for those of us who live locally. Baseline Bargain Center provides products and services to enhence the living standards of the residents of our community. NAME SIGNATURE We, the residents of the City of Alta Loma/Rancho Cucamonga support the general merchandise liquidation store known as Baseline Bargain Center located at 9456 Roberds Street. Baseline Bargain Center carries a wide vadety of brand name general merchandise at liquidation prices. These liquidation prices are very competitive with all other local retail establishments, and provide significant cost savings for individuals and families with limited incomes. Furthermore, the location of Baseline Bargain Center is very convenient for those of us who live lOcally. Baseline Bargain Center provides products and services to enhance the living standards of the residents of our community. NAME /Z~-/~/~,/~,.~.~..~ --SIGNATURE We, the residents of the City of Alta Loma/Rancho Cucamonga support the general merchandise liquidation store known as Baseline Bargain Center located at 9456 Roberds Street. Baseline Bargain Center carries a wide variety of brand name general merchandise at liquidation prices. These liquidation prices are very competitive with all other local retail establishments, and provide significant cost savings for individuals and families with limited incomes. Furthermore, the location of Baseline Bargain Center is very convenient for those of us who live locally. Baseline Bargain Center provides products and services to enhance the living standards of the residents of our community. NAUE /~ J~/2 C~ ~ SIGNATURE._ . ,// We, the residents of the City of Alta Loma/RanchO Cucamonga support the general merchandise liquidation store known as Baseline Bargain Center located at 9456 Roberds Street. Baseline Bargain Center cardes a wide variety .of brand name general merchandise at liquidation prices. These liquidation prices are very competitive with all other local retail establishments, and provide significant cost savings for individuals and families with limited incomes. Furthermore, the location of Base#ne Bargain Center is very convenient for those of us who live locally. Baseline Bargain Center provides products and services to enhance the living standards of the residents of our community. NAME SIGNATURE We, the residents of the City of Alta Loma/Rancho Cucamonga support the general merchandise liquidation store known as Baseline Bargain Center located at 9456 Roberds Street. Baseline Bargain Centercardes a wide vadety of brand name general merchandise at liquidation prices. These liquidation prices are very competitive with all other local retail establishments, and provide significant cost savings for individuals and families with limited incomes. Furthermore, the location of Baselfne Bargain Center is very convenient for those of us who live locally. Baseline Bargain Center provides products and services to enhance the living standards of the residents of our community. We, the residents of the City of Alta Loma/Rancho Cucamonga support the general merchandise liquidation store known as Baseline Bargain Center located at 9456 Roberds Street. Baseline Bargain Center cardes a wide vadety of brand name general merchandise at liquidation prices. These liquidation prices are very competitive with all other local retail establishments, and provide significant cost savings for individuals and families with limited incomes. Furthermore, the location of Basefine Bargain Center is very convenient for those of us who live locally. Baseline Bargain Center provides products and services to enhance the living standards of the residents of our community. NAME S IRE r~ ~.4~z?t~ f127~/,,,,~ ~., ,__ We, the residents of the City of Alta Loma/Rancho Cucamonga support the general merchandise liquidation store known as Baseline Bargain Center located at 9456 Roberds Street. Baseline Bargain Center carries a wide vadety of brand name general merchandise at liquidation prices. These liquidation prices are very competitive with all other local retail establishments, and provide significant cost savings for individuals and families with limited incomes. Furthermore, the location of Base#ne Bargain Center is very convenient for those of us who live locally. Baseline Bargain Center provides products and services to enhance the living standards of the residents of our community. NAME SIGNATURE We, the residents of the City of Alta Loma/Rancho Cucamonga support the general merchandise liquidation store known as Baseline Bargaln Center located at 9456 Roberds Street. Baseline Bargain Center carries a wide vadety of brand name general merchandise at liquidation prices. These liquidation prices are very competitive with all other local retail establishments, and provide significant cost savings for individuals and families with limited incomes. Furthermore, the location of Baseline Bargain Center is very convenient for those of us who live locally. Baseline Bargain Center provides products and services to enhance the living standards of the residents of our community. NAME RE We, the residents of the City of Alta Loma/Rancho Cucamonga support the general merchandise liquidation store known as Baseline Bargain Center located at 9456 Roberds Street. Baseline Bargain Centercardes a wide variety of brand name general merchandise at liquidation prices. These liquidation prices are very competitive with all other local retail establishments, and provide significant cost savings for individuals and families with limited incomes. Furthermore, the location of Baseline Bargain Center is very convenient for those of us who live locally. Baseline Bargain Center provides products and services to enhance the living standards of the residents of our community. NAME SIGNATURE We, the residents of the City of Alta Loma/Rancho Cucamonga support the general merchandise liquidation store known as Baseline Bargain Center located at 9456 Roberds Street. Baseline Bargain Center carries a wide variety of brand name general merchandise at liquidation prices. These liquidation prices are very competitive with all other local retail establishments, and provide significant cost savings for individuals and families with limited incomes. Furthermore, the location of Baseline Bargain Center is very convenient for those of us who live locally. Baseline Bargain Center provides products and services to enhance the living standards of the residents of our community. ,ME ~)~)~-~ ~ SIGNATURE We, the residents of the City of Alta Loma/Rancho Cucamonga support the general merchandise liquidation store known as Baseline Bahrain Center located at 9456 Roberds Street. Baseline Bargain Center carries a wide vadety of brand name general merchandise at liquidation prices. These liquidation prices are very competitive with all other local retail establishments, and provide significant cost savings for individuals and families with limited incomes. Furthermore, the location of Base#ne Bargain Center is very convenient for those of us who live locally. Baseline Bargain Center provides products and services to enhance the living standards of the residents of our community. NAME' ~b,_/~/~-~5~ SIGNATURE We, the residents of the City of Alta Loma/Rancho Cucamonga support the general merchandise liquidation store known as Baseline Bargain Center located at 9456 Roberds Street. Baseline Bargain Center carries a wide variety of brand name general merchandise at liquidation prices. These liquidation prices are very competitive with all other local retail establishments, and provide significant cost savings for individuals and families with limited incomes. Furthermore, the location of Baseline Bargain Center is very convenient for those of us who live locally. Baseline Bargain Center provides products and services to enhance the living standards of the residents of our community. .~ NAME '/~/~'J':-J' SIGNATURE We, the residents of the City of Alta Loma/Rancho Cucamonga support the general merchandise liquidation store known as Baseline Bargain Center located at 9456 Roberds Street. Baseline Bargain Center carries a wide vadety of brand name general merchandise at liquidation prices. These liquidation prices are very competitive with all other local retail establishments, and provide significant cost savings for individuals and families with limited incomes,. Furthermore, the location of Baseline Bargain Center is very convenient for those of us who live locally. Baseline Bargain Center provides products and services to enhance the living standards of the residents of our community. NAME SIGNAT We, the residents of the City of Alta Loma/Rancho Cucamonga support the general merchandise liquidation store known as Baseline Bargain Center located at 9456 Roberds Street. Baseline Bargain Center carries a wide vadety of brand name general merchandise at liquidation prices. These liquidation prices are very competitive with all other local retail establishments, and provide significant cost savings for individuals and families with limited incomes. Furthermore, the location of Baseline Bargain Center is very convenient for those of us who live locally. Baseline Bargain Center provides products and services to enhance the living standards of the residents of our community. NAME SIGNATURE We, the residents of the City of Alta Loma/Rancho Cucamonga support the general merchandise liquidation store known as Baseline Bargain Center located at 9456 Roberds Street. Baseline Bargain Center carries a wide variety of brand name general merchandise at !.iquidation prices. These liquidation prices are very competitive with all other local retail establishments, and providesignificant cost savings for individuals and families with limited incomes~ .:Eurthermore, the location of Baseline Bargain Center is very convenient for thos.e.~ (~'~s:~ho live locally. Baseline Bargain Center provides products and services..to,e~ance the living standards of the residents of our commun .,- , ~ ~.~,-~. · NAME SIGNATURE We, the residents of the City of Alta Loma/Rancho Cucamonga support the general merchandise liquidation store known as Baseline Bargain Center located at 9456 Roberds Street. Baseline Bargain Center carries a wide variety of brand name general merchandise at liquidation prices. These liquidation prices are very competitive with all other local retail establishments, and provide significant cost savings for individuals and families with limited incomes. Furthermore, the location of Baseline Bargain Center is very convenient for those of us who live locally. Baseline Bargain Center provides products and services to enhance the living standards of the residents of our community. NAME SIGNATURE We, the residents of the City of Alta Loma/Rancho Cucamonga support the general merchandise liquidation store known as Baseline Bargain Center located at 9456 Roberds Street. Baseline Bargain Center carries a wide variety of brand name general merchandise at liquidation prices. These liquidation prices are very competitive with all other local retail establishments, and provide significant cost savings for individuals and families with limited incomes. Furthermore, the location of Basefine Bargain Center is very convenient for those of us who live locally. Baseline Bargain Center provides products and services to enhance the living standards of the residents of our community: ge,.,,, We, the residents of the City of Alta Loma/Rancho Cucamonga support the general merchandise liquidation store known as Baseline Bargain Center located at 9456 Roberds Street. Baseline Bargain Center cardes a wide vadety of brand name general merchandise at liquidation pdces. These liquidation prices are very competitive with all other local retail establishments, and provide significant cost savings for individuals and families with limited incomes. Furthermore, the location of Basefine Bargain Center is very convenient for those of us who live locally. Baseline Bargain Center provides products and services to enhance the living standards of the residents of our community. NAME ,.~)0 ~'(~:" SIGNATURE _ _.(-> x,, ~___ , .z r__ Y' '-' '"' £ We, the residents of the City of Alta Loma/Rancho Cucamonga support the general merchandise liquidation store known as Baseline Bargain Center located at 9456 Roberds Street. Baseline Bargain Center cardes a wide vadety of brand name general merchandise at liquidation pdces. These liquidation pdces are very competitive with all other local retail establishments, and provide significant cost savings for individuals and families with limited incomes. Furthermore, the location of Baseline Bargain Center is very convenient for those of us who liv~e, locally. Baseline Bargain Center provides products and services to enhance the living standards of the residents of our community. ~ ~< .... 6 We, the residents of the City of Alta Loma/Rancho Cucamonga support the general merchandise liquidation store known as Baseline Bargain Center located at 9456 Roberds Street. Baseline Bargain Center carries a wide vadety of brand name general merchandise at liquidation pdces. These liquidation prices are very competitive with all other local retail establishments, and provide significant cost savings for individuals and families with limited incomes. Furthermore, the location of Base#ne Bargain Center is very convenient for those of us who live locally. Baseline Bargain Center provides products and services to enhance the living standards of the residents of our community. NAME SIGNA~RE . We, the residents of the City of Alta Loma/Rancho Cucamonga support the general merchandise liquidation store known as Baseline BaqTain Center located at 9456 Roberds Street. Baseline Bargain Center carries a wide variety of brand name general merchandise at liquidation pdces. These liquidation pdces are very competitive with all other local retail establishments, and provide significant cost savings for individuals and families with limited incomes. Furthermore, the location of Base#ne Bargain Center is very convenient for those of us who live locally. Baseline Bargain Center provides products and services to enhance the living standards of the residents of our community.~"/' I~ :' ':;' We, the residents of the City of Alta Loma/Rancho Cucamonga support the general merchandise liquidation store known as Baseline Bargain Center located at 9456 Roberds Street. Baseline Bargain Center carries a wide vadety of brand name general merchandise at liquidation pdces. These liquidation pdces are very competitive with all other local retail establishments, and provide significant cost savings for individuals and families with limited incomes. Furthermore, the location of Base#ne Bargain Center isvery convenient for those of us who live locally. Baseline Bargain Center provkles products and sen, ices to enhance the living standards of the residents of our community. ; ~ We, the residents of the City of Alta Loma/Rancho Cucamonga support the general merchandise liquidation store known as Baseline Bargain Center located at 9456 Roberds Street_ Baseline Bargain Center cardes a wide vadety of brand name general merchandise at liquidation pdces. These liquidation pdces are very competitive with all other local retail establishments, and provide significant cost savings for individuals and families with limited incomes. Furthermore, the location of Baseline Bargain Center is very convenient for those of us who live locally. Baseline Bargain Center provides products and services to enhance the living standards of the residents of our community. CA qo o zt- We, the residents of the City of Alta Loma/Rancho Cucamonga support the general merchandise liquidation store known as Baseline Bargain Center located at 9456 Roberds Street. Baseline Bargain Center carries a wide vadety of brand name general merchandise at liquidation pdces. These liquidation prices are very competitive with all other local retail establishments, and provide significant cost savings for individuaJs and families with limited incomes. Furthermore, the location of Basefine Bargain Center is very convenient for those of us who live locally. Baseline Bargain Center provides products and services to enhance the living standards of the residents of our community. NAME ~E T H E C I T ¥ OF i~AN C Il 0 CUC^HONG^ Staff Report DATE: February 14, 2001 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Emily Wimer SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - 98-08 - BASELINE BARGAIN CENTER - A request to revoke the Conditional Use Permit for the operation of a retail establishment in the General Commercial District, located at 9456 Roberds Street - APN 202-092-08. BACKGROUND: On January 10, 2001, the Planning Commission reviewed Conditional Use Permit 98-08. The Commission concluded the review and directed staff to set a public hearing to consider revocation of the Conditional Use Permit. ANALYSIS: At the meeting of January 10, 2001, the Commission addressed public comments regarding the applicant's request to allow retail use and additional time to comply with the outstanding issues. The owners submitted a letter at the hearing explaining why they could not cease operations because of the financial strain it would place on the business. Based on the information presented, the Commission found that enough information existed to set a hearing date to consider revocation of the Conditional Use Permit. Outstanding issues include the operation of a retail use without a permit and the non-completion of the required parking per City standards. The Commission decided to set a hearing date for the revocation of the Conditional Use Permit. Attached is a copy of the approved minutes from January 10, 2001, and the chronology of the events relating to Conditional Use Permit 98-08. Code Compliance Issues: As early as June of 1999, the applicant illegally expanded the warehouse to include retail use at 9456 Roberds Street. Code Enfomement staff visited the site and observed illegal banners and operation of the retail use in August of 1999. Later the same week, the owners met with Planning staff to discuss the lack of compliance and the process associated with the application for a retail use. Code Enforcement and Planning repeatedly contacted the applicant via faxes, phone contacts, and meetings to resolve outstanding issues. On September 9, 1999, a follow-up inspection was scheduled. The business was closed. However, illegal parking and outdoor storage areas were still in use. The use of the building as a retail establishment would require 38 parking spaces. There are 14 spaces currently provided, but they are not to City standards and are not consistent with the parking plan approved for the project. The applicant is currently conducting the retail use, despite the numerous attempts to resolve these outstanding issues. ITEM C PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-08 - IFTAKAR February 14, 2001 Page 2 Between October 1999 and December 1999, meetings were scheduled with the applicant, Planning, and Code Enforcement staff to address the possibility of legal action against the owner. On December 21, 1999; the owner submitted a~ Pre-Application review. The Commission directed the applicant to provide more detail to demonstrate feasibility of extending the parking area. The applicant submitted a Conditional Use Permit application requesting interim parking for the project on March 7, 2000. The application was deemed incomplete due to non-compliance with code requirements and lack of detailed information. Although many attempts were made to revise the site plan to include outstanding issues, no formal re-submittals from the applicant were received. Planning staff kept in contact with the architect and applicant throughout the year, however the applicant missed several deadlines (see chronology - Exhibit "G" of January 10, 2001, staff report). PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION: According to the Development Code (Section 17.04.030), after investigating the evidence, the Commission has the following options: 1. Find that the Conditional Use Permit is being conducted in an appropriate manner and that no action to modify or revoke is necessary; or 2. Find that the Conditional Use Permit is not being conducted in an appropriate manner and that modifications to conditions are necessary; or 3. Find that the Conditional Use Permit is not being conducted in an appropriate manner and that modifications are not available to mitigate the impacts and therefore, revoke the permit. Based on the above analysis, staff concluded that the business is not being operated in a manner consistent with the conditions of approval and these conditions are necessary mitigations to prevent any detrimental impact to the surrounding area. Non-compliance with conditions of approval include: 1. A parking area in accordance with the City's requirements (Resolution 98-06, Condition No. 2 & No. 3). 2. Non-compliance with the condition of approval that precludes retail operations on site (Resolution 98-06, Condition No. 1). . 3. Non-compliance with ~he condition that precludes outdoor product storage (Resolution 98-06, Condition No. 3). Staff has further concluded that the applicant is unable to satisfy these requirements and is unable to resolve these issues, including inadequate parking, which will result in a negative impact. Therefore, staff recommends that the Commission find that the Conditional Use Permit is not being conducted in an appropriate manner and revoke the permit. 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 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-08-1FTAKAR Februa~ 14,2001 Page 3 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission open the public hearing and take testimony, close the public hearing, and adopt the attached Resolution for Revocation of Conditional Use Permit 98-08. If the Commission concurs with the revocation of the Conditional Use Permit, adoption of the attached resolution would be in order. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:EW\Is Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Approved minutes of January 10, 2001 Exhibit "B" - January 10, 2001 Staff Report and Attachments Resolution for Revocation of Conditional Use Permit 98-08 PUBLIC COMMENTS Jim Peugh, the Treasurer from the Orchard Meadows Homeowners' Association addressed the Planning Commission about the large retail box development planned for the Southwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue. He reported that in response to the c~rculated EIR, the homeowners had several concems: 1) A possible loss in property value because of the type of development proposed and that it is his belief the area is designated for residential development, 2) Traffic impacts, and 3)Light and glare that will be caused by the new development. COMMISSION BUSINESS H. REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-08- BASELINE BARGAIN CENTER-A pedodic review of the business operation located at 9456 Roberds Street - APN: 202-092-008. Emily Wimer, Assistant Planner, gave the staff report and noted 1:hat shehad received a letter from Lora Iftikhar (the applicant) just pdor to the meeting. The letter cites the applicant's perspective on their efforts to be in compliance and their desire to continue operating their retail business even if all the requirements have not been met. Commissioner Mannedno confirmed that at this headng the Commission decides if we will have a Revocation Headng and that the Commission does not decide upon revocation at this time. Ms. Wimer indicated that is correct. Chairman McNiel asked if this is a public hearing. Brad Buller, City Planner explained that it is and that this Evidentiary Hearing allows evidence to be presented in regard to the operation of the Conditional Use Permit and that the Planning Commission is to decide if enough evidence is presented to warrant a Revocation Hearing at a later date. Chairman McNiel opened the public headng. Lora Iffikhar stated she is the applicant and that she and her husb.'lnd own and operate the Baseline Bargain Center. She indicated that some measures have been taken since the City issued a Business License Correction Letter in July of 1999. Ms. Iflikhar noted that more parking area has been purchased and is in escrow, the temporary parking area has been stdpped and "No Parking" signs have been posted, and that they are working towards compliance to gain a retail CUP. She noted that she felt the circumstances are extenuating such as: A misunderstanding at the Building and Safety Counter regarding the stamp on their plans which indicated "No Permit Required," Personal savings used to open the business, her husband's lack ol~ understanding, communication, and detail in the process of obtaining a CUP and their unwillingness to give up their income by closing the store during the compliance process. She added that they have been overwhelmed with the complicated CUP process and yet she feels with guidance they can make reasonable financial investments to come into compliance for a retail CUP. She requested more time to meet the requirements. Commissioner Stewart asked if Ms. Iffikhar owns her property. Ms ffiikhar indicated she does and that the property purchased for the additional parking is ready to close escrow. Planning Commission Minutes -14- January 10, 2001 Mr. Buller noted that the copy of the Resolution of Approval for their operation specifically notes that it is for warehousing only and indicates any other use for the property would require a new CUP. He added that the parking requirements are also specified in the resolution and that the City has tried to get them to comply for more than a year. Mr. Buller noted that Mr. Iflikhar was asked at that time if he understood the requirements and he said "yes." Mr. Buller added that this was also explained to their architect. Mr. Buller assented to the fact that improvements of this property for a retail business are costly and that it is likely they hoped to "phase in" the improvements along with running a retail business. Mr. Buller then stated that the only issue tonight before the Commissioners is whether there is enough evidence to bring the item back for a Revocation Hearing. Norm MacKenzie, Executive Director of the Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce stated he has met with Mr. Bullet and the Iftikhars to help them move in the dght direction. He noted that he feels the Iflikhars are contributing to the community and although they were ignorant to the process, he felt they had made progress towards compliance. He voiced his support and suggested they be given a time line to get them in compliance. 'Chairman McNiel interjected that in reality, the City has thousands of small businesses that have complied with the process and that when someone else does not comply either because of ignorance or intentionally, is that fair to those who do. Mr. MacKenzie agreed that it is not fair and it is our job to help them get in compliance and to set the code of ethics in business practices. He noted that he became involved late in the process. Chairman McNiel closed the public headng: Commissioner Tolstoy asked Mr. Buller if the applicant is aware of the costs that may be involved to bring the Roberds Street and parking up to City standards. Mr. Buller stated he has asked Mr. Iftikhar if he can comply with the parking requirements and he does not give a straight answer. Commissioner Mannedno stated that the issue is the evidence and the fact that they hold a permit and they admit they are in violation by running a retail store. He suggested they come into compliance and then set a time line to meet our parking standards for a retail use. Commissioner Stewart asked the applicant to bring with them their future plans and that she is interested in their vision for their business. She expressed concern and doubt that the issues on Roberds Street can be overcome. She encouraged them to work with staff. Chairman McNiel voiced his agreement for the applicants to work with staff and that staff will help them wherever possible. Motion: Moved by Mannedno, seconded by Tolstoy to bring the item back to the Planning Commission for a Revocation Hearing at the soonest available date as an advertised public hearing. Motion carded by the following vote: AYES: MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: MACIAS, - carded Planning Commission Minutes -15- January 10, 2001 THE CITY OF i~ANCffO CUCAHONGA Staff Report DATE: January 10, 2001 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Builer, City Planner BY: Emily Wimer, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-08 - BASELINE BARGAIN CENTER - A periodic review of the business operation located at 9456 Roberds Street- APN: 202-092-008. REGULATIONS: The request for an Evidentiary Hearing is being brought forth 'to the Planning Commission to review the compliance issues for the business. Attached are copies of pertinent letters and a chronology since the approval of Conditional Use Permit 98-08. The Development Code (RCMC Section 17.04.030 G) gives the Planning Commission the authority to "periodically review any Conditional Use Permit to ensure that it is being operated in a manner consistent with Conditions of ApprovaL" The purpose of tonight's hearing is for the Commission to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant a full examination. If so determined, a public hearing will be scheduled to consider possible modification or revocation of the Conditional Use Permit. BACKGROUND: Since Mamh 23, 1998, staff has kept a chronology of the activities at the Baseline Bargain Center located at 9456 Roberds Street (Exhibit "B"). On April 30, 1998, the applicant filed a non-construction Conditional Use Permit for storage and a warehouse containing 14,000 square feet. This Conditional Use Permit was approved May 26th, 1998. A condition of approval restricted the use to "warehousing of product storage only." Since then, the operation has expanded to include a retail operation on the first and second floor without first obtaining approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Approval of the storage and warehouse operation did not include provisions for allowing retail activity due to a lack of parking. On August 19, 1999, the owner was issued a first Correction Notice by Code Enforcement for use of the building as a "retail" establishment, which requires a total of 38 parking spaces. There are 14 spaces currently provided, but they are not to City standards and are not consistent with the parking plan approved for the project. Code Enforcement also observed four PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 98-08 - ROBERDS EVIDENTIARY HEARING January 10,2001 Page 2 illegal banners on the building and issued a "Stop Work Order" until the corrections were made. From August 1999 until December 2000, City divisions worked with the applicant to try and resolve outstanding issues through meetings, faxes, and follow-up telephone conversations (see attached detailed chronology, Exhibit "B"). On December 21, 1999, the owner submitted a Pre-Application Review to develop the property with enough parking to support the retail use. The project was deemed incomplete. Follow-up meetings were scheduled repeatedly over the next 6 months. On June 14, 2000, Planning Division staff sent a letter to the owner requesting new plans be submitted to meet current standards. The owner responded and discussed plans to purchase the vacant property just northeast of the Bargain Center to build a parking lot. After scheduling this Evidentiary Hearing, a letter from the owner was received by the Planning Division on December 20, 2000. The letter discusses the most recent business activity and requests continued use of the retail operation (Exhibit "A"). Three of the four conditions on the original Conditional Use Permit still have not been met. They are as follows: 1) A parking area in accordance with the City's requirement shall be completed. 2) The area between the building and public street shall be posted "No Parking" and the pavement striped with diagonal yellow lines. 3) The application (Conditional Use Permit 98-08) shall be restricted to warehousing of Product storage only. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission direct staff to schedule a public hearing to consider revoking the Conditional Use Permit 98-08. · Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:EW:Is Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Property owner's letter dated December 19, 2000 Exhibit "B" - Detailed chronology of business activity Exhibit "C" - Correspondence dated June 14, 2000 through November 6, 2000 Exhibit "D" - Resolution No. 98-06 with conditions 9~56 Roberds St. * Alta Loma, CA 91701 * Phone: (909) 9.q.:L-O0~.3 * Fax: (909) 9~1~063 December 19, 2000 RECEIVED Brad Buller, City Planner DEC 2 0 City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive CITY QF RANCHO Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 SUBJECT: Business Activity at 9456 Roberds Street Dear.Mr: Bullet; Thank you for stopping by our office earlier today with Chamber of Commerce representative, Norm MacKenzie to personally discuss specifics regarding your letter of December 13r" in which you have directed us to cease all retail business activity on or before December 20~h. This letter in response will serve to reiterate the highlights of our conversation, as well as to provide to you - for your consideration - a documentation of our reasons why we are unable to comply with your direction to cease our retail ,business operations. Essentially, we must continue our retail business operations uninterrupted to maintain a positive income in order to continue financing the acquisition of the additional Amethyst property, as well as to finance the improvements to the property required for the approval of our retail CUP. Our average daily revenue from the operation of our retail business is $1,179. Operating approximately 26 days a month (we're closed on Sundays), our average monthly income from our retail business operation is about $30,654. From this income we pay our sales and property taxes, utilities, wages for 4.5 employees (not including Sam and me), and the mortgage on our building - as well as our soon-to-be second mortgage to purchase the Amethyst lot to develop additional parking. If we are to cease the operation of our retail business, it would mean the literal collapse of our livelihood, as well as the unemployment of our employees. Most significantly, we would not be able to finance the Purchase and development of the land to meet the requirements for the approval of our retail CUP. You suggested in our meeting that perhaps we consider simp~ly ceasing our retail operations for a short term - for instance from December 20 until our Evidentiary Headng on January 10th. However, our estimated loss of income for this short period would be about $18,864 (accounting for the closure of Sundays, Christmas and New Years days). We would be unable to pay our employees for this time, and they would be forced to seek employment elsewhere. This is simply not a viable option for us to consider. We must maintain our retail business operations if our growing business is to survive. Our retail business income has tripled from what it was at this time last year. Reclpi'ocally our expenses have increased as well. We have worked very diligently over the past year to nurture and develop our retail busines~ and to establish confident relationships with our customers. We cannot willfully abandon our business, our employees or our customers.., even temporarily. Ceasing our retail operations, Exh fbi¢- "A" temporarily or otherwise, would mean financial disaster personally for our family and for our business, employee attrition, and the erosion of our invaluable customer base. We also discussed in this meeting our progress toward compliance with our existing CUP 98-08 and the approval of retail CUP 00-07. As we stated in our meeting, Sam and I have already secured financing for the purchase of the Amethyst property, and funds will be released next Monday or Tuesday. These funds will be directed to our escrow company, and escrow on the property should close by the end of next week at which time we will be able to proceed with the development of the intedm parking lot. Clearly the dominant topic of our discussion today was the frustration and confusion Sam and I have with the entire CUP process and requirements. Our frustration and confusion has been exacerbated by our dissipated confidence in our commissioned architect. We are tremendously encouraged by Mr. MacKenzie's intervention to help us secure competent direction to bring our project to fruition. Based on Mr. MacKenzie's impending recommendations, Sam and I will either submit to you our established intedm parking plan for the Amethyst proPertY (as designed by Mr. Melcher), or a new parking plan from another source (to be determined) as soon as possible. Sam is confident this can be accomplished before the end of this year. Finally, Sam and I understand the importance of establishing and adhedng to deadlines toward the completion of our project. We are eager to follow and support the recommendations of a professional who can lead us toward this goal. Once our purchase of the Amethyst property has been secured, I am confident that the development of the interim parking lot will be accomplished quite quickJy. Sam and I have wonderful visions for further developing our property into an aesthetically pleasant and commercially viable tract. But these visions require time, money and professional direction. We appreciate the graciousness the City of Rancho Cucamonga has demonstrated in allowing us the time to work toward code compliance for this project. We must continue to operate our retail business to insure our ability to finance this project, as well as our future vision. We are eager to commission proactive, professional assistance to help bring our project through the CUP process into compliance with City cede. As always, Sam and I tremendously appreciate the personal attention and assistance you have provided to us. Thank you. Sincerely, Lora Iffikhar Cc: Emily Wimer, Assistant Planner Norm MacKenzie, Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce ROBERDS STREET CLOSURE CHRONOLOGY March 23, 1998 John McEuen files a Use Determination requesting a product storage warehouse in the General Commercial Zone. April22, 1998 Planning Commission denies the Use Determination and requests that the applicant file a non-construction: CUP for a change of a non-conforming use. April 28,'1998 Sam and Laura Iftakar introduce to idea of operating a wholesale closeout business. RDA declines request for assistance because the site is not within the project area. April 30, 1998 The applicant files a non-construction CUP. The application is for use of the bottom floor only, containing 14,000 sq. ft. for product storage warehouse. May 26, 1998 The City Planner approves the application for warehouse and product storage on the bottom floor. Concern is voiced regarding the exterior work that did not get the proper permits. The applicant stated he would rectify the situation. July 7, 1998 Planning Division approves a parking plan. The parking plan shows 14 parking spaces on-site and a potential of 24 parking spaces, subject to authorized use of railroad property. August23, 1998 Planning Division denies a business license for retail and warehouse use. October22, 1998 Planning Division approves a business license for product storage warehouse only. (Per CUP) December3, 1998 Planning Division sends a memo to the owner clarifying the details of the warehouse use versus retail use which is not allowed. June 21, 1999 Mr. Iftakar submits a business license indicating some retail use on the site. The business license is signed with the file number of the governing CUP. July 1, 1999 Planning Division issues a" business license correction letter, which states the description is product storage warehouse, pursuant to the CUP. July 7, 1999 Mr. Iftakar comes to the Planning Division to discuss his site. He . asks for leniency on the CUP street improvement requirement in light ofthe beautification on site. The corrected business license ~----X i"~,-~ ~i~, '-'~- ~ ~2'~'! was never rectified. August 19, 1999 Owner was given a Correction Notice. The property was under parked for a retail establishment. Code Enforcement observes 4 banners at the site and a retail establishment operating. Richard Alcorn issues a "Stop Work Order". August 20, 1999 Brad Buller visits the site and observes the illegal banners and operation of a retail store. Mr. Buller request all signs be removed by 6:00pm. A returned visit showed the banners down, but the business was still open. August 23, 1999 Mr. Iftakar met with Code Enforcement to discuss and attempt to resolve issues. August 24, 1999 Owners met with Brad Bulier, Rebecca Van Buren, and Allen Brock to discuss code enforcement action and the lack of compliance with the CUP. August 30, 1999 The attorney representing the owners meets with the department heads to review the necessary actions. The attorney requested to be notified if the matter proceeds to the City Prosecutor. August 26, 1999 Final inspection was made at the property by Code Enforcement. September 9, 1999 A follow-up inspection was made to determine if corrections were made. Business was closed. The site is still not in conformance with the approved CUP, illegal parking and outdoor storage is being utilized. October 14, 1999 Re-inspection was made to see if corrections were made. No corrections. Business was open. November 15, 1999 Case was referred to the City Prosecutor for action. November 23, 1999 An office conference was held to discuss the extent of charges. December 14, 1999 A Criminal Complaint was filed bY Code Enforcement. December 28, 1999 Arraignment Scheduled by Code Enforcement and continued on more than one occasion. March 21, 2000 Code Enforcement charges were issued once again. Charges were dismissed shortly after. Owner showed proof of application to the Planning Department December21, 1999 Owner submitted a Pre-Application Review for Planning Commission comments. December22, 1999 Meeting scheduled for Planning and Engineering to discuss feasibility. December 28, 1999 Planning and Engineering meeting took place. Applicant was contacted to discuss issues. January 4, 2000 Engineering comments were formalized and added to file. January 26, 2000 Item was scheduled for Planning Commission workshop. January 26, 2000 Revised Site Plan was presented at the Planning Commission workshop. The applicant and architect were present. February 4, 2000 Minutes from the workshop were mailed to the applicant. February 28, 2000 Meeting with Brad, the project planner, owners, and architect took place to discuss options. March 9, 2000 A follow-up meeting was scheduled to discuss permanent vs. temporary parking arrangements. Follow-up meetings were scheduled with the owner and Architect once a week for a month. February 8 & 14, 2000 Opposition letters were received stating the surrounding owners' opposition to the Roberds Street closure. April 4, 2000 Applicant was mailed a formal version of the outstanding issues with Engineering, Building & Safety and Planning. June 14, 2000 Owner/Applicant was sent a letter requesting an update on the status of the CUP 00-07, and proposing a meeting do discuss the issues and alerting the applicant to the 60 day time schedule. A copy was sent to Code Enforcement. July 1, 2000 Applicant responded and discussed the plans to purchase adjoining property for parking. The escrow would take 30 days. September 1, 2000 A letter from John Melcher, Architect was sent to the Owner in regards to the preparation of new plans the status of the proposal. September 7, 2000 A fax was sent to the Owners reminding them that status of escrow and plans are needed. September 14, 2000 The Owner responded stating that the property owner of the adjoining lot recently declined the proposal. Arrangements are being made to obtain a second mortgage to pay for the property. September 28, 2000 Another deadline was given to the owners. October 4th 2000 (2 wks) to submit with a request to fax new plans for the file. October 3, 2000 A faxed letter from the owner stating that the loan has been approved. Owner stated that no new plans have been started. z" November 6, 2000 Letter from John Melcher, Architect to the owner stated that the urgency of this project has become an issue. Mr. Melcher also stated his availability to meet with the owner. November 28, 2000 Code Enforcement was alerted of 2 illegal wall signs that were not approved by B & S or Planning Dept. December 20, 2000 Letter from the owner discussing business activity and future development plans at 9456 Roberds. T H E C I T Y 0 F June 14, 2000 Sam and Laura Iftakar 8811 Lurline Street Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00-07- INTERIM PARKING Dear Sam and Laura: It has come to my attention that the Code Enforcement headng date for the Baseline Bargain Center was June 6, 2000. At this time, I would like you to contact me regarding your decisions with the project. I have contacted Mr. Melcher, and he has explained that he is no longer involved as the architect with the project. Therefore, I am relying on you for updates and new information regarding the current status. As you know, the updated information for Conditional Use Permit 00-07 was to be received within 60 days from the date of the last letter (April 4, 2000). You can contact me directly at (909) 477-2750, ext. 4301. ' If you have any questions, or would like to meet with Emily Wimer (the project planner) or me, please feel free to set up a meeting date Monday through Thursday from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION Brad Buller City Planner BB:Is cc: Richard Alcorn, Code Enforcement Supervisor "C" '[/po/o,) Mayor William J. Alexander ~ ~ . Councilmember Paul Biane Mayor Pro-Tern Diane Williams -~tr~; '~-'-"~ Councllmember Bob Outran Jack Lam, AICP, Cih/Manager ' ~? Councilmember James V. Curcrtalo '310500 Civid Center Drive * RO. Box 807 *. Rancho.Cucamonga, CA 91729 · (909) 477-2700 ® FAX (909) 477-2849 .... www. ci.rancho-cucamonga.ca.us July 1, 2000 ~-- Bred Bullet, City Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Ddve Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Subject: Conditional Use Permit 00-07 - Interim Parking Dear Mr. Buller, Thank you for your correspondence of June 14~'in which you have requestedan update with regard to our progress with the above captioned project. Sam and I were quite surprised to read in your letter that our architect, John Melcher, is no longer involved in this project. Sam and Mr. Melcher recently had a discussion/disagreement with regard to Mr. Melcher's compensation request, which we believe to be exorbitant relative to the progress of our project, or lack thereof. However, at no time did Mr. Melcher actually inform us - in writing or otherwise - that he wes no longer working on cur project. This second-hand information puts Sam and I in a precarious situation as we are now forced to find and recruit a new architect in the middle of this ongoing project. With regard to the current status of our project (aside from the fallout of our architect), as you are aware we entered escrow in May to purchase the vacant lot to the northeast of our building (7228 Amethyst Street). There have been some delays in es~ow based on our difficulty securing financing for this vacant lot. Presently the gentleman selling 'the property, Mr. Ron Roberds, is considering a payment plan we have suggested. However, Mr. Roberds has requested copies of tax returns, credit reports and other information for his CPA to examine before he commits to our arrangement. We are awaiting his decision. Once an agreement is reached between us, escrowwill conclude and we will have access to the property to proceed with our interim parking plan. However, in the absence of an architect to lead the project, Sam and I are unsure how to proceed. Our top priority is to find and recruit an architect who is creative, proactive, and effective. We have already initiated discussions with a couple of candidates, though we remain eagerly receptive to any recommendations. Finally, your letter mentions that updated information regarding CUP 00-07 was to be received within 60 days from April 4th. Unfortunately, we mistakenly relied on Mr. Melcher to provide this information to you. We regret that the required information was not provided to you timely, unbeknownst to us. I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate that Sam and I are eager to resolve this situation to be in compliance with City code, and we are willing to make the necessary and reasonable financial investments to accomplish this. We believe the key to the resolution of our dilemma is to recruit an effective architect to lead the project. We want to express to you our genuine appreciation for your patience and cooperetion in working with us toward the resolution of this troublesome and ongoing situation. Thank you. Sincerely, Cc: Richard Alcorn, Cede Enforcement Supervisor JOHN MELCHER, AIA · ARCHITECT 6779 Treeline Place · P.O. Box 1085 · Rancho Cucamon~a, CA 91701 · 909.948.8777 · FAX 909.948.8677 Received_ 01 September 2000 Sam and Lora Iftikhar 8gll Lurline Street ¢"Y ;,;:~o'~'~n~' Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701 Project: Conditional Use Permit Application (Retail) 9456 Roberds Street, Rancho Cucamonga Dear Sam and Lora: Brad Buller provided me with copies of his June 14 letter to you and Lora's July 1 reply, and I was surprised to learn that I had somehow created the incorrect impression that I am no longer involved in the project. I write to set the record straight, and to apologize for any inconvenience you may have experienced. When you and I met on April 18, Sam: to review the City's completeness letter of April 4 and to discuss the response that would De needed, you asked me to prepare a fixed price proposal for the sevvices needed, rather than continuing on the hourly arrangement that is provided for by the agreement between us. This I agreed to do. During the time the proposal was being prepared, Emily Wimer contacted me about the status of the project, and I spoke to her several times. I was not then actively working on the project because I was preparing the proposal, and I made no secret of that fact; apparently, something I said was construed to have the larger meaning that I was no longer involved in the project. It was never my intention to create that impression, and I apologize, again, for any inconvenience that I may have caused you. On June 13 1 faxed you the fixed price proposal, so I don't understand why, with the proposal in hand, you would on July 1 indicate your surprise at, and acceptance of, Mi'. Bullet's statement that I was no longer involved. But whether or not I understand is not important; what is important is moving your project through the remainder of the CUP process. I am, and have been since June 13, f-ally prepared to do just that. I look forward to hearing from you soon. Cordially, JOHN MELCHER, AIA / ARCI-nlt~CT John Melcher, AkA cc: Brad Bugler, City Planner F AX 'I'RA NSMZ$$ O N CITY OF ~u~NCHO CUCAMONGA Sent by U.S. Mail: 10500 Civic Center Drive 909-477-2750 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Planning Fax g0g-477-2847 To: Sam & Lora Iftakar Date: September 7, 2000 Fax if: (909) 941-0063 Pages 1, including this cover sheet. From: Emily Wimer Assistant Planner Subject Conditional Use Permit Application 00-07 9456 Roberds Street, COMMENTS: Just a follow-up regarding the status of the project CUP 00-07. We have received a letter from John Melcher regarding his involvement in the project. We now need information regarding the status of plans, submittal of the project, and escrow status of the adjoining property. Any new information you have would be greatly appreciated by the Planning and Code Enforcement Divisions. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. FAX TRANSMISSION BASEUNE BARGAIN CENTER 9456 Roberds Street Phone: (909) 941-0043 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701 Fax: (909) 94'1-0063 September 14, 2000 To: Emily Wimer, Assistant Planner Fax: (909) 477-2847 Subject: Conditional Use Permit Application 00-07 9456 Roberds Street, Alta Loma Dear Emily, Thank you for your fax inquiry of September 7a, Regarding the status of the CUP 07 project, we continue to work toward the acquisition of the empty lot to the northeast of our building (7228 Amethyst Street). The current property ov4~er has only recency declined our purchase payment proposition (the delay of his response a~ibuted to his summer vacation as well as to his coordination of the review of details with his CPA). And so we are now presently making arrangements to obtain a 2r~ mortgage on ~ home to finance the purchase of this property. Surprisingly, it has been particularly difficult to obtain financing for this vacant plot of land (in the absence of a structure). With regard to the status of our plans and the submittal of the project, naturally the progression of the project is contingent upon the acquisition of the additional Ixoperly. ~.~, until the property is secured all other project plan details ale in suspension. Thank you again for your patience and cooperation In working with us toward the resolution of this ongoing situation. Sincerely, Sam and Lore Iflikhar Number of Pages, In=luding This Cover Sheet: Exlnib + Cq" {,I/o/,',.) Rancho Cucamonga September 28, 2000 Sam and Lora Iftakar Baseline Bargain Center 9456 Roberds Street Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Iltakan Thank you for your follow-up fax of September 14~ regarding the status of CUP 00- 07. It has been two weeks since the last update. I would like to now request an update regarding the status of the 2r~ mortgage in order to confirm some progress with the ongoing situation. As you remember, it has been over 60 days since the last submittal of a revised application. Progress must be made in terms of an application to the Planning Division. If you have any new preliminary revisions to the plans, please fax them to me with the update by Wednesday, October 4th. Again, thank you in advance for your time and prompt response to these issues. Sincerely, Emily Wimer Assistant Planner CC: John Melcher 0 ~00 ..~ ....... L. c-~o~_~ .... ~, .............................................. . E~hiloi+ Cb" c,~,/.,.) ........................ JOHN MELCHER, AIA * ARCHITE~:r 6779 Treeline Place · P.O. Box 1085 · Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701 · 909.946.8777 · FAX 909.948.86// 119912 06 November 2000 Sam and Lora Ifrikhar 8811 Lurline Street Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701 Project: Conclitional Use Perm/t Application (Retail) 9456 Roberds Street, Rancho Cucamonga Subject: City Inquiries About Status of Project Dear Sam and Lora: Thank you, Lora, for your faxed letter of September 14 in reply to my letter of September 1. I was on vacation when your letter arrived, so I didn~ read it until my return on September 19. I called you on Tuesday, September 20, Sam~ as requested by Lura's letter, and expressed my. availability W meet with you and Lora later that week, also as requested by her letter. You told me that you were very busy, but that you would talk to Lora about a mutually convenient time and call me back. Since then I have heard nothing from either of you. On several occasions recently Mayor Pro Tem Williams hs~ asked me about where your project stands, and on at least one occasion Mayor Alexander has asked about it, as well. Clearly, file City has its eye on your use, and I think it is becoming iner~ngly urgent that we show some · progress with the project, lest the .City's patience run out and enforcement activity be resumed. I look forward to hearing from you soom Coraiany, JOHN MELCHER~ AIA / ARCHITECT John Melcher, AIA cc: Mayor Alexander Mayor Pro Tern WilNsms Brad Buller, City Planner RESOLUTION NO. 98-06 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNER OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 98-08, A REQUEST TO ESTABLISH A PRODUCT STORAGE WAREHOUSE IN A LEASED SPACE OF APPROXIMATELY 14,000 SQUARE FEET WITHIN AN EXISTING BUILDING LOCATED AT 9456 ROBERDS STREET, WITHIN THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF- APN: 202-092-08. A. Recitals. 1. Opportunity Sales, Inc., has filed an application Conditional Use Permit No 98-08, 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 May 1998, the City Planner of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public headng 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 City Planner of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. The City Planner 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 the City Planner during the above- referenced public hearing on May 26, 1998, 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 9456 Roberds Street, a use which is of a similar nature, operation, and intensity as other permitted uses, or conditionally permitted in the same district. b. The use in question meets and conforms to the applicable goals and objectives of the General Plan. c. The operation of the use will not conflict with surrounding businesses and uses. d. The use in question complies with the Development Code Section 17.02.130, pertaining to Non-Conforming Use and Structures, which allows the Planning Commission to consider and approve, or conditionally approve, a request to change a non-conforming use to another non-conforming use. e. The application applies to Opportunity Sales, Inc., located at 9456 Roberds Street, and is for product storage only. f. The property to the north is residential, to the south commercial, to the east a disused Southem Pacific Railway easement, and to the west a 7-Eleven and gas station. CITY PLANNER RESOLUTION NO. 98-06 CUP 98-08 - OPPORTUNITY SALES, INC. May 26, 1998 Page 2 g. The Planning Commission denied Use Determination No. 98.431 on Apd122, 1998, and directed the applicant work with staff in the processing of a Non-Construction Conditional Use Permit. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the City Planner during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, the City Planner hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. 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. b. The application, which contemplates operation of the proposed use, complies with Section 17.02.130 - E of the Development Code. 4. The City Planner hereby finds and determines that the project identified in this Resolution is categorically exempt from the requirement of the California Environmental Quality ACt of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant t o Section 15301 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 above, the City Planner hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below, and in the attached Standard Conditions: Plannino Division 1) The application shall be restricted to warehousing of product storage only. Any expansion or substantial change in use shall require a new Conditional Use Permit application, in which full site improvements will be required in order to bdng the site and use into conformance with all development standards required in the General Commercial Zone. 2) Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall submit a Parking Plan depicting 14 parking spaces in accordance with the City's p-~[rking specifications. The applicant shall submit a master Parking Plan depicting an approximate total of 24 parking spaces, in accordance with the City's parking specifications. 3) A parking area of 14 spaces shall be completed, prior to occupancy. 4) The hours of operation shall be from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and deliveries per week shall not rise above ten. Any changes in hours of operation or deliveries shall require approval of the City Planner. 5) No outside storage shall be allowed. 6) Appropriate painting and patching necessary to accommodate new window installation on the eastern portion of the building shall be completed pdor to occupancy. / 7) The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, Section 17.02.130 - Non -Conforming Uses & Structures. CITY PLANNER RESOLUTION NO. 98-08 CUP 98-08 - OPPORTUNITY SALES, INC. May 26, 1998 Page 3 8) The area between the building and the public street shall be posted "No Parking" and the pavement striped with diagonal yellow lines. Buildina and Safety/Fire Protection Unit 1) If the applicant intends to store in excess of 12 feet high, all items for high pile combustible storage must be met in accordance with 1994 UFC Article 81. 2) The Building Division must be consulted on existing building outstanding corrections. 6. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF May 1998. /ricia Ashby, S'ecreta~3~' I, Tricia Ashby, Secretary of the Planning Division of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the City Planner of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the City Planner held on the 26th day of May 1998. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT #: Conditional Use Permit 98-08 SUBJECT: Product Storage Warehouse APPLICANT: John McEven for Opportunity Sales~ Inc. LOCATION: 9456 Roberds Street APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: General Requirements ' I Comaleflon Date 1. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, itsI / agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, I to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or I employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. B. Time Limits 1. 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. C. Site Development 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. 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 occupandy, 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. project No. CUP 9808 4. 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. For single family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaul.ts. D. Operational 1. Graffiti shall be removed within 72 hours. /____ 2. The entire site shall be kept free from trash and debris at all times and in no event shall trash and /__ __ debris remain for more than 24 hours. 3. All operations and businesses shall be conducted to comply with the following standards which shall be incorporated into the lease agreements for all tenants: a. Noise Level - All commercial activities shall not create any noise that would exceed an extedor noise level of 60 dB during the hours of 10 p.m. until 7 a.m. and 65 dB during the hours of 7 a.m. until 10 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 other similar objects between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. unless otherwise specified herein, in a manner which would cause a noise disturbance to a residential area. E. Building Design 1. 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 architecturelly integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Details shall be included in building plans. 2. For commemial and industrial projects, paint mil-up doors and service doors to match main' building colors. F. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans) 1. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances, __ I and exits shall be striped per City standards. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: G. Site Development 1. The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building (;ode, Uniform Mechanical / Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, Title 24 Acce:ssibility requirements, 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. 14. Existing Structures project No. CUP 98-08 Comple~Jon Da~e 1. Existing buildings shall be made to comply with correct building and zoning regulations for the __/____ intended use or the building shall be demolished. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730 FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: I. General Fire Protection Conditions 1. An automatic fire extinguishing system(s) will be required as noted below: X Other:. 1994 UFC, if storage is in excess of 12 feet in recks or pallets. .~_/.__/ 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. 2. A Knox rapid entry key vault shall be installed pdor to final inspection. Proof of purchase shall I be submitted prior to final building plan approval. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specific details and ordering information. 3. A tenant use letter shaJl be submitted prior to final building plan approval. Contact the Fire Safety / Division for the proper form letter. 4. Plan check fees in the amount of $132.00 shall be paid: X Pdor 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. 5. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to constnJction in accordance with 1994 UBC, UFC, /__/__ UPC, UMC, NEC, and RCFD Standards 22 and 15. J. Special Permits 1. Special permits may be required, depending on intended use, as noted below: a. General Use Permit shall be required for any activity or operation not specifically / described below, which in the judgement of the Fire Chief is likely to produce conditions hazardous to life or property. b. Storage of readily combustible material. / c. Places of assembly (except chumhes, schools, and other non-profit organizations). / d. Bowling alley and pin refinishing. I / e. Cellulose Nitrate plastic (Pyroxylin). / / f. Combustible fibers storage and handling exceeding 100 cubic feet. / / g. Garages. / I Motor vehicle repair (H-4). project No. (~UP 98-08 .. h. Lumber yards (over 100,000 board feet). / / i. Tire rebuilding plants. / ~ j. Auto wrecking yards. / Junk or waste matedal handling plants. k. Flammable finishes. Spraying or dipping operations, spray booths, dip tanks, electrostatic apparatus, automobile undemoating, powder coating and organic peroxides and dual component coatings (per spray booth). I. Magnesium (more than 10 pounds per day). __ m. Oil burning equipment operations. __ n. Ovens (industrial baking and drying). / ' o. Mechanical refrigeration.(over 20 pounds of refrigerant). / __ p. Compressed gases (storage, handling or use exceeding 100 cubic feet). / q. Cryogenic fluids (storage, handling, or use). / r. . Dust-producing processes and equipment. / s. Flammable and combustible liquids (storage, handling, or use). / / t. High piled combustible stock. / / u. Liquefied petroleum gas (storage, handling, transport, or use exceeding more than / / 120 gallons). v. Matches (more than 60 Matchman's gross). / ! w. Welding and cuffing operations: to conduct welding and/or cutting operations in any __ / / occupancy. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: K. Security Lighting 1. All buildings shall have minimal secudty lighting to eliminate dark areas around the buildings, w~ / /__ direct lighting to be provided by all entryways. Lighting shall be consistent around the entire development. 2. Lighting in exterior areas shall be in vandal-resistant fixtures. /__/__ L. Security Hardware 1. One-inch single cylinder dead bolts shall be installed on all entrance dcors. If windows are within 40 inches of any locking device, tempered glass or a double cylinder dead bolt shall be used. Projec~ No. CUP 98-08 Comoleflon Date 2. All garage or rolling doors shall have slide bolts or some type of secondaPJ locking devices. /__ __ Building Numbering 1. Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime I__ visibility. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REVOKING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 98-08, LOCATED IN THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 202-092-08. A. Recitals. 1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga filed an application for the revocation of Conditional Use Permit No. 98-08, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit revocation request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 14th day of February 2001, 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 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 alt 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 February 14, 2001, 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 9456 Roberds Street with a street frontage of 263.4 feet and lot depth of 206.3 feet which is presently improved with a warehouse facility; and b. The property to the north of the subject site is residential, the property to the south consists of commercial uses, the property to the west is a Southern Pacific Railway easement, and the property to the east is a 7-Eleven service station; and c. The applicant has been operating the business beyond the conditions of the approval which restrict the application to wholesale use only; and d. The current property has not been upgraded with the required amount of parking for a retail establishment. In order to conduct a retail use on the site, 38 spaces would be required and 14 parking spaces are currently in use; and e. The property does not currently have enough parking to support a full retail use of the building; and f. The City has not received evidence that these issues have been resolved since the original violations were detected in September 1998. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 98-08 REVOCATION - IFTAKAR February 14, 2001 Page 2 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 conduct of the establishment or the granting of the retail use without sufficient parking is not accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the distdct in which the site is located. b. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, would be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare and would be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity by creating inadequate on-site parking and resulting off-site parking congestion. c. The proposed retail use does not comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. d. The impacts cannot be mitigated because the applicant has been unable to acquire additional land to expand the parldng and there is no certainty that the applicant will obtain sufficient additional property within a reasonable period of time. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission finds that the Conditional Use Permit is not being conducted in an appropriate manner and that modifications are not presently available to mitigate the impacts of the use. Therefore, the Commission hereby revokes CUP 98-08 and orders the business operation at the site to cease and desist in 10 calendar days from the adoption of this resolution. 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2001. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 14th day of February 2001, by the following vote-to-wit: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 98-08 REVOCATION - IFTAKAR February 14, 2001 Page 3 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: R A N C h O C U C A M O N G A PLANNING DI~DADTHI~NT StaffRe rt DATE: February 14, 2001 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Nancy Fong, AICP, Senior Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 00-04 - AMERICAN BEAUTY DEVELOPMENT CO. - A request to establish a Development Agreement for the development project known as the Victoria Arbors on approximately 300.64 acres of land in the Mixed Use District of the Victoria Community Plan, generally bounded by Base Line Road to the north, Etiwanda Avenue to the east, Foothill Boulevard to the south, and Day Creek Channel to the west - APN: 227-201-04, through 18, 22, 28 through 31, 33, and 36; 227-161-28, 31, 33, 35, 36, and 38; 227-171-08, 11, 12, 20, 22, 23, and 25; and 227-211-40. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 01- 04 - AMERICAN BEAUTY DEVELOPMENT CO. - A request to establish a residential Master Plan for a development project known as the Victoria Arbors for approximately 300.64 acres of land, in the Mixed Use District of the Victoria Community Plan, generally bounded by Base Line Road to the north, Etiwanda Avenue to the east, Foothill Boulevard to the south, and Day Creek Channel to the west - APN: 227-201-04, 13 through 18, 22, 28 through 31, 33, and 36; 227-161-28, 31, 33, 35, 36, and 38; 227-171-08, 11, 12, 20, 22, 23, and 25; and 227-211-40. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP. 15641 - AMERICAN BEAUTY DEVELOPMENT CO. - A request to subdivide approximately 300.64 acres into 35 lots for financing purposes for a mixed use development project known as the Victoria Arbors, generally bounded by Base Line Road to the north, Etiwanda Avenue to the east, Foothill Boulevard to the south, and Day Creek Channel to the west - APN: 227-201-04, 13 through 18, 22, 28 through 31, 33, and 36; 227-161-28, 31, 33, 35, 36, and 38; 227-171-08, 11, 12, 20, 22, 23, and 25; and 227-211-40. ITEMS D, E, F & G PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT AMERICAN BEAUTY DEVELOPMENT CO. February 14, 2001 Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 15974 - AMERICAN BEAUTY DEVELOPMENT CO. - A residential subdivision of 554 single family lots and including a 10-acre parcel for a school and approximately 17.33 acres of park and open space on approximately 190 acres of land, within a development project known as the Victoria Arbors, in the Mixed Use District of the Victoria Community Plan, generally bounded by Base Line Road to the north, Etiwanda Avenue to the east, future Church Street to the south, and Day Creek Channel to the west - APN: 227-161-28, 31, 33, 35, 36, and 38; 227-171-08, 11, 12, 20, 22, 23, and 25; and 227-211-40. BACKGROUND: The applicant and staff have been working together to address various issues related to the project. The applicant has requested more time to revise their plans and submit them for staff's review. Therefore,, staff requests a continuance of this project for 2 weeks. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission continue the project to the February 28, 2001, meeting. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:NF\Is United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Carlsbad l~ish and W'fldlifc Office 2730 Lokcr Avenue West Ca~let~ut, C;d~'on~a Rudy Zeledon, Assistant Planne~ City of Rancho Cucamo~ga Planning Division P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, California !al 729 D~velopm~nt Review 00-66 - B. Ivan Group, Cit7 of Rancho Cucamonga, San BemardLno Counl7, California Dinar Mr. Zeledon: This letter provides our comm¢lltS oi1 t. tt¢ proposed 26,$95-square-£oot induslrial building on 2 acres at thc so~: cora~ of Sixth and Rochester Court in the City of Rmacho Cucamonga (City), San Beruardino COunty. We are concerned about the proposed project's impacts to the fexiendly enclangcred Delhi $~nt~s flowcr-lovi~ fly (P.h~hiomida~ terminatu, v abdominalis, '~DSF") ~d other species ~hat occur throughout th~ Colton Dune e~osyslzm~ Th~ DSF is prot~-'tcd under the Endangered Species .Act (Act) of 1973, as amended. The following comments ~ provided pursuant to o~r responsibilities under the AcL We provide thr~ comments in keeping with our agency's missioa to work "with others to col:.~rve, prot~t~ ~ e~l~snee fish~ wildlife, and pla~ts and their habitats for the continuing benefit of lhe American people.' We also administer the AcL Section ? of the Act ~quires Federal agenci~ to cxlnsult with us if their actions may affect f~lerally listed species. Section 9 of the Act prohibits the "take" (e.g., harm, harassm~al, pu~uiI, injm-y, kill) of federally listed wildli6~. "Harm" is further defintxl to i~clude habitat modification or d~gr~a,dion where it kills or injur~ wildlLt'¢ by iml:mi-,-~g e~seallal behavloml patfflm'ns it~Cl, rllns breeding, ~e~li,~g, or sheltering. Take incidental to oiho'wi~ lawfiil activities can b~ auiholiz~ un~r soctlo~s 7 ~ecleral co~Saltations) and 10 (habital conservalion plums) of the A~ The project ~is within mapped Delhi Sands that provide habita~ for the DSF. Though the Initial Study for &¢ project indica~s that ~h¢ vegetatio~ ca site is largely "dead wine g~ap~ plants" (page 3), the DSF has been found on oth~ fallow vineyard sites. Protocol sm'veys fo: the DSF should be required to assess ii'tho sit~ is occupied by this spe~oies. If the DSF is dete~ed dining thcs~ surveys, the~ the applicant should contact our office to obtsln incidental rake a~thorization pursuant to sections 7 or 10 of the Act, To ensure the loroject is adequately addressed under the California Envirozmlemtal Quality Act (CF.,QA), we recommend that the City require the project proponents to preserve three a~res of habitat for the DSF in perpetuity for each acre of Delhi Sands ~h~t is disturbed. The preserved // 02/14/01 15:54 FAX 760 431 9624 US FISH A1V/) I~ILDLIFE [~003/005 Rucly Zeledo~a 2 lan& should be located in an area that will contribme to ~e survival and recoveay of the DSF. This mitigation should be required under CEQA even if thc DSF is not detected on site during protocol ~urvey$. Otherwise; the unmitigated loss of Delhi Sands will contribute to the cumulative loss of this biologically significant resource, and decrease the long-term survival and recovery of the DSF. We appreciate the opportunity to/~ovide comments on the proposed project and are available to work with the City and project proponent to avoid, mlnimi~e, and mitigate impacts to federally listed mad sensitive spoeies. We continue to be avsilable to work with the City and locsi landowners on projects that may im.~ [iSt~l 8nd sgllsitiv¢ spe¢igs or ~ll~y ~e.~ any potential reserve design for a subarea habitat conservation plan within your jurisdiction- If you have any questinn~ rega~din~ this letter, plcase contact Lucy Helvenston of this office at (760) 431-9440. Sincerely, Jim A. Ba_~l Assistant Fi¢Sd Suporvisor I-6-01-NFTA-1369. I cc: CDFO, Chino Hills, CA (Aftra Robin MaLoney Rames) South Coast Air Quality Management Distric ¢ t V' ~i 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4182 ~'~B 0 ~ 2001 (909) 396-2000 · http://www.aqmd.gov ~IT¥ OF fOIN~lO CB(;~,O FAXED: JANUARY 31, 2001 January 31, 2001 Rudy Zeledon City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (DMND) Development Review 00-66 - Ivan Group Dear Mr. Zeledon: The South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above-mentioned document. The following comments are meant as guidance for the Lead Agency and should be incorporated in the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration. Please provide the AQMD with written responses to all comments contained herein prior to the certification of the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration. The AQMD would be happy to work with the Lead Agency to address these issues and any other questions that may arise. Please contact Dr. Charles Blankson, Transportation Specialist - CEQA Section, at (909) 396-3304 if you have any questions regarding these comments. Sincerely r Steve Smith, Ph.D. Program Supervisor, CEQA Section Planning, Rule Development & Area Sources Attachment SS: CB SBC010126-02 Control Number Rudy Zeledon - 1- January 31,2001 Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (DMND) - Development Review 00-66 - Ivan Group 1. Construction Emissions: The air quality discussion in the DMND qualitatively dismisses potential air qua!ity impacts of the proposed project. Without providing a quantitative analysis of potential emissions from both construction and operation using the analysis methodologies in the AQMP 1993 CEQA Air Quality Handbook or other approved methodologies, the lead agency has not demonstrated that the project's air quality impacts are not significant. If quantification of emissions exceeds established significance thresholds, then mitigation measures must be imposed by the lead agency. 2. Operational Emissions: Similarly, the lead agency has not quantified operational air quality impacts and, therefore, has not demonstrated that operational air quality impacts are insignificant. Simply relying on the General Plan is not sufficient to demonstrate that a project will or will not have significant air quality impacts. TH E CITY OF i~ANCH 0 CUCAMONCA Staff Report DATE: February 14, 2001 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Rudy Zeledon, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-66 - THE B. IVAN GROUP- A request to construct a 28,880 square foot industrial building on 2.17 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 13), located at the southeast comer of Sixth Street and Rochester Court - APN: 229-263-04. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Surrounding Land Use and Zoninq: North Vacant (Vineyard); General Industrial (Subarea 13) South - Existing industrial building; General Industrial (Subarea 13) East Partially vacant, with existing single-family home; General Industrial (Subarea13) West Existing industrial building; General Industrial (Subarea 13) B. General Plan Desiqnations: Project Site - General Industrial North General Industrial SoOth - Generalindustdal East General industrial West - Generalindustdal C. Site Characteristics: The site contains one vacant parcel that is 2.17 acres. The site slopes from north to south at approximately 2 percent and is currently cultivated as a vineyard. There are no mature trees on the site, nor is there any significant vegetation on the site. The site is located within an area identified as potential habitat for the Delhi Sands Flower Loving Fly. The applicant has submitted a biological Survey for the site. The street frontages along Sixth Street and Rochester Court are unimproved with no curb and gutter, sidewalk or street side landscaping. There is an existing drive approach at the southwest corner of the site that will be shared with the industrial property to the south. ITEM H PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 00-66 - THE B. IVAN GROUP February 14,2001 Page 2 D. Parkinq Calculations: Number of Number of Type Square' Parking Spaces Spaces of Use Footaqe Ratio Required Provided Office 2,328 1/250 9 Mezzanine Office 476 1/250 2 Manufacturing 5,000 1/500 10 Warehouse 19,567 1/1000(1st 20,000) 19 Mezzanine Storage 11509 1/1000(lSt 20,000) 2 Total: 28,880 42 42 ANALYSIS: A. General: The building has been designed for a single user and will be self sufficient with independent access, parking, and utility services. The building is odented on north and south axis. The loading dock area is proposed along the southeast comer and west areas of the building and screened from public view. The proposed tilt-up concrete building is designed to be consistent with the architectural style of the surrounding area. The building incorporates pdmary building materials: painted and sandblasted concrete. Secondary design matedal accents of smooth face cut limestone panels and green tinted reflective glazed glass and sandblasted glass are also proposed. The office elevation, which will front on to the southeast comer of Sixth Street and Rochester Court, will be staggered and features areas of green tinted reflective glazed glass, sandblasted concrete, and cut limestone panel accents primarily to frame the main entrance. B. Design Review Committee: The Design Review Committee (McNiel, Stewar~, Henderson) reviewed the project on January 16, 2001, and recommended approval of the project subject to conditions contained in the attached Design Review' Committee Action Comments (Exhibit "G"). C. Technical Review Committee: The Technical and Grading Committees reviewed the project and recommended approval subject to conditions. D. Environmental Assessment: The applicant completed Part I of the Initial Study. Staff completed Part II of the Initial Study, the Environmental Checklist, and found that there could be a significant effect on the environment relative to potential lost habitat for the Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly (DSF). The site is identified on maps prepared bythe U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as potentially having the appropriate Tujunga-Delhi soil classification to support the DSF. A Habitat Assessment Survey was prepared by a federally certified biologist to assess lhe soils, vegetation, and species composition on the site. In summary, the results of the habitat-based survey indicated that the site does not currently support elements consistent with potential DSF habitat. Though loose, sandy soils are present and a few scattered native plants persist along the southern site boundary, the regular disturbances associated with active viticulture are not conducive to the survival of DSF. The recurring soil perturbations, in PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 00-66 - THE B. IVAN GROUP February 14, 2001 Page 3 combination with surrounding land use development and disturbances, further reduce the potential for DSF occurrence. Therefore, considering factors, such as surrounding land use practices, disturbance history, and la, ck of documented occurrences of DSF in the vicinity, the subject property has Iow potential to support DSF. No other potentially significant environmental impacts are identified in the Initial Study. If the Planning Commission concurs, then issuance of a Negative Declaration would be in order. 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. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review 00-66 through the adoption of the attached Resolution of approval with conditions and issue a Negative Declaration. Respectfully submitted, City Planner BB:l~.:ml~ Attachments: Exhibit "^" - Location Map Exhibit "B" - Site Utilization Map Exhibit "G" - Site Plan Exhibit"D" - Gradin§ Plan Exhibit"E" - I_andscapo ~len Exhibit"F" - Building Elevations Exhibit "G" - Design Review Committee Action Comments, dated January 16, 2001 Exhibit"H" - Initial Study Resolution of Approval with Conditions ~ Project Site ' DR 00-66 6th Street ~ parcels 6th St. -- -- N SiTE PLaN SiTE PLAN ' ::::::::: 6" CONC. m~ ~ 6" CONC. CURB ~ mT~,, 2' CONCRE~ GUTT~ ~ 18" CONC. CURB ....... 18' CONCRE~ Ill Ill III Ill ~.~ EAST ELEVATION ~ ,~..,..,- (7) · EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS NORTH ELEVATION , ~, WEST ELEVATION 0 ~ ~I ~ I~ ~ .... 'EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS' SOUTH ELEVATION , V,t, ~ -" "' ~- ~ A3.2 DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:20 p.m. Rudy Zeledon January 16, 2001 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-66 - THE B. IVAN GROUP- A request to construct a 26,686 square foot industrial building on 2.17 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 13), located at the southeast corner of Sixth Street and Rochester Court- APN: 229-263-04. Desiqn Parameters: The site contains one vacant parcel that is 2.17 acres. The site slopes from north to south about at approximately 2 pement and is currently cultivated as a vineyard. There are no mature trees on the site nor is there any significant vegetation on the site. The site is located within an area identified as potential habitat for the Delhi Sands Flower Loving Fly. The applicant has submitted a biological Survey for the site. The street frontages along Sixth Street and Rochester Court are unimproved with no curb and gutter, sidewalk or street side landscaping. There is an existing drive approach at the southwest corner of the site that will to shared with the industrial property to the south. To the north (across Sixth street), west and east of the project site the properties are vacant and currently cultivated as vineyards. The building incorporates primary building materials: painted and sandblasted concrete. Secondary design materiaJ accents of smooth face cut limestone panels and green tinted reflective glazed glass and sandblasted glass are also proposed. The building design is consistent with the amhitectural style of the industrial Park District in which it is located. The office portion of the building will front on to the southeast corner of Sixth Street and Rochester Court. The office elevation is staggered and features areas of green tinted reflective glazed glass, sandblasted concrete and cut limestone panel accents primarily to frame the main entrance. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion: Maior Issues: The following broad issues will be on the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: 1. The project proposes ingress and egress at the northeast corner of the site and at the southwest corner of the site through an existing shared access with the property to the south. The General Plan classifies Sixth Street as a "Major Divided Arterial". The City's Driveway Policy requires 300-feet of spacing between driveways on arterial streets (see attachment). The Engineering Division is requiring the applicant to provide adequate spacing at the easterly property line of the project site to allow the property to the east joint access through the proposed driveway on Sixth Street. The applicant has not designed the driveway on Sixth Street to comply with the City's Driveway Policy. Therefore, staff is recommending that the applicant redesign the proposed driveway on Sixth Street to allow joint use with the property to the east as required by City's Driveway Policy. 2. The proposed screen wall, at east property line, should be continued south along the entire eastern portion of the site to ensure adequate screening of loading facilities from public view. In addition, the wall height should be at a minimum of 6 feet in height. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. On Sixth Street, the parking area should be screened with berms at an average height of ,~1~ 3 feet (maximum slope not to exceed 31/2:1). DRC COMMENTS DR 00-66 - THE B. IVAN GROUP January 16, 2001 Page 2 2. Continue the recessed element at the top of the parapet line, as shown on the north and west elevations, to the east and south elevations. 3. Clarify if the proposed office terraFe, located at the northeast corner of the building, will be used for the required employee outdoor eating area. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. Minimum drive aisle width adjacent to loading areas (without dock high doors) shall be 28 feet for two-way traffic. Site Plan shows a proposed drive aisle width of 27 feet along the east drive aisle. 2. All landscape planters shall be a minimum of 5-feet inside dimension. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends that the project be revised and returned to the Design Review Committee for review. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Larry Henderson Staff Planner: Rudy Zeledon The Committee reviewed the project and recommended approval subject to staff's comments. In addition, the Committee advised the applicant to continue to work: with staff in addressing all policy issues before going in front of the Planning Commission. ;~P,'.~ : R IU~ r-~p FAX NO. : 909-591-6410 .Tan. 10 2001 12:42PM C~T'V o~ ~ANCHO CUC PAGE ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM (Part I. Initial Study) p~dmns* ~'~ 00-66 " ~ac~ai & ~i~i ~attanaDorn S~60 ~ef~ A~ue ~, '~ ........... ~ 9171 ~' ~j~ ~~: B. I~ ~ ~3666 ~S Av~ue Conm~ Pe~ & - ~9-59~ -9~ ~ 5 ~3666 Cy~s A~ !:~PLA~tNING~FtNAL~ORUS~-'OUNTERUNITISTD~-W~D ~{~ P~{~e t F'~OFI : ~ TUrN G~P F'~× KID..' cJ89-~.-E, zl~.O San. ~a~ai "Jack, Wattling: . 5660 $~ef~ Av~ ~, ~ 91710 T~ 9~9-464-9030 ' F~: 909-464_9529 Southeast O~r'r~r of Sixth St. and Rocheste~ 229-263-04 2.174 ac~-~ (94,699 s/f.} 1~608 acres (70~044 s/f) I:t~PI.ANNIN,~'~INALIFORMS%COUN'~e~%iNiT,~,O,~ %tiRg~ Page 2 ,.Tan. 10 ~00J J. 2:43PFJ P~ .~-~ ~ not a~pe~r to be ag, y, ccO.~,.'r~__!, and/or historical asp=~t~ (that are a~re of) that would l~oact the site. t%I~LANNINGFINAL~O'RUS"COUNT£R%INtTgTDI.~D N(~ I~j~ $ FROM : B IUAN G~P FAX NO. : 9~9-591-6410 Jan. 10 2001 12:44PM P4 ~:IP~AN HI HGtF ~A~tFORUB~{JN~ERItNrf~TDI.WPD ~ P~ge 4 FROM : B IVAN GRP FAX ND, : ~9-S91-6410 J~. 10 2001 12:44PM P5 No scenic tr~e~ of any si~nifi~ ~ u~e , , ~ ~00 RECEIVED: 1-I0- 1; 12:30PM; 909 591 6450 FROM :, B IVAN G~P FAX NO. : 9~9-591-6410 Jan. 10 ~01 12:4SPM P6 Renf (per monY~) k;town. _ material .~ m~t expected at f_...he sit~. L"~uAJ~'N I NOel NAJ,.~: OR M2~C OLJ NI'E R~IN F'f&"TI~ ,~D ~ ea~ i City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: Development Review 00-66 2. Related Files: N/A 3. Description of Project: A request to construct a 26,895 square foot industrial building on 2.17 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 13), located at the southeast corner of Sixth Street and Rochester Court - APN: 229-263-04. 4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: The B. Ivan Group 13666 Cypress Avenue Chino, CA 91710 5. General Plan Designation: General Industrial 6. Zoning: General Industrial District (Subarea 13) 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The site is currently cultivated as a vineyard. There are no mature trees on the site nor is there any significant vegetation on the site. To the north (across 6th street), is vacant and consist of cultivated vineyards. To the south and east (across Rochester Court) the parcels are developed with industrial buildings. The property to the west is partially vacant with an existing single-family home on the northeast corner of the parcel. 8. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 9. Contact Person and Phone Number: Rudy Zeledon, Assistant Planner (909) 477-2750 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: None Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 00-66 The B. Ivan Group 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 (/) Transportation/Circulation Public Services ( ) Population and Housing ( )Biological Resources (/) Geological Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources Utilities and Service Systems (,/) Water ( ) Hazards Aesthetics (./) Air Quality ( ) Noise ( ) Cultural Resources ( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance ( ) 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. Signed: l~ ~ eledo' n--~ ~nt Planner 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. Significant Issues and Supporting Information Sources: po~y u.~.ss T... 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposah a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or () () () (v') policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the () () () (v') vicinity? Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 00-66 The B. Ivan Group Page 3 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PotentiallyUnleSS T~an d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an ( ) ( ) ( ) (/) established community? · Comments: a-d) The site is within the General Industrial District (Subarea 13). The use as a industrial building is consistent with the General Plan and zoning designations for the area. Surrounding land uses are similar in nature. No increase in density or plan amendment is proposed; therefore, no impacts will result from the project. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PotentiallyUnleSS Than 2. POPULATION/t, NDHOUSING. Would the proposah a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local () () (./) population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either () () (/) directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable ( ( ) (/) housing? Comments: a-b) Construction activities at the site will be short-term and will not attract new employees to the area. Operation of the warehouse will include both warehouse and office/clerical positions. The addition of these employees will not create a demand for additional housing, as a majority of the employees will likely be hired from within the City or surrounding communities. c) The new warehouse will be constructed on a vacant 2.17-acre parcel. The area is designated General industrial and there are no residential structures within the vicinity. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PotentiallyUnless Than 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ( ) ( ) ( ) (/) b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) ( ) (/) ( ) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) ( ) (/) ( ) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 00-66 The B. Ivan Group Page 4 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Unless l~an d) Seiche hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~,) e) Landslides or mudflows? , ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) f) Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil ( ) ( ) (,/) conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) ( ) (,/) h) Expansive soils? ( ) ( ) (,/) i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) (,/) Comments: a-c) No known faults pass through the site. It is not in an Earthquake Zone, nor is it in the Rancho Cucamonga City Special Study Zone along the Red Hill Fault. The Red Hill Fault or Etiwanda Avenue Fault, passes within 2 miles north of the site, and the Cucamonga Fault Zone lies approximately 5 miles to the north. These faults are both capable of producing Mw 6.0 - 7.0 earthquakes, respectively. Also, the San Jacinto fault, capable of producing up to Mw 7.5 earthquakes, is 9 miles northeast of the site and the San Andreas, capable of up to M~, 8.2 earthquakes, is 12.5 miles northeast of the site. Each of these faults can produce strong ground shaking. Liquefaction could occur at the site if a strong earthquake coincides with an extended period of heavy rains raising the local water table. Soil type on-site and in the vicinity is Tujunga-Delhi. These soils are relatively stable, but subject to liquefaction when the water table is relatively shallow. Adhering to the Uniform Building Code will ensure that geologic impacts are less than significant. d) The site is not located near a body of water. e) The site is relatively flat so grading will be minimal and will create the necessary slope gradient to allow proper site drainage. f-h) Soil type on-site and in the vicinity is Tujunga-Delhi (TD-DG/AR). These soils are excessively drained, nearly level to moderately sloping soils formed on alluvial fans, relatively stable, but subject to liquefaction when the water table is relatively shallow. New structures are required to meet current earthquake standards as required by the Uniform Building Code. The Building and Safety Division will require a soils report for compaction and foundation requirements prior to issuance of building permits. The impact is not considered significant. i) The site contains no unique geologic or physical features. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 00-66 The B. Ivan Group Page 5 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant Mitigation SignificantNo 4. WATER. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, 0 (v') ( ) 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? O 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?. g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) ( ) (,,/) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) ( ) (,/') i) Substantial reduction in the amount of () () (,/) groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? Comments: a) The project is expected to result in changes in absorption rates and drainage patterns. A final Grading Plan will show how storm water runoff will be handled during both construction and operation. Approval of Grading Plans and conditions applied to the project by the City Engineer to ensure adequate site drainage will make this impact less than significant. b) The site is not located within the 100-year flood plain as indicated on FEMA maps or Figure III-G/2 "Flood Hazards" in the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan EIR. c-e) The project site is not located near a body of water. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant will provide a drainage study showing how storm water runoff will be conveyed. f-i) The project will not interfere with groundwater management practices in the area, as the site is not used for groundwater discharge. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 00-66 The B. Ivan Group Page 6 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Unless Than 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to ( ) ( ) (,/) ( ) an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) ( ) (v') ( ) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) cause any change in climate? d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) Comments: a) Potential impacts to air quality are consistent with the Public Health and Safety Super-Element within the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. With a gross area of 26,985 square feet, the project is under the 276,000 square foot threshold for potentially significant air quality impacts set by AQMD for daily operation of industrial buildings (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, 1993). It is also below the 1,102,520 square foot significance threshold for quarterly construction. To ensure potential air quality impacts from construction and operation of the project are compatible with regional air quality regulations the project was screened using the URBEMIS7G emissions model. Default values were used where project specific information was unavailable. The actual end use is unknown, the operational mobile source emissions were adjusted to increase truck trip percentages and decrease automobile trips to better reflect an industrial site rather than the default mixed commercial and residential land use. TABLE 1 URBEMIS7G Construction Emissiions Summary (Pounds per Day) Source ROG NOx CO PM~0 Unmit. Mit. Unmit. Mit. Unmit. Mit. Unmit. Mit. Grading 2.91 2.77 22.27 21.16 5.41 3.11 Worker Trips Stationary Equip. Arch. Coatings 10.82 10.28 - Asphalt 0.26 0.25 Totals 13.99 13.30 22.27 21.16 5.41 3.11 SCAQMDThres. 75 75 100 100 550 550 150 150 Si~]niflcance No No No No No No No No Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 00-66 The B. Ivan Group Page 7 TABLE 2 URBEMIS7G Operations Emissions Summary (Pounds per Day) Source ROG NOx CO PM~o Unmit. Mit. Onmit. Mit. Unmit. Mit. Unmit. Mit. Stat. Source 0.06 0.06 0.81 0.81 0.32 0.32 Mobile Source 2.50 2.42 4.19 4.03 19.12 18.39 1.07 1.02 Totals 2.56 2.48 5.00 4.84 19.44 18.71 1.07 1.02 SCAQMDThres. 55 55 55 55 550 550 150 150 Significance No No No No No No No No b) The project site is located in the General Industrial District of the City. There are no sensitive receptors (e.g. schools, hospitals, etc.) nearby. c-d) The end use of the proposed project, general warehouse/office facility, will not generate emissions that could cause climatic changes or objectionable odors. Potentially Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Po[eniJally Unless Thar~ 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (,./) ( ) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., () (,/) sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to () (,/') nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) (V') e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) ( ) ( ) (V') f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 00-66 The B. Ivan Group Page 6 Comments: a) The project site is part of the larger industrial area. The project is required to comply with Standard Conditions of Approval for provision of adequate ingress/egress from the site, employee/visitor parking on-site, and large truck access. Compliance with Conditions of Approval will ensure that project-related trips are less than significant. b-d~ The site is a rectangular parcel with a proposed entry ddveway on 6th Street and an exiting shared driveway on Rochester Court. On-site parking is proposed at the northeast, east, and southeast areas of the building. The building will be accessible to emergency vehicles. e-f) The proposed building will be set back from the street and will not pose a hazard or barrier to pedestrians or cyclists. g) The site is located approximately 4 miles from the Ontario Airport; the site is offset north of the flight path and will not be dangerous to users or aircraft. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Poter¢ielly Unless TharJ 7. 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., ( ) ( ) ( ) (V') eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and () () () (,/') vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) Comments: a) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service identifies the project area soil type as Tujunga- Delhi Sand Soils, which is a type of soil that is associated with the endangered Delhi Sands flower-loving fly (DSF). The site is characterized as an active vineyard. The site has been disked for many years, which removed native vegetation. Impact Sciences (biologist permitted by the U.S. Fish arid Wildlife Service to conduct surveys for the DSF) prepared a habitat assessment for the site on June 22, 2000. In summary, the results of the habitat-based survey indicated that the site does not currently support elements consistent with potential DSF habitat. Though loose, sandy soils are present and a few scattered native plants persist along the southern site boundary, the regular disturbances associated with active viticulture are not Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 00-66 The B. Ivan Group Page 9 conducive to the survival of DSF. The recurring soil perturbations, in combination with surrounding land use development and disturbances, further reduce the potential for DSF occurrence. Therefore, considering factors such as surrounding land use practices, disturbance history, and lack of documented occurrences of DSF in the vicinity, the subject property has Iow potential to support DSF. b-c) The site is characterized as' an active vineyard. The applicant has prepared a preliminary Landscape Plan that includes street trees as required by the Engineering Department. d) There is no riparian or wetland habitat on-site. e) Intermittent industrial development in the area has eliminated any wildlife corridors that may have occurred in the past. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PotenUallyUnleSS Than 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposab 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? Comments: a-b) The project will be required to conform to applicable City standards for energy conservation. c) The project site, like most of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, is within a Mineral Resources Zone for aggregate material (MP, Z-2). However, due to the urbanization of the area, the State Department of Mines and Geology considers the resource to be unmineable. Therefore, this impact is less than significant. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Po{entially UnleSS Than 9. 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? Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 00-66 The B. Ivan Group Page 10 Potentially Significant Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potenba~lyun/ess Than C) The creation of any health hazard or potential ( ) () ( ) (,/) health hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of () () () (,/') potential health hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable () () () (,/') brush, grass, or trees? Comments: a,c,d) Dudng a site visit on January 9, 2001, no evidence of discarded drums, containers, hazardous wastes, or discolored soils were observed. There was no indication of underground storage tanks or illegal dumping of refuse on-site. b) The project site is located in a developing industrial area where roads are constructed to accommodate planned land uses consistent with the General Plan. The project will not interfere with the flow of traffic on 6th Street or Rochester Court. Project plans will be reviewed and approved by City departments to determine adequate access for emergency vehicles. e) The project site is not located in a fire hazard area. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially UnleSs 'i~ 10. NOISE. Will the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) ( ) ((,/') b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) ( ) ((,/') Comments: a-b) The proposed project may produce noticeable short.-term and operational noise as the site's proposed construction and end use includes truck traffic. The project would increase noise levels since the site is currently vacant and the development would add people and traffic to the area. There are no sensitive receptors in the area and impacts to noise were not considered significant. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Polentially Unless Than 11. PUBLICSERVlCES. 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) Fire protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/') Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 00-66 The B. Ivan Group Page 11 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Unless Than b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) c) Schools? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/') d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/') e) Other governmental services? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) Comments: a-e) Fire Protection - The site is located on the southeast corner of Arrow Route and Utica Avenue, and is served by Fire Station #174 located at 11297 Jersey Boulevard, approximately 1 mile northwest of the project site. Standard Conditions of Approval from the Uniform Building and Fire Codes will be placed on the project. The construction of a 26,895 square industrial building is not considered significant. Police protection - Additional police protection is not required, as the addition of the industrial building will not change current facility operating hours and will not have a substantial increase in area to be patrolled because the project site is relatively small, slightly larger than 2 acres. Schools - The proposed industrial building will not generate a substantial number of new job opportunities or induce people to move to the project area; therefore, construction activities will not adversely impact local schools. Parks - Proposed construction activities will not generate a substantial number of new job opportunities or induce people to move to the project area; therefore, construction of the industrial building will not adversely impact local parks or recreational opportunities. Public facilities - The proposed project will utilize existing public facilities and will be consistent will the City of Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Area Districts. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: ~gnificant UiligatJo~ Sig~ifican[NO 12. 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 or natural gas? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/') b) Communication systems? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/') c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) e) Storm water drainage? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 00-66 The B. Ivan Group Page 12 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: s~g,~,c~,~ uiligation Significant No f) Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) ( ) (V') g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) Comments: a-g) The project will extend as necessary existing systems and utilities: The proposed project will not require major modifications or alterations to the existing utility systems. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PrJtentielly Unless 13.AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) c) Create light or glare? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) Comments: a) The project site is not located along a scenic highway and is small in size so it will not interfere with views of the mountains or other scenic views. b) The project Js a single-story warehouse/office building that will be in character with nearby developments in the area. c) The project will create new light and glare because the site is currently vacant. The design and placement of light fixtures will be shown on Site Plans, which require review for consistency with City standards. The impact is not considered significant. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: ~;ignific~nl MitigationSignificant NO 14.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposah a) Disturb Paleontological resources? ( ) (,/) b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) (,/) c) Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) (,/) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change, ( ) (/) which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within ( ) (,/) the potential impact area? Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 00-66 The B. Ivan Group Page 13 Comments: a-e) The site has not been identified in the City's Master Environmental Assessment as containing historic or cultural resources. The site is located in a developing industrial area and to date, no resources have been uncovered in the vicinity of the project site. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Unless *i~haeSSn t5, RECREATION. Would the proposal'. a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or () () () (,/') regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) Comments: a,b) The proposed project is the construction of a 26,895 square foot industrial building; therefore, there is no impact on recreation. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Poientia[ly Unless Than 16. 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? b) 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.) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 00-66 The B. Ivan Group Page 14 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Unless Than C) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatk, ely 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.) d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have () () () (,/') environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: a) Impact Sciences conducted a biological survey of the site on June 22, 2000. The site is characterized as an active vineyard. The site h~qs been disked for many years, which removed native vegetation. Though loose, sandy soils are present and a few scattered native plants persist along the southern site boundary, the regular disturbances associated with active viticulture are not conducive to the survival of DSF. No natural habitat exists on the site, and the property was reviewed and cleared for Delhi sands flower-loving fly habitat. No sensitive species were detected on-site and it is unlikely any will move onto the site due to the lack of natural habitat and surrounding industrial development. b) Because of the size of the project area, slightly more than 2.17 acres, and the type of use proposed, no short-term impacts were identified. c) The City has planned the General Industrial Area to include a variety of industrial and business park uses. Public services and utilities are available in the area. d) No significant adverse effects were identified in the Initial Study. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 00-66 The B. Ivan Group Page 15 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 eadier 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): · General Plan EIR (Certified April 6, 1981) · Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989) · Industrial Area Specific Plan EIR (Certified September 19, 1981 ) Cit3 of Rancho Cucamonga NEGATIVE DECLARATION The following Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act Section 21091 and 21092 of the Public Resources Code. Project File No.: Development Review 00-66 Public Review Period Closes: February 14, 2001 Project Name: Project Applicant: B. Ivan Group Project Location (also see attached map): Located at the southeast corner of Sixth Street and Rochester Court- APN: 229~263-04. Project Description: A request to construct a 26,895 square foot industrial building on 2.17 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 13). FINDING This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has conducted an Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment and is proposing this Negative Declaration based upon the following findiing: [] The Initial Study shows that there is no substanfial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. [] The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects but: (1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this proposed Negative Declaration was released for public reviewwould avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and (2) There is no substanfial evidence before the agency that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment. If adopted, the Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. Reasons to support this finding am included in the attached Initial Study. The project file and all mleted documents are available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division at 10500 Civic Center Drive (909) 477-2750 or Fax (909) 477-2847. NOTICE The public is invited to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration during the review period. February 14, 2001 Date of Determination Adopted By RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-66, FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 26,880 SQUARE FOOT WAREHOUSE/OFFICE BUILDING ON 2.17ACRES OF LAND IN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (SUBAREA 13), LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SIXTH STREET AND ROCHESTER COURT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 229-263-04. A. Recitals. 1. The B. Ivan Group has filed an application for the approval of Development Review 00-66 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review request is referred to as "the application." 2. On February 14, 2001, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a meeting on the application and concluded said meeting on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites 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 substantial e¥idenca presented to this Commission dudn9 the above- referenced meeting on February 14, 2001, including wdtten and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located at the southeast comer of Sixth Street and Rochester Court, with a Sixth Street frontage of approximately 236 feet and Rochester Court Street frontage of approximately 246 feet, and is presently unimproved with no curb, gutter, and sidewalk; and b. The property to the north (across Sixth Street) of the subject site is vacant, the properties to the east and south are developed with industrial buildings, the property to west is partially vacant with a single family home on the northeast comer of the parcel; and c. The application contemplates the construction of an industrial warehouse building consisting of a 19,567 square foot warehouse area, 1,509 square foot storage mezzanine, 5,000 square foot manufacturing area, 2,328 square foot office area and 476 square foot office mezzanine for a total gross building area of 28,880 square feet; and d. The proposed tilt-up concrete building is des!gned to be consistent with the architectural style of the surrounding area. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 00-66 - THE B. IVAN GROUP February 14, 2001 Page 2 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission dudng the above- referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and b. That the proposed use is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and c. That the proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code; and d. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. e. That the vacation and re-establishment of inundation areas on-site 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 subst;mtial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Neg;~tive Declaration attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference, 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 there under; 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, based upon the changes and alterations, which have been incorporated into the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effec~:s 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 the 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: Plannin,q Division 1) The proposed screen wall, at the east property line, shall be continued south along the entire east property line to ensure adequate screening of loading facilities from PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 00-66 - THE B. iVAN GROUP February 14, 2001 Page 3 public view. The wall height shall be at a minimum of 6 feet in height and the wall design shall be architecturally integrated with the design of the building (decorative masonry). 2) On Sixth Street, the pa~king area shall be screened with berrns at an average height of 3 feet (maximum slope not to exceed 31/2:1) 3) The recessed element at the top of the parapet line, as shown on the north and west elevations, shall be continued around to the east and south elevations. 4) Minimum drive aisle width adjacent to loading areas (without dock high doors) shall be 28 feet for two-way traffic. 5) All landscape planters shall be a minimum of 5-feet wide (inside dimension). 6) Catalog cuts of the proposed outdoor amenities within the outdoor eating/plaza area (benches, tables, etc.) and construction details shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner, prior to the issuance of building permits. 7) The design of the lighting fixtures and their structural support shall be architecturally compatible with the design of the building. Freestanding light standards shall not exceed 25 feet or the height of the on-site building. 8) The trash enclosure(s) shall be designed in accordance with City Standards and shall be architecturally integrated with the design of the building. En.qineedn.q Division 1) Complete all frontage street improvements on Sixth Street including, but not limited to, ddve approach, curb, gutter, sidewalk, street trees, two 9500 lumen HPSV streetlights, and off-site transition to join existing. Protect or replace R26(s) "No Parking" signs, and protect and/or provide additional traffic stdping and signage as required. 2) Complete all frontage street improvements on Rochester Court including, but not limited to, sidewalk, ddve approach, access ramp, street trees, and two 5800 lumen HPSV streetlights. Protect or replace existing curb, gutter, drive approach, street trees, R26(s) "No Parking" signs, and protect and/or provide additional traffic stdping and signage as required. 3) The median island on Sixth Street shall be landscaped with a paving stone pattern from Rochester Court to Charles Smith Avenue, in conformance with the Sixth Street median landscape master plan (per Drawing No. 1049, Sheet 10 updated to current City Standards). The Sixth Street median flare on the east side of the intersection with Rochester Court shall be reconstructed to meet current City Standards (nose to align with the point of curb return at the southeast comer). The developer may request a reimbursement agreement to recover costs in excess of one-half width of the median fronting this project from future development on eastedy adjacent and across the street properties. If the developer fails to submit for said reimbursement agreement within six months of the public improvements PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 00-66 - THE B. IVAN GROUP February 14, 2001 Page 4 being accepted by the City, all dghts of the developer to reimbursement shall terminate. 4) The developer shall honor the reimbursement :agreement, which is in process by the City, for the construction of improvements on Rochester Courl, prior to the issuance of building permits. 5) Pdvate drainage easements for cross-lot drainage to the south shall be provided and shall be recorded, pdor to the issuance of building permits. 6) Sidewalks shall cross drive approaches at the ;zero curb face (provide additional public right-of-way as needed). Driveway accent paving shall be located outside the public right-of-way. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the .adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DaY Of FEBRUARY 2001. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 14th day of February 2001, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT #: Development Review 00-66 SUBJECT: Construction of a 26,895 square foot industrial building APPLICANT: The B. Ivan Group LOCATION: Southeast corner of Sixth Street and Rochester Court ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: General Requirements completion Date 1. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its / agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The .applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. 2. A copy of the signed Resolution of Approval or City Planner's letter of approval, and all Standard __ __/ Conditions, shall be included in legible form on the grading plans, building and construction plans, and landscape and irrigation plans submitted for plan check. B. Time Limits 1. Conditional Use Permit, Variance, or DevelopmenVDesign Review approval shall expire if ___/ /__ building permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 5 years from the date of approval. No extensions are allowed. C. Site Development 1. 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, and the Industrial Area Specific Plan. Project No. DR 00-66 Completion Date 2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions __ __/ of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. 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. For single- family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults. 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. D. Building Design 1. 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 b,~= architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Details shall be included in building plans. 2. For commercial and industrial projects, paint roll-up doors and senlice doors to match main building colors. E. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on buildin~l plans) 1. All parking spaces shall be 9 feet wide by 18 feet long. When a side ef any parking space abuts / /_ a building, wall, support column, or other obstruction, the space shall be a minimum of 11 feet wide. sc.,2.00 2 Project No. DR 00-66 Completion Date 2. 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). 3. Textured pedestrian pathways and textured pavement across circulation aisles shall be provided /.__/__ throughout the development to connect dwellings/units/buildings with open spaces/plazas/ recreational uses. 4. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances __/ and exits shall be striped per City standards. 5. Handicap accessible stalls shall be provide(J 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. F. Landscaping 1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in / / the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape amhitect and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. 2. A minimum of 20% of trees planted within industrial projects, and a minimum of 30% within __/ / commemial and office projects, shall be specimen size trees - 24-inch box or larger. 3. 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 Augus! 21. 4. 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. 5. All private slopes of 5 feet or more 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 control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. 6. 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. 7. Special landscape features such as mounding, alluvial rock, specimen size trees, meandering / / sidewalks (with horizontal change), and intensified landscaping, is required along Sixth Street 8. 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. 9. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the ___/ design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division. 10.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. G. Signs 1. 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. sc.,2.oo 3 Project No. DR 00-66 Completion Date APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710 FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: H. General Requirements 1. Submit five complete sets of plans including the following: ~/ / a. Site/Plot Plan; b. Foundation Plan; c. Floor Plan; d. Ceiling and Roof Framing Plan; e. Electrical Plans (2 sets, detached) including the size of the main switch, number and size of service entrance conductors, panel schedules, and single line diagrams; f. Plumbing and Sewer Plans, including isometrics, underground diagrams, water and waste diagram, sewer or septic system location, fixture units, gas piping, and heating and air conditioning; and g.Planning Division Project Number (i.e., TT #, CUP #, DR #, etc.) clearly identified on the outside of all plans. 2. Submit two sets of structural calculations, energy conservation calcu at ons, and a soils report. /___/ Architect's/Engineer's stamp and "wet" signature are required prior to plan check submittal. 3. Separate permits are required for fencing and/or walls. 4. Contractors must show proof of State and City licenses and Workers' Compensation coverage to ..___/ / the City prior to permit issuance. 5. Business shall not open for operation prior to posting the Certificate of Occupancy issued by the ~__/ Building and Safety Division. I, Site Development 1. Plans shall be submitted for plan check and approved prior to consl:ruction. All plans shall be __/__/__ marked with the project file number (i.e., CUP 98-01). The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, Title 24 Accessibility requirements, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of permit application. Please contact the Building and Safety Division for availability of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts, 2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new commercial or industrial development or addition / / to an existing development, the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: Transportation Development Fee, Drainage Fee, School Fees, Permit and Plan Checking Fees. ^pplicant shall provide a copy of the school fees receipt to the Building and Safety Division prior to permit issuance. 3. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation and / / prior to issuance of building permits. 4. Construction activity shall not occur between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. Monday /.__/ through Saturday, with no construction on Sunday or holidays. sc.,2.oo 4 Project No. DR 00-66 Completion Date 5, Construct trash enclosure(s) per City Standard (available at the Planning Division's public /__/__ counter). 6. The following is required for side yard use for increase in allowable area: / / a. Provide a reduced site plan (8 1/2" x 11") which indicates the non-buildable easement. b. Recorded "Covenant and Agreement for the Maintenance of a Non-Buildable Easement," which is signed by the appropriate property owner(s). c. Sample document is available from the E~uilding and Safety Division. J. New Structures 1. Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for required occupancy separation(s). 2. Plans for food preparation areas shall be approved by County of San Bernardino Environmental __/~ Health Services prior to issuance of building permits. 3. Provide smoke and heat venting in accordance with UBC Section 906. / / 4. Upon tenant improvement plan check submittal, additional requirements may be needed. / / K. Grading 1. 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. 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to / / pertorm such work. 3. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the /_ / time of application for grading plan check. 4. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. __/ / 5. A separate grading plan check submittal is required for all new construction projects and for /__/__ existing buildings where improvements being proposed will generate 50 cubic yards or more of combined cut and fill The Grading Plan shall be prepared, stamped, and signed by a California Registered Civil Engineer. ~ APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: L, Dedication and Vehicular Access 1. Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets (measured from /__.._/ street centerline): 3_~3 total feet on Rochester Court __/_ / 2. Corner property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards. __/ /__ 3.Vehicular access rights sha~l be dedicated to the City for the following streets, except for approved openings: Sixth Street Project No. DR 00-66 Completion Date M. Street Improvements 1. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: / / Street Name Curb & A.C. Side- Drive Street Street Comm Medan B ke --- Gutter Pvmt walk Appr. Lights Trees Trail Island Trail uther Sixth Street X X c X X X Rochester Court X, X X X Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan check. (c) If so marked, sidewalk shall be curvilinear per Standard 114. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu of construction fee shall be provided for this item. 2. 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. b. 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. c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and __/__/ interconnect conduit shalr be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. d. 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: (t)Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along strs,ets, 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. e. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City /__/__ Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with __/___/ adequate detours during construction. 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. Project No. DR 00-66 Completion Date 4. Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with / / adopted policy. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project intersections, including driveways. Local residential street intersections and commercial or industrial driveways may have lines of sight plotted as required. N. Public Maintenance Areas 1. 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 c6sts shall be borne by the developer. 2. Parkway landscaping on the following street(s) shall conform to the results of the respective Beautification Master Plan Sixth Street. O. Utilities 1. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. 2. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from the CCWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. 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. 3. Approvals have not been secured from all utilities and other interested agencies involved. Approval of the final pamel map will be subject to any requirements that may be received from them. P. General Requirements and Approvals 1. An easement for a joint use driveway shall be provided prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first, for: Rochester Court and Sixth Street. 2. A non-refundable deposit shall be paid te 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: Q. General Fire Protection Conditions 1. Mello Roes Community Facilities District requirements shall apply to this project. The developer /_____ shall commence, participate in, and consummate or cause to be commenced, participated in, or consummated, a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) for the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District to finance construction and/or maintenance of a fire station to serve the development. The CFD shall be formed by the District and the developer by the time recordation of the final map occurs. 2. Fire flow requirement shall be: _._/ / 2,250 gallons per minute, Per '97 UFC Appendix Ill-A, 3, (b) (Increase). -OR x A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department personnel prior to water plan approval. Completion Date x For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional fire flow test of the on-site hydrants shall be conducted by the buildeddeveloper and witnessed by fire department personnel after construction and prior to occupancy. 3. Fire hydrants are required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed /__/ and operable prior to delivery of any combustible building materials on site (i.e., lumber, roofing materials, etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire department personnel. 4. 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-inch riser with a 4-inch and a 2-1/2-inch outlet. Substandard hydrants shall be upgraded to meet this standard. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specifications on approved brands and model numbers. 5. 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 s;tock, etc. Contact the Fire Safety Division to determine if the sprinkler system is adequate for proposed operations. 7. Sprinkler system monitoring shall be installed and operational immediately upon completiOn of /___/ sprinkler system. 8. Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District's fire lane standards, as noted: / / x All roadways per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection Distdct C)rdinance 32. 9. All trees and shrubs planted in any median shall be kept trimmed to a minimum of 14 feet, 6 /__/__ inches from the ground up, so as not to impede fire apparatus. 10. 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. 11. A tenant use letter shall be submitted prior-to final building plan approw]l. Contact the Fire Safety /_ / Division for the proper form letter. 12. Fire District fee(s), plus a $1 per "plan page" microfilm fee will be due to the Rancho Cucamonga / / Fire Protection District as follows: x $132 for CCWD Water Plan review/underground water supply. x $677 for New Commercial and Industrial Development (per new building).** **Note: Separate plan check fees for Tenant Improvement work, fire protection systems (sprinklers, hood systems, alarms, etc.) and/or any consultant reviews will be assessed upon submittal of plans. 13. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1997 UBC, UFC, /___/ UPC, UMC, and RCFD Standards 32 and 15 and 1996 NEC. R. Special Permits 1. Special permits may be required, depending on intended use, as noted below: sc-,2-oo 8 Project No. DR 00-66 Completion Date a. General Use Permit shall be required for any activity or operation not specifically described / / below, which in the judgement of the Fire Chief iS likely to produce conditions hazardous to life or property. b. High piled combustible stock. __/ / NOTE: SEPARATE PLAN CHECK FEES FOR TENANT IMPROVEMENTS, FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS (SPRINKLERS, HOOD SYSTEMS, ALARMS, ETC.), AND/OR ANY CONSULTANT REVIEWS WILL BE ASSESSED UPON SUBMITTAL OF PLANS. NOTE: A SEPARATE GRADING PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL IS REQUIRED FOR ALL NEW CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS AND FOR EXISTING BUILDINGS WHERE IMPROVEMENTS BEING PROPOSED WILL GENERATE 50 CUBIC YARDS OR MORE OF COMBINED CUT AND FILL. THE GRADING PLAN SHALL BE PREPARED, STAMPED AND SIGNED BY A CALIFORNIA REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER. SC-12-00 9 '~,~ I~ANCH© CUCAHONGA Staff Report DATE: February 14, 2001 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Brent Le Count, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-72 - FRITO LAY - A request to construct a 25,242 square foot office addition at the existing Frito Lay Facility on 37 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 5), located at 9535 Archibald Avenue - APN: 210-071-28. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoninq: North - Industrial Park Development; General Industrial (Subarea 4) South - Vacant land in Ontado across 4th Street East - Existing Frito Lay facilities; General Industrial (Subarea 5) West - Office buildings; Industrial Park (Subarea 16) B. General Plan Desiqnations: Project Site - General Industrial North - General Industrial South - Vacant land in City of Ontario East - General Industrial West - Industrial Park C. Site Characteristics: The Frito Lay site is developed with rather functional-looking buildings and various tanks and loading facilities. The proposed addition would close off the northern most driveway entrance on Archibald Avenue and replace it with landscaping. D. Parkinq Calculations: Number of Number of Type of Square Parking Spaces Spaces Use Footaqe Ratio Required Provided Office 25,242 1/250 101 101 ITEM I PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 00-72 - FRITO LAY February 14, 2001 Page 2 ANALYSIS: A. General: A high architectural screen wall surrounds much of the site, so the industrial aspect of the facility is not visually prominent from Archibald Avenue9 or 4th Street. The office area at the northwest comer of the site, however, is exposed and visually prominent from Archibald Avenue. The building incorporates two primary building materials (textured tilt up concrete and sandblasted concrete) along with glazing, window treatments, and wall reveals. The office addition is proposed to be one-story. B. Desiqn Review Committee: The Design Review Committee reviewed the project on December 19, 2000, (McNiel, Stewart, Coleman) and requested that the project be redesigned and brought back for further review. The Committee reviewed the revised plans on January 16, 2001, (McNiel, Stewart, Henderson) and requested further enhancement, but suggested that plans be informally shown to the Committee members at the following Commission meeting. Staff reviewed the revisions with the Committee members on January 24, 2001, and the Committee recommended approval. Please refer to the attached Design Review Action Agendas for further details. C. Technical Review Committee: The Technical and Grading Review Committees reviewed the project and recommended approval subject to conditions outlined in the attached Resolution of Approval. D. Environmental Assessment: The applicant completed Part I of the Initial Study and staff completed Part II, the Environmental Checklist. Staff found no evidence of potentially significant environmental impacts related to the project, as it is intended only to serve existing employees. If the Planning Commission concurs, than issuance of a Negative Declaration would be in order. RECOMMENDATION; Staff recommends approval of Development Review 00-72 by adoption of the Resolution of Approval with attached Standard Conditions and with the issuance of a Negative Declaration. City Planner BB:BLC\ma Attachments: Exhibit"A"- Site Plan Exhibit "B" - Grading Plan Exhibit "C"- Landscape Plan Exhibit "D" - Floor Plan Exhibit "E"- Elevations Exhibit"F"- Design Review Action Agendas dated December 19, 2000 and 'January 16, 2001 Exhibit "G"~ Initial Study Parts I and II Resolution Approving Development Review 00-72 Standard Conditions of Approval DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:50 p.m. Brent Le Count December 19, 2000 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-72 - FRITO LAY - A request to construct a 25,242 square foot office addition at the existing Frito Lay Facility on 37 acres of land in Subarea 5 (General Industrial), located at 9535 Archibald Avenue - APN: 210-071-28. Desiqn Parameters: The Fdto Lay site il developed with rather functional looking buildings and vadous tanks and loading facilities. The proposed addition would close off the northern most driveway entrance on Archibald Avenue and replace it with landscaping. Much of the site is surrounded by a high architectural screen wall so the industrial ~,~spect of the facility is not visually prominent from Archibald Avenue or Fourth Street. The office area at the northwest comer of the site however is exposed and visually prominent from Archibald Avenue. The building incorporates two pdmary building materials along with glazing and wall reveals. The entdes to the building are / located on the south and north elevations with minimal visual presence relative to Archibald Avenue. The office addition is proposed to be one story. 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. The proposed addition is a significant opportunity to create a high quality image for Fdto Lay. The building design lacks visual interest and wall articulation. While this may be acceptable for the other parts of the building that are behind the architectural screen wall, the office expansion is visible from Archibald Avenue. Therefore, provide substantially more glazing and architectural features commensurate with the office function of the building. The entry portion on the south elevation with horizontal and vertical change of plane, curved feature over entry doors, and glazing represents the minimum acceptable level of articulation for the remainder of the expansion. 2. Provide enhanced entry statement by either relocating entrances to more visible locations relative to Archibald Avenue or through the use of architectural focal features such as a towers, domes, massing, color, trellises, etc. and landscaping. 3. The applicant is proposing painted concrete tilt-up and a band of texcote (looks like stucco). Staff does not believe this meets the intent of Industrial Area Specific Plan requirement for two primary exterior building materials. From public view along Archibald Avenue, the texcote finish may not be distinguishable from the painted concrete walls. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. All roof drain features shall be located behind the parapet and inside the building walls. 2. Provide a minimum 2-foot deep parapet return wherever verticel change of plane occurs to ensure a quality look and avoid a fin like appearance. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. All roof and ground mounted equipment shall be completely screened from all off-site views. Parapets shall be designed to screen roof equipment rather than relying on roof screens. DRC COMMENTS DR 00-72 - FRITO LAY December 19, 2000 Page 2 2. A minimum of one tree per 30 linear feet of building wall plus one tree per 30 linear feet of property line plus one tree per 3 parking spaces shall be provide. 3. Provide shade, tables, and chairs,in outdoor employee eating area. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be revised in light of the above comments and brought back for further review. Desi.qn Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Brent Le Count The applicant did not present revised renderings to address the design issues identified in the staff report. Further, the architect indicated that the colored renderings, colored elevations, and building materials sample board were inconsistent and were incorrect. The applicant stated that there was significant Corporate level resistance to any design changes, claiming that any change will cost too much money and exceed the project budget. The Committee explained the City's goals to create a high quality community and the importance of their project at a major City gateway and along a Special Boulevard. The Committee indicated that the proposed design was not acceptable and offered several examples of recently completed projects, which inspire creative solutions. The Committee informed the applicant that if they chose, the project could proceed to the Planning Commission without a recommendation for approval from the Committee. The applicant said they wish instead to resolve the design issues with the Committee. The Committee requested that the project be revised in light of staff's comments and be brought back for further review. The Committee recommended that the applicant restudy the architectural design to provide a higher quality appearance, particularly through articulation and materials, and to avoid large expanses of blank walls. This may include use of additional glazing (or reorientation of the glazing without an increase of the total glazed area), use of eyebrows and other decorative features to accentuate windows, insetting windows to provide a sense of depth, decorative cornices, creative use of colors, etc. The Committee recommended that the applicant visit and study several different examples of quality architecture: 1 ) the Catellus/GATX buildings on Milliken Avenue, south of Foothill, 2) CCWD administrative headquarters, and 3) new office buildings directly across the street from Frito Lay (at the northwest corner of Archibald Avenue and Fourth Street). The Committee made it clear that they are not necessarily requesting that the design incorporate different materials or more expensive materials than are proposed but that the materials be assembled in a more architecturally integrated fashion. Furthermore, it is not necessary to change the intedor floor plan or relocate the building entry points. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 8:20 p.m. Brent Le Count January 16, 2001 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-72 - FRITO LAY - A request to construct a 25,242 square foot office addition at the existing Frito Lay Facility on 37 acres of land in Subarea 5 (General Industrial), located at 9535 Archibald Avenue - APN: 210-071-28. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Larry Henderson Staff Planner: Brent Le Count Staff walked-on a revised design for the Frito Lay Project. The applicant presented a design with decorative window treatment and a cornice feature. The Committee is in favor of the revised design but wishes to have the following refinements reviewed informally before the item goes before the entire Commission: 1. Vertical parapet projections shall have a minimum 2-foot retum to convey a sense of depth and quality and avoid a Hollywood set appearance. 2. Provide some form of wall surface treatment along the east elevation of the southern entry area and the west elevation near the northwest corner of the building. 3. Plans shall be revised to accurately reflect the color scheme proposed (plans show beige scheme but applicant told Committee gray scheme is proposed). The applicant agreed to the requested revisions. ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM o,~~o (Part I - Initial Study) ~nn~g (909) 477-275O INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE PROCESSFD. Please note that it is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that the application is complete at the time of submiital; ~ staff ~11 not be available to perform work required to provide missing information. Application Number for the project to which this form pertains: Project f~ito Lav AS~ 2000 - Rar.--h~ ~"~K~a Name & Address of developer or project Fri~ Sponso~ 9535 Ar'~hlh~]d Avenue Contact Per~on & ]]oJ:) Rim-.gi Address: Frjfn ]'.a~. ~ ~a, ~ 9~730 I:\PLANNING\FINAL\FORMS\COUNTER\iNiTSTD1,WPD 3~00 ~ \~ Page'1 Name & Address of pe~=on prepa~g this form (if different from above): Peter H. Skirbst, A.I.A ~ne t~ske] ] Cu,~any 111 Riverside Avenue Jacksonv~ ] ]~, Florida 32202 Telephone Number:. ~ 904) 791-4500 Informati'on inc#cated by asten'sk (9 ia not required of non.consb'ucEon CUP--s unless othenviso requested by staff. '1) Provide a futi scale (8-1/2 x 11) copy of the USGS Quadrant Sheet(s) which incl,~,des b~e project site, and indicate the site boundadea. / 2) Provide a set of color photographs which show representative views into the site horn the north, south, east and west; views into and from the site from the pdmary access points which se/ye the site; and representative views of significant features from the site. Include a map showing location of each photograph. 3) Project Location (describe): Th~ pro_~-~ c~nsi.~t~ of an _expansion/renova~l t~ th~ ~wi~einq Pri~o Lay facility located on the north~_~t inf~r-~nfion of 4th Street and Archibald Avenue. 4) Assessor-s Parcel Numbe~ (attach additional sheet if necessary): 210-071-28 '5) Gross Site Area (ac./sq. ft.): Total Drooertv area: 37.09 ac / 1.615.564 Area within limits of construction: 0.98 ac / 42,687 s.f. '6) Net Site Area (total site size minus ama of public streets & proposed dedications): 7) Describe any proposed general plan amendment or zone change which would affect the project site (attach additional sheet if necessary: h~LANNING\FiNAL\FORMS\COUNTER\iNiTSTD1.WPD 3/00 "~ ~ ~. Page 2 8) Include a description of all pen'nits which will be neceasary from the Cib/ of Rancho Cucamonga and other govemmental agencies in order to fully implement the project: S~te Develc{~r~nt Permit Building Permit 9)Describe the physical seffing of the site as it exists before the project including information on topography, soil stablltly, plants and animals, mature trees, b'ails and roads, drainage c(~urses, and scenic aspects. Describe any existing stnlctures on site (including age and condition) and ~he use of the structures. Attach photographs of significant features desc~bed. In addition, site all sources of information (i.e., geological ancYor hydmtogic studies, biotic and archeological surveys, traffic studies): The Frito Lay property is d fully developed industrial parcel with associated drivewdys, p4rking, truck loading areas and storn~ater manag~-~t. The pro~__rt¥ slopes d~roximately 1 to 2 percent frc~ north to south. S~,~ater along the parking lot and driveways is d~rected to an area of controlled discharqe at the corner of Archibald Avenue and 4th Street. Stor~r fr~n the roof and pdtio area is directed to discharge to the right-of-way of Archibdld Avenue. The property is landscaped alon~ the fro{it of the ~,~ which faces Archibald Avenue. A shrub screenw411 divides property p~rking fron Archibald Avenue. lO)Describe the known cultural ancYor histodcal aspects of the site. Site all sources of information (books, published reports and oral history): There are no known culture and/or historical asDects of the site, h\PLAN NING\FINAL\FORMS\COUNTER\iNiTSTD1 .VVPD 3/0(3 11) Descn'be any noise sources and their levels that now affect ~he site (aircraft, roadway noise, etc.) and how they will affect proposed uses: There is no change proposed to the current use of t~ site and no change ~nti~i~ated to the current external noise sources. (Traffic r~i~= fLuu 4th Street and Archibald Avenue). 12) Descdbe the proposed project in deta~7. This should pm'vide an adequate desc#p§oe of the site in ten'ns of ultimate use which will result from the proposed project. Indicate if there are proposed phases for development, the extent of development to occur with each phase, and the anUcipated completion of each increment. Attach additional sheet(s) if necessaq/: The proposed project is an expansion/renovation of the o-z'i~ting office and administration area. The proposed expansion will be toward the ~st m]nng Archibald Avenue. Existing pav~r~nt will be re~3v~d to allow for the expansion, which will increase the pervious area of the project. The pr~ expansion/renovation will not qenerate an increase in e~ployment, nor an increase in traffic. No significant change will be m~r~= to the ~xi-~ting storrm;ater system. 13)Describe the surrounding properties, including information On plants and animals and any cultural, historical, or scenic aspects. Indicate the type ofland use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity ofla~d use (one-family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.)and scale of development (height, frontage, setback; rear yard, etc.): ~ ,~i~, ~.~ m~rr(~ded on all si~ by o-,.,.~rcial and indu.~l · a Dew Cutmm~=~rcial site tmd~r c[~stl-uctio~ across the street (west ~i~ of Archibald Avenue). The existinq Frito Lay property includes an existinq, w~ll defined landscape buffer on 4th Street and Archibald a~enue. 14) Will the proposed project change the pallern, scale or character of the sun'ounding general area of the project? ~ne current pattern, scale or charace~r of the surroun,~ng general area will n~t be 'chan~ed by the p~uF-osed project. I:\PLANNING\FINAL\FORMS\COUNTER\INITSTDi.WPD 3/00 '"~-\%~. Paae 4 15) Indicate the ~/pe of short-term and tong-ten~ noise to be generated, including source and amounL How will these noise levels affect adjacent properHos and on-site uses. What methods of sound proofing am proposed? No chanqe is proposed in the current noise levels f~,, the facility. Noise generated frc~ standard construction practices (during the construc~inn of the project) will be limited to n~rm~] workin~ hours. '16) Indicate proposed removals and/or raplacements of r~ature or scenic trees: No '~ature"' or "scenic" trees are proposed to be r~mDved. The project will be landscaped in accordance with the city req~ .... ~Ls, includinq the conversic,, of an existing paved driveway to a new landscaped buffer. 17) Indicate any bodies of water (including domestic water supplies) into which the site drains/ ~ ~h,an_c~ is _proposed to the current site drainaqe paLL~z.s. Existino conditi~n.~ IIndicate expected amount of water usage. (See Attachment A for usage estimates). For fu~her clarification, please contact the Cucamonga Counh/ Water Distdct at 987-2591. a. Residential (gal/day) n/a Peak use (gal/Day) ll/c] b. Commercial/ind. (gal/day/ac) .[, .500 Peak use (gal/rain/ac) 3,000 19) Indicate proposed method of sewage disposal. Sep~c Tank XXX Sewe~ If septic tanks are proposed, attach percolation tests. If dischan:je to a sanitacy sewage system is proposed indicate expected daily sewage generation: (See Attachment A for usage estimates). For further clarification, please contact the Cucamonga Counb/ Water Distdct at 987- 2591. *Note: No change is proposed to the cUrrent sewage disposal method and rates of discharge. a. Residential (gal/day) n/a b. Commercial/Ind. (gal/day/ac) RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS: 20) Number of residential units: Detached (indicate range of parcel sizes, minimum lot size and maximum lot size: n./,~ h%PLANNING%FINAL\FORMS\COUNTER\iNiTSTD1.WPD 3/00 '~J----~' ~ m,,,-,o, Attached (indicate whether units am rental or for sale unit~): n/a 21)Anticipated cange of sale ptfces and/or rents: Sale P#ce(s) ~ n/a Rent (per month) $_, to 22) Specify number of bedrooms by unit type: 23) Indicate anticipated household size by unit type: 2#)Indicate the expected number of school children who will be residing within the project: Contact the appropriate School Districts as shown in Attachment B: a. Elementary: b. Junior High: c. Senior High COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL PROJECT~ 25) Describe type of use(s) and major function(s) of commercial, industrial or institution,al uses: The existing facility is a sn~ck food processing plant which includes the process~x], packaging and storage of the locker rocm, etc. ) The proposed project consists of u~_p:~s (expansio~ and ren~ration) to the ac~ministrativ~ and support facilities. 26)Total floor area of commercial, industrial, or institutional uses by type: (18,836 new oon~) Entire facility: office/administration 33,563 s.f. War~housir~: 250.100 s.f. h\PLANNING\FINAL\FORMS\COUNTER%iNITSTD1.WPD 3/00 '~--- \{~:) Page 6 27) Indicate houm of opemUon: The plant currently operates 24 hours/day, 7 days/week. No change is proposed ~ ~ ~t ]'~]1~.~ of ~a~on, 28) Number of Total: No change is proposed is the current plant population. ~ere employees: are currently 655 total ~lovees. Maximum Shift: 310 ~=l~lovees 77me of Maximum Shift: 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. 29) Provide breakdown of anticipated job classifications, including wage and salary ranges, aa well as an indication of the rate of hire for each classification (aftach additional sheet if neces.~ary): No chanqe is proposed to the ~w~t~q job c]am-~fications for this project. It / is an upgrade to the existing ~loyee s~port facilities. 30) Estimation of the number of workers to be hired that currently reside in the City: , ~r~ ~ ~i~tely 110 ~, ]<~(~_s ~ ~ic~ in t]~ city. For commercial and indus~al uses only, indicate the source, type and amount of air pollution emissions. (Data should be verified through the South Coast Air Quality Management Dis~ct, at (818) 572-6283): There is no change proposed in the source, type or ~m~unt of air pollution ~mi-~ions. ~ssions are currently qenerated frc~ boilers~ fryers and ovens. These va/ues ..~ r~ported annually, and on file with the South CodSt Air ~lity Fx~n~nt District. .ALL PROJECTS 32)Have the water, sewer, tim, and flood control agencies sewing the project been contacted to determine their ability to provide adequate service to the proposed pmject? If so, please indicate their response. 3~ill be d sliqht decrease in the storm~ater runoff fr~u the facility due to a ~ in tJ~ ~t of i ~f~i~ ~ ~iat~ v~th t~ pmjc. ¢~ Stomaf~r }~t Plan ~1~ with t~ z~lic~tion. ) I:\PLANNING\FINAL\FORMS~COUNTERUNITSTD1 .VVPD 3/00 "~ ~ ¢1~ Page7 _.,in the known history of this prope~y, has t~er~ been any use, s~age, or discharge of hazan~lous and/or toxic mate~fals? '~'~) Examples of hazan~ous and/ortox;c materials include, but am not limited to PCB=s; radioas~e substances; pesticides and herbicides; fuels, oils, solvents, and other flammable liquids and gasas~ Also note underground storage of any of the above. Please list the mate#als and dsscdbe their use, storage, ancYor discha~e on the properly, as well as the dates of use, if known. mt~ri~ls ~ this prc~. ~ is c~e~tly (1) 2'.0,000 g~]]c.~ ~,ht~a]]e~d 34) Will the proposed project involve the temporary or long-term use, storage or discha~e of hazardous and/or toxic materials, including but not limited to those examples listed above? If yes, provide an inventory of all such mater~ate to be used and proposed method of disposal. The location of such uses, along with the storage and shipment areas, shall be shown and labeled on the application plans. NO use, storage or discharge of hazdrdous and/or toxic materi,~lm ~ p~= . Any mteria]s associated with standard constructioa p3c~'~t/<~ for an nffir~ area e~pansion would be used, stored and disposed of in accordance with all d~licable codes and regulations. I hereby cerED, that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for adequate evaluation of this project to the best of my ability, that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct tot he best of my knowledge and belief. I furlher understand that additional infon~ation may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaluation can be made by the City of Rancho Cuca~. Titte: A/E Project Principal (~ent for Owner) h\PLANNING~INAL\FORMS\COUNTER\INiTSTD1.VVPD 3/00 "~ Page 8 City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: Development Review 00-72 2. Related Files: N/A 3. Description of Project: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-72 - FRITO LAY - A request to construct a 25,242 square foot office addition to house existing employees at the Frito Lay Facility on 37 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 5), located at 9535 Archibald Avenue - APN: 210-071-28. 4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Bob Biacsi Frito Lay, Inc. 9535 Archibald Avenue Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 5. General Plan Designation: General Industrial 6. Zoning: General Industrial District (Subarea 5) 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The site is located at the northeast corner of Fourth Street and Archibald Avenue. The site is occupied by the existing Frito Lay manufacturing facility. There are recently completed offices to the west across Archibald Avenue, an existing industrial park development to the north, and Fourth Street to the south. 8. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 9. Contact Person and Phone Number: Brent Le Count Associate Planner (909) 477-2750 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: None Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 00-73 - MARC DALE AND ASSOCIATES 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 ( ) Transportation/Circulation ( ) Public Services ( ) Population and Housing ( ) Biological Resources ( ) Utilities and Service Systems II (X) Geological Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources ( ) Aesthetics II(X) Water ( ) Hazards ( ) Cultural Resources ( ) Noise ( ) Recreation Il(x) Air Quality ( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: (X) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Signed: /~/~-" '~a Brent Le Count, AICP Associate Planner January 22, 2001 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: po~er~,y u.~,,~ T..n Significant Mitigation Significant No 1. I_AND [JSE AND PI_ANNING. Would the proposah a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) ( ) (X) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or () () (X) policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the () () (X) vicinity? d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an () ( (X) established community? 2-so Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 00-72 - Frito Lay Page 3 Comments: a-d) The project site is located in an industrial area that is essentially fully developed. The office addition is consistent with industrial development in the area. No increase in density or plan amendment is proposed; therefore, no land use impacts will result from the project. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially UnleSS 131an Significa~t Mitigation Significant NO 2. POPULATION AND HOUS~IG. Would the proposal: ;~) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local () () () (X) population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable () () () (X) housing? Comments: a-c) Construction activities at the site will be short-term and not attract new employees to the area. The office expansion is intended to serve existing employees of the Frito Lay plant rather than accommodating an increased workforce. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Sig~fica~t Mitigation Significant No 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLIEvlS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Seiche hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) f) Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil () () (X) () conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) h) Expansive soils? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 00-72 - Frito Lay Page 4 Comments: a-c) The site is located in an area of high regional seismicity. There are no known active or potentially active faults trending toward or through the site. The proposed development lies outside of any earthquake fault zone and the potential for damage due to direct fault rapture is considered very remote. d) The site is not located near a body of water. e) The site is flat and developed so grading will be minimal. f-h) Soil type on-site and in the vicinity is Tujunga-Delhi (TD-DG/AR). This soil association may have limited soil bearing capacity. The Building and Safety Division requires a soils report be submitted to the City Engineer prior to issuance of grading permits. New structures are required to meet current earthquake standards as required by the Uniform Building Code. The impact is not considered significant. i) The site contains no unique geologic or physical features. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PotentiallyUnless Tha~ 4. WATER. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) the rate and amount of surface water run-off? b) Exposure of people or property to water related () () ) (x) hazards such as flooding? c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of ( ) ( ) ) (X) surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any () () ) (X) water body? e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) water movements? f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either () ) () (X) through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) ) ( ) (X) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) ) ( ) (X) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) otherwise available for public water supplies? Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 00-72 - Frito Lay Page 5 Comments: a-b) Development of the project site is expected to result in nominally decreased absorption rates as the site is already developed. The flows will be conveyed to drainage facilities designed to handle the flow. The impact is not considered significant. c-e) The project is not located near a body of water. The impact is not considered significant. f-i) The project will not interfere with groundwater management practices in the area because the site is not used for groundwater recharge. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Unless Than Significant Miligahon Significant NO 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) ( ) (X) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or () () (X) cause any change in climate? d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: a-b) Potential impacts to air quality are consistent with the Public Health and Safety Super Element within the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. During construction, there is the possibility that fugitive dust will be emitted from grading the site. Sources of emissions during construction include exhaust emissions from construction vehicles and equipment and fugitive dust generated as a result of construction vehicles and equipment traveling over exposed surfaces. NOx and PM10 levels are not expected to be exceeded during construction because of the limited size of the site and minimal grading required. The impact is not considered significant. c-d) The end use of the proposed project, general warehouse/office facility, will not generate emissions that could cause climatic changes or objectionable odors since no additional manufacturing activity is proposed. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant Mitigation Significant No 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 00-72 - Frito Lay Page 6 b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp ( ) (X) curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatiblE, uses (e.g., farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby' ( ) (X) uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) (X) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) (X) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting ( ) () ( ) (X) alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? / g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: a) The proposed office expansion is intended to serve existing employee base; therefore, no increase in traffic trips are anticipated. b-f) The project will utilize existing driveways off Archibald Avenue. There is no impact. g) Located approximately 3 miles northeast of the Ontario Airport, the site is offset from the flight path and will not be dangerous to the users or aircraft. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Un[ess Than 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their () () () (X) habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees, ) () ) (X) eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., ) () ) (X) eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal () () () (X) pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: a, e) The site is fully developed and not indicated as potential habitat for any endangered or threatened species. There is no impact. b-c) The existing trees in the vicinity of the addition will be protected in place with construction barriers as shown on conceptual plans. There is no impact. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 00-72 - Frito Lay Page 7 d) There is no riparian or wetland habitat on-site. Impact ,nOc~ eRrpora,ledPttialySigni~cantImpact Impact Less Impact Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Po,e.,~.,yu.,.- Th~. 8.ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and () () ) (X) inefficient manner? / c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral ( ) ( ) ) (X) resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? Comments: a-b) The project will be required to conform to applicable City standards for energy conservation. c) The project site, like most of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, is within a Mineral Resources Zone for aggregate material (MRZ-2). However, due to the urbanization of the area, the State Department of Mines and Geology considers the resoume to be unmineable; therefore, this impact is less than significant. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PotentiaJly Unless Than 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of ) () () (X) hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency response ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential ) () () (X) health hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential ) ( ) ( ) (X) health hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable ) () () (X) brush, grass, or trees? Comments: ac, d) The project entails additional office space. No manufacturing activities beyond what is currently in operation are proposed. The office addition is only intended to serve the existing employee base; no additional employees will result. There is no impact. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 00-72 - Frito Lay Page 8 b) The project site essentially developed. A small parking area will be installed with the project and the parking layout will be designed to accommodate emergency vehicles. The project will rely on existing driveways on Archibald Avenue for access. There is no impact. e) The site is not located in a high-fire hazard area. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Poter~tially Ur~less Tt~an 10. NOISE. Will the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: a-b) The proposed project may produce noticeable short-term construction related noise. Noise levels are not expected to exceed existing arnbient noise levels. There are no sensitive receptors in the area and impacts to noise are not considered significant. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Po~entlaJlyUnless Than 11. 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) Fire protection? ( ) ( ) ) (X) b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) ) (X) c) Schools? ( ) ( ) ) (X) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ( ) ) (X) e) Other governmental services? ( ( ) ) (X) Comments: a-e) Fire Protection - The site is located at the northe;~st corner of Fourth Street and Archibald Avenue in Rancho Cucamonga. There are two fire stations within approximately 2 miles of the site, one at Archibald and San Bernardino Road, the other at the southwest corner of Jersey Boulevard .and Milliken Avenue. Standard Conditions for Fire Divisions and Building and Safety Codes will apply. Police Protection - Additional police protection is not required because no additional employees are anticipated as a result of the addition. Schools - The proposed construction will not generate new job opportunities or · induce people to move to the project area; therefore, the project will not impact school facilities. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 00-72 - Frito Lay Page 9 Parks - The proposed construction will not generate new job opportunities or induce people to move to the project area; therefore, the project will not impact park facilities. Public facilities - The proposed construction will not generate new job opportunities or induce people to move to the project area; therefore, the project will not impact public facilities. ' Potentially Significant Impact Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Unless Than 12. 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 or natural gas? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Communication systems? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution () () () (X) facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Storm water drainage? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) f) Solid waste disposal? ) ( ) ( ) (X) g) Local or regional water supplies? ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: a-g) The proposed office addition will encompass approximately 25,000 square feet of floor area. The facilities will rely on existing utility service, storm water facilities, and water supply. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PotentiallyUnless Than 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) ( ) ) (X) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( ) ( ) ) (X) c) Create light or glare? ( ) ( ) ) (X) Comments: a-b) The office addition will be visible from Archibald Avenue, a major boulevard. The architectural design is subject to negotiation through the City's Design Review process to ensure compliance with community design policies. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 00-72 - Frito Lay Page 10 c) The project may cause a nominal increase in ~ighting as new building square footage is proposed which may have wall mounted light fixtures. It is standard procedure to require that a lighting plan to demon;strate that light and glare will not be cast on adjacent property or rights-of-way taus! be reviewed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. The impact is not considered significant. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Un~es$ Than 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) ( ) (X) b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) ( ) (X) c) Affect historical or cultural resoumes? ( ) ( ) (X) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change () () (X) which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the ( ( ) (X) potential impact area? Comments: a-e) The site has been occupied by the Frito Lay facilities for more than 20 years. No known cultural resources are known to be present on or near the site. There is no impact. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PotentiaJly UnlraS 11lan 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal'. a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: a) An increase in demand for neighborhood regional parks is not likely, as the proposed office addition is intended to serve the existing Frito Lay workfome. There is no impact. b) There is no impact associated with affecting existing recreational opportunities, as the property surrounding the project area is currently developed. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 00-72 - Frito Lay Page 11 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have the ( ) (X) 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? b) Short term: Does the project have the potential to ( ) (X) 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.) c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that () (X) 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.) d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have () (X) environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: a) The site is essentially developed and no known sensitive or endangered plant or animal species are indicated to occupy the site. b) The small size of the project and the fact that it is only intended to serve existing employees will not result in long term environmental impacts. No long term impacts were identified. c) The City has planned the General Industrial Area to include a variety of industrial and business park uses and the office addition is consistent with this type of development. Public services and utilities are available in the area. d) No significant adverse effects were identified in the Initial Study. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 00-72 - Frito Lay Page 12 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 eff'ects 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): (X) General Plan EIR (Certified April 6, 1981 ) (X)Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989) (X) Industrial Area Specific Plan EIR (Certified September 19, 1981) City of Rancho Cucamonga NEGATIVE DECLARATION The following Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act Section 21091 and 21092 of the Public Resources Code. Project File No.: Development Review 00-72 Public Review Period Closes: February 14, 2001 Project Name: Project Applicant: Frito Lay Project Location (also see attached map): Located at 9535 Archibald Avenue ~ APN: 210-071-28. Project Description: A request to construct a 25,242 square foot office addition atthe existing Frito Lay Facility on 37 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 5). FINDING This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has conducted an Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment and is proposing this Negative Declaration based upon the following finding: [] The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. [] The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects but: (1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this proposed Negative Declaration was released for public reviewwould avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and (2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment. If adopted, the Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. Reasons to support this finding are included in the attached Initial Study. The project file and all related documents are available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division at 10500 Civic Center Drive (909) 477-2750 or Fax (909) 477-2847. NOTICE The public is invited to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration during the review period. February 14, 2001 Date of Determination Adopted By RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 00-72, A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A 25,242 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE ADDITION AT THE EXISTING FRITO LAY FACILITY ON 37 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED IN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (SUBAREA 5) AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF ARCHIBALD AVENUE AND 4TH STREET, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 210-071-28. A. Recitals. 1. Fdto Lay filed an application for the approval of Development Review 00-72, as described in the title of this Resolution, Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 14th day of February 2001, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho C, ucamonga conducted a meeting on the application and concluded said meeting on that date. 3. 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 dudng the above- referenced meeting on February 14, 2001, including wdtten and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located at the northeast comer of Archibald Avenue and 4th Street with a street frontage of 1,241 feet on Archibald Avenue and 1,259 feet on 4th Street, and is presently improved with existing Frito Lay manufacturing and processing facilities; and b. The property to the north of the subject site is developed with industrial park type buildings, the property to the south consists of vacant land in the City of Ontado, the properly to the east is developed with the Frito Lay facilities, and the property to the west is developed with office buildings; and c. The architectural design is consistent with the industrial design guidelines in that it incorporates the creative use of two pdmary building materials; and d. Sufficient landscaping is proposed along the street frontage to enhance the Archibald Avenue street scene; and e. There ara no potentially significant environmental impacts associated with the project as the office expansion is only intended to serve the existing employees of the facility; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 00-72 - FRITO LAY February 14, 2001 Page 2 f. The project is consistent with the Industrial Area Specific Plan objectives to accommodate the personal needs of workers and business visitors. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced meeting and upon the specific t~ndings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and b. The proposed use is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and the purposes of the distdct in which the site is located; and c. The proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code; and d. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in thE; proposed Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the em/ironmental 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 attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference, based upon the findings as follows: a. That the Negative Declaration has been prepare(! 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, 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 the 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. Plannin.q Division 1) Vertical parapet projections shall have a minimum 2-foot return to convey a sense of depth and quatity and aw3id a Hollywood set appearance. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 00-72 - FRITO LAY February 14, 2001 Page 3 2) Provide wall surface treatment along the east elevation of the southern entry area and the west elevation near the northwest comer of the building. 3) All roof and ground moupted equipment shall be completely screened from all off-site views. Parapets shall be designed to screen roof equipment rather than relying on roof screens. 4) A minimum of one tree per 30 linear feet of building wall plus one tree per 30 linear feet of property line plus one tree per 3 parking spaces shall be provided. 5) Provide shade, tables, and chairs in outdoor employee eating area. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2001. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 14th day of February 2001, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT #: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-72 SUBJECT: 25,000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE ADDITION APPLICANT: FRITO LAY NORTHEAST CORNER OF 4TH STREET AND ARCHIBALD LOCATION: 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: General Requirements Completion Date 1. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. 2. A copy of the signed Resolution of Approval and all Standard Conditions, shall be included in legible form on the grading plans, building and construction plans, and landscape and irrigation plans submitted for plan check. B. Time Limits 1. Development/Design Review approval shall expire if building permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 5 years from the date of approval. No extensions are allowed. C. Site Development 1. 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, and the Industrial Area Specific Plan. 2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. sc .o0 Project No. DR 00-72 Completion Date 3. 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. 4. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shal~ be / submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for / consistency prior to issuance of any perrqits (such as grading, troe 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. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be / / located out of public view and adequately screened through the use o1: a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. For single family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in undergreund vaults. 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. D. Building Design 1. 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. E. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans) 1. All parking spaces shall be 9 feet wide by 18 feet long. When a side of any parking space abuts a building, wall, support column, or other obstruction, the space shall be a minimum of 11 feet wide. 2.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). 3.A/I parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances, and exits shall be striped per City standards. sc.,o o 2 Project No. DR 00-7~ Completion Date 4. 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 totar number of stalls for use by the handicapped. 5. 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. 6. 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. Warehouse distribution uses shall provide bicycle storage spaces at a rate of 2.5 percent on the required automobile parking spaces with a minimum of a 3-bike rack. 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. / 7. 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. F. Landscaping 1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in / the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. 2. 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. 3. A minimum of 20% of trees planted within industrial projects shall be specimen size trees - 24- inch box or larger. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If tocated in public maintenance areas, the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division. 8. Tree maintenance criteria shall be developed and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. These criteria shall encourage the natural growth characteristics of the selected tree species. 9.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. sc.,0 o 3 Project No,DR 00-72 Completion Date APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: G. General Requirements 1. Submit four complete sets of plans including the following: / / a. Site/Plot Plan; b. Foundation Plan; ' c. Floor Plan; d. Ceiling and Roof Framing Plan; e. Electrical Plans (2 sets, detached) including the size of the main switch, number and size of service entrance conductors, panel schedules, and single line diagrams; f. Plumbing and Sewer Plans, including isometrics, underground diagrams, water and waste diagram, sewer or septic system location, fixture units, gas piping, and heating and air conditioning; and g.Planning Division Project Number (i.e., TT #, CUP #, DR #, et(;.) clearly identified on the outside of all plans. 2. Submit two sets of structural calculations, energy conservation calculations, and a soils report. / / Architect's/Engineer's stamp and "wet" signature are required prior to plan check submittal. 3. Separate permits are required for fencing and/or walls. / / 4. Contractors must show proof of State and City licenses and Workers' Compensation coverage to the City prior to permit issuance. 5.Business shall not open for operation prior to posting the Certificate of Occupancy issued by the Building and Safety Division. H. Site Development 1. Plans shall be submitted for plan check and approved prior to construction. All plans shall be / / marked with the project file number (i.e., DR 00-72). The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, Title 24 Accessibility requirements, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of permit application. Please contact the Building and Safety Division for availability of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new commercial or industrial development or addition to an existing development, the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: Transportation Development Fee, Drainage Fee, School Fees, Permit and Plan Checking Fees. Applicant shall provide a copy of the school fees receipt to the Building and Safety Division prior to permit issuance. 3. Construction activity shall not occur between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. Monday through Saturday, with no construction on Sunday or holidays. I. New Structures 1. Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for the property line clearances considering use, area, and fire-resistiveness. sc- 0 0 4 Project No. DR 00-72 Completion Date 2. Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for required occupancy separation(s). 3. Roofing material shall be installed per the manufacturer's "high wind" instructions. 4. Provide draft stops in attic areas, not to exceed 3,000 square feet, in accordance with UBC Table 5-A. 5. Roofing materials shall be Class "A." 6. Exterior walls shall be constructed of the required fire rating in accordance with UBC Table 5-A 7. Openings in exterior walls shall be protected in accordance with UBC Table 5-A. 8. Provide smoke and heat venting in accordance with UBC Section 906. 9. Upon tenant improvement plan check submittal, additional requirements may be needed. J~ Grading 1. 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. 2. 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. / /__ 4. A separate grading plan check submittal is required for all new construction projects and for / / existing buildings where improvements being proposed will generate 50 cubic yards or more of combined cut and fill. The Grading Plan shall be prepared, stamped, and signed by a California Registered Civil Engineer. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: K. General Fire Protection Conditions 1. An automatic fire extinguishing system(s) will be required as noted below: / / a. 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 the sprinkler system is adequate for proposed operations. 2. Sprinkler system monitoring shall be installed and operational immediately upon completion of / sprinkler system. 3. 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. 4. Fire District fee(s), plus a $1 per "plan page" microfilm fee will be due to the Rancho Cucamonga __/__ Fire Protection District as follows: a. $677 for New Commercial and Industrial Development (per new building).** **Note: Separate plan check fees for Tenant Improvement work, fire protection systems (sprinklers, hood systems, alarms, etc.) and/or any consultant reviews will be assessed upon submittal of plans. SC-10-00 5 Project No. DR 00-72 Completion Date 5. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1997 UBC, UFC, __/ / '~ UPC, UMC, and RCFD Standards 32 and 15 and 1996 NEC. NOTE: SEPARATE PLAN CHECK FEES FOR TENANT IMPROVEMENTS, FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS (SPRINKLERS, HOOD SYSTEMS, ALARMS, ETC.), AND/OR ANY CONSULTANT REVIEWS WILL BE ASSESSED UPON SUBMITTAL OF PLANS. NOTE: A SEPARATE GRADING PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL IS REQUIRED FOR ALL NEW CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS AND FOR EXISTING BUILDINGS 'WHERE IMPROVEMENTS BEING PROPOSED WILL GENERATE 50 CUBIC YARDS OR MORE! OF COMBINED CUT AND FILL. THE GRADING PLAN SHALL BI5 PREPARED, STAMPED AND SIGNED BY A CALIFORNIA REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER. TH E C I T Y OF I~AN C H 0 C U CAH 0 N GA Staff Report DATE: February 14, 2001 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Brent Le Count, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM NUMBER 140 - LOWE'S - A request to establish a Uniform Sign Program for the Lowe's Home Improvement Store and adjacent buildings consisting of two restaurants and a bank on 20 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7), located at the southeast corner of Milliken Avenue and Foothill Boulevard - APN: 229-011-32. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Background: The Planning Commission approved The Lowe's project on May 26, 1999. Since that time the Commission has also approved the Farmer Boy's fast food restaurant and the Union Bank projects on the Lowe's site. B. Analysis: The program establishes criteria for Lowe's monument and wall signs, for pad tenant monument and wall signs (such as Farmer Boys and Union Bank), and for. multi-tenant Online retail) tenant wall signs. There is potential for retail shop buildings to be added to the master plan to the east of Lowe's; hence, multi-tenant wall sign criteria are proposed. The Lowe's wall signs have already been approved under a separate permit to accommodate Lowe's wishes to open in October of 2000. C. Desiqn Review Committee: The Design Review Committee reviewed the draft Uniform Sign Program on October 31, 2000 (McNiel, Stewart, Coleman) and requested that the document be substantially revised and brought back for further review. The Committee again reviewed the document on January 2, 2001, (McNiel, Stewart, Henderson) and requested further modifications. The Committee reviewed the third revisions to the document on January 16, 2001, (McNiel, Stewart, Henderson) and recommend approval with conditions. Please refer to the attached Design Review Action Agendas for details. ITEM d PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT USP 140 - Lowe's February 14, 2001 Page 2 RECOMMENDA'[:ION: Staff recommends approval of Uniform Sign Program Number 140 through minute action. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:BL:gs Attachments: Exhibit"A" - Uniform Sign Program Document Exhibit "B"' - Design Review Committee Action Agendas - October 31, 2000, January 2, 2001, and Januar~ 16, 2001 Rancho Cucamonga Corporate Park TENANT SIGN PROGRAM (USP APN: 229.011.32) INTRODUCTION The pm'pose of this sign program is to ensure the design and production of quality signage which reflects the integrity of the architecture and the intent of the Owner (Catellus Development Coq~oration) and the City of Rancho Cucamonga for this center. This sign program has been developed to communicate the pa~cular pa~meters each tenant is to follow so their individual store sigaage will be effective and also complement the project as a whole. Performance will be strictly enforced and any non-conforming signs or disapproved signs ~'~ must be brought into conformance at the expense of the tenant. The program establishes maximum and minimum letter sizes, sign area allowances, location, color allowance, etc., for each sign type which is subject to the sole discretionary approval of the Owner and its' Management Company (hereafter referred to as "Landlord"), within the context nfthis tenant sign program. As used herein, the term "Tenant" shall mean the tenant, o',vner, or occupant of any building or portion thereof, within the retail area of Rancho Cueamonga Corporate Park, the boundaries of which are shown on exhibit attached hereto. In addition to this sign program, all signs are limited to the requirements of the City of Rancho Cucamonga sign ordinance. APPROVAL PROCEDURE 1. All Tenant signs installed or displayed on the premises of Rancho Cucamonga Corporate Park must have prior written approval by the Landlord and an approved sign building permit from the City. 2. Each Tenant, or its' representative, must submit three (3) sets of professionally executed drawings which meet the Cily of Rancho Cueanlonga submittal standards to the Landlord for approval (two black & white and one color set, all at 8.5" X l I" format). Signage approval must first be obtained ~com the Landlord prior to submittal to the City. 3. The aesthetic characte~sfics of the signs: ag. placement, size, proportion, color, texture, illumination* and graphics are subject to the discretionaxy approval of the Landlord, within the context of this sign program. If the submil~al is not approved, the Tenant must submit revised plans until Landlord approval is obtained. 4. Upon written approval by the Landlord, Tenant is responsible for submitting the plans to the City for permit approval. All City permits for signs shall be obtained and paid for by Tenant or Tenant's representative prior to fabrication and installation, with a copy of said permil provided to Landlord. SIGN TYPE SCHEDULE Ground ~tou~ted: I. Project LD. Sign(s) 2. Monument Sign(s) 2. Pad Tenant I.D. / U 3. Shop Tenant I.D., 4. Undcrcanopy Tenant Sign 7. Delhecv EntD' I.D. Page 1 Rancho Cucamonga Corporate Park TENANT SIGN PROGRAM GENERAL SIGN CRITERIA l. Tenant sJ_m~*Ec shatl include only thc business name as rc~stcrcd on thc lense agrcem~t ~ ~ o~ trademarked, enpyrighted or registcn:d by Tenant, and established logo symbol Auxilissy gn~phic clements will be allowed only upon the discretionary approval of the Landlord. 2. Maintemmce of each sign is the responsa~ility of the Tcoun! who erected and las~lled it. Letter forms or letter faces and the electrical sut~ly to i]lnmlnm~ each which requ~ r~-palr will he replaced or ~ within am (10) days of writl~n notice to Tenant by Landlord. ffthe SJL, n~ problem is not rectified within said tan (i 0) day period, Landlord will repair the sign at Tanant's ~pense. 3. Signs ~ be fxee of all labels and m~m~factote~s edv~'rdSing With the exceptio~ of COde 4. As a genea'al rule, Tin,am signs ar~ to be locatod visually centered, hofizuntally and vea-dcally, within the thscia (sign band) above their primary leasehold entnmce or at other reasonable locations on single Tenant 5. Cooperative Tenant seasonal promotional signing will be permitted only upon review and a~,Fioval of the Landlord and the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 6. Tenant will be completely rnsponsible for the operation of its sign enntxaetor and will indemnify, defend and hold harmless Landlord, its Property m~n~$er and their mspeedve e~loyens and agents from damages or liabilities resulting fi'om i'~s euntraetor's work. Tenant Will also provide Landlord With adequate evidence of Tenant's sign conWactor's inmamnce coverage naming the Landlord and Prope~t ManAger as additionally named insures. 7. Tenant will immediately remove all signs ~epi~senting a discontinued business or service. 8. Immediately upon removal of any sign by Tenant, any damage to the building fascia or sign area will be repalxed by Tenant, or by the building owner at Tenant's expense. The sign area shall he repainted to match the surrounding building wall. All Repair woflt is to be completed Within the ten (10) day period following sign removal. PROHIBITED SIGNS Thc following signs are prohibited: 1. Roof mounted si~s. 2. Projecting signs. 3. Signs painted directly on the wall. 4. Fla~hlng, animated or rota~llg signs. 5. Portable signs, including vehicle or trailer mounted signs. 6. Tethered belloons or other inflatables, penmmts, streamers, or t3n? (except national or gnvemmental flags as approved by the Landlord). 7. Temporary signs may not be displayed on any building, landscape strip, or in the parking area, and temporary signs may not be placed on the inside surface of any window. Temporaxy in these a~as upon app~o va] by Landlord. 8. Banners, except as pemlitted for temporary signs, by the Landlord and the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 9. Not With standing thc foregoing, all signs displayed with Landlord's prior ai, t,,,,,-al, whether temporary signs, banners, or the like, must be profes.qonally Rancho Cucamonga Corporate Park TENANT SIGN PROGRAM I.D. Monument Sign(s) 1. Availability of the Tenant identification pencls on thc "Tenant I.D. Monument Sign" is based on the solc disctotion of the Landlord. 2. Refer to thc design drawing contained within this sign program desJgnnmd as Sign Type "Tenant LD. Monument Sign" for fabrication standards, maximum area allowance, let~r height, letter style, and color. 3. Tenants with nationally or r~gionally astablished logo graphics may utilize their graphics and enlors, upon Landlord approval. 4. Tenant copy is to be visu~y centered, vertically and horizontally within the monument sign panel and sized piopor'donately to Tenant ocmxpied spare as approved by the I_~mdlord. 5. All Single Tenant Monument Signs are to be ilbrmi,nted signs which are connected to the Tenant's individual elec~ical service by an assigned J-box, must be controlled by a dedicated time clock, end must have a disenfmect means (swimh) within visual proximity to the sign, all paid for by Tenant. 6. Minim,tm letter height shall be eight (8") inches. Project I.D. Sign(s) 1. P~ject I.D. Signs aro limited to only id~tifying the theme n~ne end/or graphic logo of the Centa'. 2. R~fer to the design drawing contained within this sign program designated as Sign Type "Project I.D. Sign" for fabrication standards, maximum area allowenco, letter height, lcttcr style, and color. Tenant Storefront Sign A. Anchor Tenant / Lowe's Home Improvement Waxehousc's WALL SIGN 1. An Anchor Tenant is defined as any Tenant occupying a gross leasable space of 20,000 squar~ feet or 2. Thc maxtmum allowable lcttcr height is not to cxcced fonr fcet and scven inches (4,.7-) for a single line with thc exception of the "L" in "Lowc's" which may be fivc feet end seven inches (5'-7') high. 3. Anchor Tenant may t~tLlize its ~ logotypo, logo symbol and busincas identity colors as they pertain to thc context of this sign program, upon prior writ~ approval by the Landlord. 4. One (1) Anchor Tcoant sign is allowed per elevatien facing a slxeet or parking lot, pp to a maximum ~--'4 of 3 signs including mooumem signs. 5. The mammum allowable sign area per fxont elevation is not to exceed the smaller of liP,'i of the ~ [ building face or 150 sclua~ feet. (Refer to the page "FABRICATION & INST,~ I'.I'.A TION STANDARDS"for production standards) " Rancho Cucamonga Corporate Park TENANT SIGN PROGRAM · l- B. PAD TENANT LD. ~ 1. APedTenantisdefmedasanyTenantoconpyingasingieTenmat,f~e-st~din~bulldingwitha ._[~) gross occupied space of up to 19,999 ~are feet or as defined by tho Landlord within the con~-~rt i~ of the Tenant lease agreement. ~ 2. Thc maximum alinwable le~er h~ight is not to exceed eightee~ ir~h~ (18") for a single line. g~ 3. Pad tenant may utilize its ~ademark logo graphics and logo symbol, including businem colom, upon approval by thc Landlord. This de~ not apply to sign copy, which mus~ bo pet th~ color palette under "F.,tBRlCATION & iNSTALLaTION" section of this sign pwgram. 4. One (I) pad tenant storefront identification sign is allowed per elov~tion facing a s~mt or parking lot, up to a maximum of 3 signs including monmnent signs, hi no cs~ ~hal! tho total number of signs exceed three. 5.Thc maximum allowablc sign area for the storeffont elevation (m~in entcy) is not to exc,~d tl~ smaller of 10% of thc building face or 150 square f~t. 6. All wall mounted signa ~hnll not project abovc the roof end ~hnl~ in no case bo highor tium 20 f~,.-t from fiuished grade. (Refer to the page 'F.,IBRICATION & ~TION ~TANDARD$~ for production standing) C. SHOP TENANT I.D. A Shop Tenant is defined as any Tenant of a mulri-tenant building. 2. The m~ximum allowable lctV:r h¢i~hi is not to exceed eighteen inches (1 g"). 3. A Shop tc'nant with nationally or regionally estabhshed logo graphics may use its business identity type style and logo symbol, with a maximum of 2 colors, within one sign upon Landlord approval. 4. Tenants wishing to initiate logo graphics for their business signagc must sel~'t from thc type ~yl~ and color palette as specified within this sign program (refer to "Color~ within the Fabrication & I~allation Standards and thc ilins~ated type style samples). To,mats with business graphics not consis~nt with these standards must submit a profe-~ionally pr~par~ design drawing (in scale and in color) of thc l,,,,l,osed sign for r~vicw by Landlord. Upon Lmdlord approval (in wrifiug), T~nt must submit the design to the City. 5. The maximum aiinwabl¢ sign at~m per storcfi'Ont el~/afion is not to exceed 70% of thc lexs~d storeffont width or 1~0 square fe~L ~ I ! 6. Tho sign layout will be a one (1) line format for storefront identification. Two line format may be ?. All wall mounted signs ~h~l! not project above thc roof and shall in no case be higher than 20 feet from fimshed (Refer to the page "FABRICATION & INSTALLATION ST.4ArDAP~DS~ for production starutards) [~ago Rancho Cucamonga Corporate Park TENANT SIGN PROGRAM FABRICATION & INSTALLATION STANDARDS 1. Conlractors installing signs are to be State Registered Contractors with their linensc in good standing, must hold a current city business license, and must m~intain mlnlmllra comprehel~ivc gelleral liability io~llrallco with combined singic limit of not lcas th~n $2,000,000, workers compensation covcl'agn, and any othe~ coverage required by Le~dlord at the time work is pcrformed. 2. AIl Tenant Storefzont Signs are to be flh,minnted signs which are ennnected to the Tcnunt's indlvi,.h,~l elecirical scrvicc by an assigned J-box, which must be controlled by a dedicated time clock, and must have a disconncot mcans (switch) within visual proximity to the sign, all paid for by the Tenant 3. All signs and installmions of signs must conform to thc ~l','~l'*iatc building and clccirical codes (U/L, N.E.C. - lalcst edition, etc.). The Tenant and thc sign contractor will obtain and pay for any and all permits re i d. 4. In no case will thcre be any exposed clccirical raccways conduit, lransformcrs, junction boxcs, conductors, or crossovors. Letter fasiening will be finished in a mnn,~r comistcnt with quality fabrication practices and clips al~ to bc coll¢caled and to be galvani?~t, .¢minless stce}, alL, mimlm, brass or brooze. Thc installatioll will be ~ppiuvcd by the Landlord. 5. Tenant Stor~ftoot $igil8 ate to be indlvidllally mounted, in~g~llally il]nminlt~:[ o~ pall channel l~t~rs or back lit (halo) lcRcn with acrylic facc. 6. Ch~'~nel leRcr and logo forms ar~ to be fabricated from minlmum 24 gnuge sheet rectal or .063 al, mln,rm formed into a channel corrfiguratiun with a five inch (5") reton~ Each letier retest havc a minimum of two (2) 1/4" seep holcs for dr~i-~gc of water. Thc insidc of the rectal lcl~cr and logo form arc to be paintcd whig. Rcmms shall be anodized bronzc. Letter and logo thcas are to be fabricated from 1/8' (minim,,ull) acrylic and attached to thc mctsl return with 3/4" trimcap. Intcrnal llJm-ni,~fion sh~ll be 30 mil-amp (minlm~tm) neon tube fighting, sufficient to provide even ljshfiag, and shall be mamlfagtllI~ [ab~led alld installed in accordance with U/L (Underwriters Laboratory) specifications. 7. Tcllant and/or Tcnant's sign conlractor shall not, in thc course of sigll installation Or removal, clamnge any of thc building's cxtcrior or smlcture. Tcnant will be held fully respom~lc for all costs inenn~xt to repair any damage, at thc sole discretion of the Landlord. g.All ix'netratians of thc exterior fascia are to be scaled warn'fight, than painted to match thc existing fascia and building color. 9. Color. ~Ill Tcmants without e. vtabli~hed bgsiness gr~ohic~ mu. vt choose their sign color from the color palette below. ,~ maximum of 2 colors may be used within one (l) sign. For Acrylic Faces: Whim (Aristeoh #7328) Yellow (Aristech t~2016) Letter rerurnx shall be am>d~zed brome. Trimcap color i~ to be gold or brome. /Iltemat* trimc.~p color~ which match the letter face color may only be used upon the discretionary a~l.~ro~al of the I~mdlord Page 5 Rancho Cucamonga Corporate Park TENANT SIGN PROGRAlVl UNDERCANOPY TENANT SIGN I. Each Tenant in multi-tenant bui~din~ shall install, at T~nes sole cost and ext.-rise, one (1) "Undorcanopy Tenant Sign" suspended fi~m the canopy at its t~'imnry ent~ to act as a pedesWinn ori~d identification sign. 2.Refer to the design drawing conta/nad within this sign program designated as Sign Type "Un&:rcanopy Tenant Sign" for the fabrication standards. 3. This sign must bc installed at a consistent height to all other undercanopy s/gns at a mlaim~ h~t of cight (8') feet clearance from grade. Along with the rcquiremcnts ofth/s section, Tcnant must comply with all the requirements of thc general sign criteria, including prior Landlord A~l,~o ,,al of the do~i~. STORE NUMBER 1. T~mnt shall install a tenant stoic number at each Tenant front carry. Thcse numbers must be vinyl machine~ cut numbers, six inches (6") in height u61i~ing thc project typcstyle (Helvetica Medium). The numbers am to be installed per thc layout as stipulated in tills sign program. (see dasign drawing, page 10.) ENTRY WINDOW SIGNAGE 1. Each tcnant is allowed on¢ (1) information sign at thc cn~a. ytoitsstorc. The copy for this sign is limited to pertmcnt business information such as store hours, tclcphonc numbers, umcrgcncy information, chazgc cards honored, or other business instruction. Sign shall bo approved by the I ana!o~l. 2. Tiffs sign is to be white vinyl math/ne-cut copy in Helvetica Medium typastyle, applied to the store window adjacent to the entry door. 3. Thc maximum area allowed for this sign is six square feet (6 sq. fL) und thc trax/mum lettor height must not exceed two inches (2"). 4. Refer to thc design drawing contained within this sign program doai~m~d as Sign Typo .Entry W-m&:w SJ~". 5. No other window signs shall tx: pCnmtted including posgrs or window paint. DELIVERY ENTRY I.D. I. Each Tenant may place a sign on its delivery door to identify the store name and number. ~ 2. Each sign is to be fabricated in thc same manner Colack machine.cut vinyl in Hclvetica Medium typestyle) ~ and installed in thc same relationship to thc dcUvcry door. ~' 3. Refer to the &:sign drawing contained within t. his sign program dosigna~d as Sign Typ~ "Delivery Entry I.D." TI~NANT SIGN PROGRAM D/F Monument Sign (7' tall) Cabinet: Monument Sign Fabricated Aluminum with Stucco covered Masonry for Structure Only one (1) Tenant I.D. Monument Sign allowed per street frontage.Faces: Interior to be painted finish Individual Aluminum Panels (Opaque Background) w~th Routed out Copy Ughling: 800ma HO Fluorescent Lamps. All wiring to meet UL Standards. Letter Heighl: eight inches (8") minimum Total Sign Area: 36 sq. ft. Fabricated Aluminum with Stucco Finish lo Match Building Color EIFS to Match Bui'ding L~ 30' -'-t ............... 12'-10' I I t ................... 8'-o' . ............. t I 20. 2' retainer TENANT SIGN' PROGRAM Lowe's Monument Sign top view front elevation ....... concrete wall part of landscape plans Page 9 TENANT SIGN PROGRAM Project [,D. Sign front view ~ rear view side view ....... concrete wall part of landscape plans Rancho'Ckl~monga Corporate' Park ' TENANT ~I~;N'PROGRAM Monument Sign Location - ~we's'Mon~ent'Si~'~'T-0" ~ ....... [-~ .~, c~. Farmer Boys & Un,on B~k Monument S,gn ~ 3-0 ~ t ~ ~ .......... Mille~iumCou~ ................................. J 5~''~ "'-'" ...... T~NA~T S~GN PROGRAM Delivery Door I.D. :I 12345 4' 12345 RETAIL TENANT RETAIL TENANT description black high performance vinyl in Helvetica Medium typestyle typical delivery entry applied to the delivery door. RanchO'ucamgnga' C°rp°ra te' Pa r k TENANT SIGN PROGRAM Undercanopy Tenant Sign DESCRIPTION Double-faced internally illuminated 5,0" suspended cabinet sign to be mounted to the undercanopy for tenant entry identification. Sheet metal fabrication with - - o H.O. fluorescent lamping, off-white T E N A N T N A M E -- 12" ~,~ automotive finish (to match project) with 1/8" white acrylic face. Tenant graphics to be high pen~ormance transluscent vinyl in ...,~,-typesyle and color per Landlord approval. Sign suspended from the canopy at primary = o entry to act as a pedestrian oriented identifiaction sign shall be allowed per tenant. This sign will contain only the name of the business and must utilize the project type 8' (min) style. Business logo graphics or custom colors will be allowed at the discretion of the landlord. Undercanopy sign is to be consturcted o! wood, metal, or sintra with metal frame. Tenant copy to be in vinyl. ,'. Page 12 Ranch~u. camo, nga' Corporate~Park TENANT SIGN PROGRAM Entry Window Signage & Store Number DESCRIPTION Entr7 Window Signage 6'1-'-- 12345 ~ White high performance vinyl in Helvetica page.Med' tyepstyle, per typical layout on the next , 36. --'i' 9. Store Number - _ r ~ While high performance vinyl in Helvetica 2.. I i Med. typestyle, 6" high, applied to the glass I I centered over the ent~ door. UNION BANK OF CAL FORNIA RANCHO CUCAMOINGA~ CALIFORNIA MON.S~GN (~) I NEW S/F I;fl DIRECT SIGN (~ NEW D/F NON-ILLUMINATED MONUMENT SIGN. ~ 5-0"W CABINET @ 4'.0" OVERALL HT. "UNION NEWS~F NON-ILLUMINATED SIGN PANEL ~ ~ ~ -I 2~-0' WIDTH 2'-0" WIDTH -Up . ~ nly I Banking ~ BASE:(VERI~' 096' THK FABR/CATED ALUMINUM BASE W/STOODO FINISH TO MATCH BUILDING DOLOR) ATM ONLY 20'-10" CLEARANCE ~[~[ ATM ONLY _ 2o'-1o" CLEARANCE ENLARGED SIGN LAYOUT SCALE:I#:I"O I 12~ 3'± OVERALL STREICHOUT ~i U-~--i-6-~ ............... SIGNAGE: ENLARGED SIGN LAYOUT $CALE:~8".I'-O" ~ ~,~ '~' RANCHO CUCA ONGA ;ils / IT~ BRANCH ..I ?11 / ~ 10681 Foothill Boulevard ~T ........ ?' Monday to Thursday ~CH ~ 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. 1~81 F~thill ~ul~ard J Friday ' "'"~' 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. "9 a.m. ~ 6 p.m.Friday 9 a.m.,o 5 p.m. ~ x TO fiE"AIN AS IS~ U~ Saturday ~ ~:[~ j ~w , ,'~TO"~"~'"~S'S ~: 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. ~_.~ ~ j I · , ,,, L~ Member Federal Deposit /' Insurance Corporation r~ WELCOME EN~BBED ~YOUT s~L~:~ l~ ~'-m DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Brent Le Count October 31, 2000 UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM NUMBER I~.O - LOWE'S - A request to establish a Uniform Sign Program for the Lowe's Home Improvement Store and adjacent buildings consisting of two restaurants and a bank on 20 acres of land in Subarea 7 (Industrial Park) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southeast corner of Milliken Avenue and Foothill Boulevard - APN: 229-011-32. ~meters: The Planning Commission approved The Lowe's project on May 26, 1999. Since that time the Commission has also approved the Farmer Boy's fast food restaurant and the Union Bank projects on the Lowe's site. The program establishes criteria for Lowe's monument and wall signs, for pad tenant monument and wall signs, and for multi-tenant (inline retail) tenant wall signs. There is potential for retail shop buildings to be added to the master plan to the east of Lowe's; hence, multi-tenant wall sign criteria are proposed. The Lowe's wall signs have already been approved under a separate permit to accommodate Lowe's wishes to open in October of this year. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issue~: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: 1. Pad Monument Signs - The Program includes criteria and design for monument signs for the pad tenants. Pad tenants in shopping centers aren't typically allowed to have their own monument signs and are identified on overall shopping center monument signs. Either eliminate the pad tenant monument signs or revise their design to have a much lower profile similar to the Macaroni Grill monument sign in the Terra Vista shopping center. 2. Union Bank and Farmer Boys - The City has granted approval of the Union Bank and Farmer Boys restaurant projects. Since signs for these projects are included in the proposed Program, the conceptual design for the signs should also be included. 3. Sign Elevations - The Program lists several types of signs that have reference to attached sign drawings but no such drawings are present. Provide a comprehensive set of sign drawings correlated with the Program text. Of particular importance are the project identification signs, which afford the opportunity to greatly enhance business identification. 4. Colors - Change item 9 to include three colors only. Suggest eliminating blue and green, as they do not read well at night. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. Page 2, General Sign Criteria - add the following to item 8, "The sign area shall also be repainted to match the surrounding wall color to eliminate any residual appearance of the sign." 2. Page 3, "I.D. Monument Signs - These are the tenant monument signs and shall be eliminated or reduced in size per item 1 above. If they are kept, add item an item 6. "Minimum letter height shall be 8 inches. "No "Project I.D. Sign" drawings provided. DRC COMMENTS USP #1~O October 31, 2000 Page 2 3. Page 4, Pad Tenant i.D - Change maximum letter height to eighteen inches. Shop Tenant I.D. Signs are not shown on Site Plan. If the criteria are to remain for future use, modify item C.5 to read,"...not to exceed 70 percent of the leased storefront width. "Change item C.6 to read,"...overall height of 4 feet." 4. Page 5, Fabrication Standards - Change criteria under item 6 to require bronze returns instead of color to match window mullions. 5. Page 6, Under canopy Tenant Sign - There are no such tenant buildings shown on Site Plan so why this criteria is included is not clear. No Entry Window Sign or Delivery Entry I.D. sign drawings are included. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the proposed Uniform Sign Program be revised in light of the above comments and brought back for further review. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Brent Le Count The Committee requested that the Uniform Sign Program be revised in light of staff's comments and brought back for further review. The CommJttee directed the applicant to either remove individual pad tenant monument signs or revise their design to be much smaller in scale, similar to the Macaroni Grill restaurant monument sign. The applicant agreed to making the changes. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:30 p.m. Brent Le Count January 2, 2001 UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM NUMBER 140 - LOWE'S - A request to establish a Uniform Sign Program for the Lowe's Home Improvement Store and adjacent buildings consisting of two restaurants and a bank on 20 acres of land in Subarea 7 (Industrial Park), located at the southeast corner of Milliken Avenue and Foothill Boulevard - APN: 229-011-32. Backqround: The Uniform Sign Program was reviewed by the Committee on October 31,2000 (see attached minutes). The Committee requested that the Uniform Sign Program be revised in light of staff's comments and brought back for further review. The Committee directed the applicant to either remove individual pad tenant monument signs or revise their design to be much smaller in scale, similar to the Macaroni Grill restaurant monument sign. The applicant agreed to making the changes. Desiqn Parameters: The Planning Commission approved the Lowe's project on May 26, 1999. Since that time, the Commission has also approved the Farmer Boy's fast food restaurant and the Union Bank projects on the Lowe's site. The program establishes criteria for Lowe's monument and wall signs, for pad tenant monument and wall signs, and for multi-tenant (inline retail) tenant wall signs. There is potential for retail shop buildings to be added to the master plan to the east of Lowe's; hence, multi-tenant wall sign criteria are proposed. The Lowe's wall signs have already been approved under a separate permit to accommodate Lowe's wishes to open in October of 2000. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide.an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: 1. Pad Monument Signs - Either eliminate the pad tenant monument signs or revise their design to have a much lower profile similar to the Macaroni Grill monument sign in the Terra Vista shopping center. The revised program has criteria for monument signs for the Union Bank and Farmer Boys buildings. The monuments measure 5 feet in width and 3 feet in height on top of terrain accommodating bases ranging from a few inches high to 1 -foot high. This is comparable to the Macaroni Grill monument sign, which measures 2.5 feet high by 6 feet long on top of a 1 to 3-foot high base. The Farmer Boys sign copy reads, "Farmer Boys World's Greatest Hamburgers" in characteristic color, font style, and graphics. The words "World's Greatest Hamburgers" constitute a form of advertising contrary to the Sign Ordinance, which requires signs to display the business name only. Farmer Boys contends that the words, "Farmer Boy Wodd's Greatest" is their established Trademark. This issue was raised during the Design Review of the Farmer Boys building. It was determined that the matter should be brought up for resolution with the overall Sign Program. Past court cases related to signs have established that while Cities do not have the authority to change established company trademarks, they do have the authority to not allow a given business to display their trademark. Staff suggests that the sign be amended to simply display the words, "Farmer Boys" in a basic font style similar to the Macaroni Grill and other restaurant signs. This would apply to the Farmer Boys wall mounted signs and directional/thank you signs as well. DRC COMMENTS USP NO. 140 - LOWE'S January 2,2001 Page 2 The Farmer Boys and Union Bank monument signs are proposed to be stucco covered aluminum cabinets with painted-on and raised metal letlers, respectively. The monuments will be spot lit instead of internally illuminated. Staff does not recommend the use of painted- on copy/graphics for the Farmer Boys sign. The letters should either be raised similar to Union Bank or inset into the face of the sign. The program also now includes three square foot directional signs for Farmer Boys which read, "Drive Thru," "Do Not Enter," and "Thank you." The signs are 3 feet high and will be internally illuminated. They have a mushroom like shape with the sign face supported by a smaller post. These should be revised to have a stronger looking support to convey a sense of quality. 2. Union Bank and Farmer Boys signs should be in the program. The revised program includes monument sign designs for these signs. No wall sign criteria is included for Union Bank beyond some conceptual designs. Wall sign details should be included for Union Bank. Note that the Sign Ordinance prohibits wall signs above 20 feet in height. The wall sign proposed for Farmer Boys is a large, 4 foot by 8 foot "can" type sign with graphics and copy. While it is recognized that this Js the typical sign for this business, the overall design and copy content are contrary to the Sign Ordinance. The sign should be revised to use channel type letters and the copy should be revised to eliminate any form of advertising as noted above for the monument sign. Provide the square footage of the sign (32 square feet shown but the sign is actually less than that due to odd shape) along with the square footage of the building face to determine corr~plianca with area limitations. 3. Sign Elevations - The Program lists several types of signs that have reference to attached sign drawings but no such drawings are present. Provide a comprehensive set of sign drawings correlated with the Program text. The revised package is more complete but there are still references to several types of wall signs (anchor, pad tenant, shop tenant) for which there are no drawings. The program should be comprehensive in terms of text and exhibits. 4. Colors - Change item 9 to include three colors only. Suggest eliminating blue and green, as they do not read well at night. The revised program specifies three colors, white, red, and yellow.' Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. Page 2, General Sign Criteria - add the following to item 8, "The sign area shall also be repainted to match the surrounding wall color to eliminate any residual appearance of the sign." DONE DRC COMMENTS USP NO. 140 - LOWE'S January 2,2001 Page 3 2. Page 3, "I.D. Monument Signs - These are the tenant monument signs and shall be eliminated or reduced in size per item I above. If they are kept, add item an item 6. "Minimum letter height shall be 8 inches. "No "Project I.D. Sign" drawings provided. DONE 3. Page 4, Pad Tenant I.D - Change maximum letter height to eighteen inches. Shop Tenant I.D. Signs are not shown on Site Plan. If the cdteria are to remain for future use, modify item C. 5 to read,"...not to exceed 70percent of the leased storefront width. "Change item C. 6 to read,"...overall height of 4 feet." DONE 4. Page 5, Fabrication Standards - Change criteria under item 6 to require bronze returns instead of color to match window mu/lions. DONE 5. Page 6, Under canopy Tenant Sign - There are no such tenant buildings shown on Site Plan so whythis criteria is included is not clear. No Entry Window Sign or Delivery Entry I. D. sign drawings are included. There is still a reference to Under-canopyTenant Signs while there are no multi-tenant type buildings shown on the Site Plan. There are now Entry Window and Delivery Entry ID signs drawings. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the proposed Uniform Sign Program be revised in light of the above comments pertaining to the Farmer Boys copy and brought back for further review. Attachment Desi,qn Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Larry Henderson Staff Planner: Brent Le Count The Committee requested that the sign program be revised and brought back for further review in light of staff's comments and the following additional comments: 1. The Lowe's monument sign has been revised to a simple box like shape. The previous design that matched the building amhitecture should be used. 2. The Farmer Boys sign copy that reads, "Farmer Boys World's Greatest Hamburgers" is in excess of what the Sign Ordinance allows because "Word's Greatest Hamburgers" is ancillary advertising. The signs (both monument and wall sign) shall be amended to read either, "Farmer Boys" or "Farmer Boys Hamburgers." Also, the letters on the wall sign shall be channel type as opposed to can or "cloud" type. The letters on the monument sign shall be individual raised metal instead of painted on. The applicant strongly wished to keep the sign as designed so staff indicated that the matter could be brought before the Commission without a recommendation for approval from the Committee. The applicant chose instead to resolve the matter with the Committee. DRC COMMENTS USP NO. 140 - LOWE'S Janua~ 2,2001 Page 4 3. The Farmer Boys direction signs shall be revised to avoid a mushroom like appearance. They should look more like miniature monuments. 4. The Union Bank wall sign shall be amended to respect the 20-foot maximum height limit or a Variance will need to be processed. The applicant agreed to restudy the sign program and come back for further review. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:50 p.m. Brent Le Count January 16, 2001 UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM NUMBER 140 - LOWE'S - A request to establish a Uniform Sign Program for the Lowe's Home Improvement Store and adjacent buildings consisting of two restaurants and a bank on 20 acres of land in Subarea 7 (Industrial Park), located at the southeast corner of Milliken Avenue and Foothill Boulevard - APN: 229-011-32. The Uniform Sign Program was reviewed at the January 2, 2001 meeting and was sent back for revisions. The revised design will be presented at the meeting with staff's comments. Desiqn Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Larry Henderson Staff Planner: Brent Le Count The applicant presented revised sign designs for Union Bank, Lowe's monument sign, and Farmer Boys restaurant. The Committee agreed to the revised sign designs in accordance with the following: 1. The Lowe's monument sign shall have the restaurant pad tenant sign panel lowered six inches. The sign panel shall be painted to match the main stucco color of the monument sign. A blank sign panel painted to match the stucco shall be installed during the interim period until the pad tenant is established. 2. The Farmer Boys wall sign shall be designed so that the copy, "Worlds Greatest Hamburgers" read as translucent letters when illuminated at night and the surrounding background opaque. It is acceptable to provide a ~A-inch white translucent surround around each letter to enhance nighttime illumination. The face material of the sign shall have a matte as opposed to glossy finish to avoid a plastic-like appearance. 3. The Committee preferred the Farmer Boys monument sign design, which does not include the green drop shadow." The sign letters shall have a matte as opposed to glossy finish to avoid a plastic-like appearance. Th~ applicant agreed to the requested revisions. Staff Report DATE: February 14, 2001 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Brent Le Count, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-72 MODIFICATION - CONCORDIA HOMES - A request to amend the previously approved design review for 55 homes within Tentative Tract 15911 to be a gated community with pdvate streets, in the Low- Medium Residential District, (4 to 8 dwelling units per acre), located on the northeast comer of East Avenue and the Southern Pacific right-of-way- APN: 227-141-11, and 12. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Back.qround: The design review for this project was approved by the Planning Commission on April 12, 2000. This approval was appealed to the City Council due to very high walls required for freeway noise mitigation. The appeal was resolved, and the City Council upheld the Commission's decision on July 19, 2000. Since that time, the site has been purchased from the previous developer by Concordia Homes. ANALYSIS: A. General: Concordia wishes to gate the entrance to the subdivision off of East Avenue, and convert the internal streets to private. Concordia also anticipates filing a tentative tract map/design review for development of the property to the north of the site that would also be gated. This concept was reviewed at a Planning Commission Workshop on November 21, 2000, and the Commission was in favor of allowing a gated community. The proposed gate will have adequate turn around area, substantial trellises framing the pedestrian entries, substantial stone covered pilasters, ornate wrought iron gates/fencing, and a landscaped median. The overall entry statement will enhance the East Avenue streetscape. This is the only modification proposed at this time. No modifications to the architecture, grading, landscaping, or sound walls are proposed. B. Design Review Committee: The Committee (McNiel, Stewart, Henderson), reviewed the subject modification on January 2, 2001, and recommended approval. Refer to the attached Design Review Action Agenda for further details. I'~EH K PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-72 - MODIFICATION - CONCORDIA HOMES February 14, 2001 Page 2 C. Environmental Assessment: The Planning Commission issued a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project on April 12, 2000. No further environmental review is necessary for the proposed modification. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Development Review 99-72 Modification through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with Conditions. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:BL/jc Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Utilization Map Exhibit "B" - Tract Modification Map Exhibit "C" - Gate Concept Exhibit "D" - Design Review Action Agenda - January 2, 2001 Resolution of Approval with Conditions TRACT 15911 MODIFICATION TO DR · CONSENT CALENDAR COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Brent Le Count January 2, 2001 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-72 MODIFICATION -CONCORIDIA HOMES- A request to amend the previously approved design review for 55 homes within Tentative Tract 15911 to be a gated community with private streets, in the Low-Medium Residential District, (4 to 8 dwelling units per acre) located on the northeast corner of East Avenue and tile Southern Pacific right-of-way - APN: 227-141-11, 12 Desiqn Parameters: The design review was approved by the Planning Commission on April 12, 2000. This approval was appealed to the City Council due to very high walls required for freeway noise mitigation. The appeal was resolved and the City Council upheld the Commission's decision on July 19, 2000. The site has been purchased from the previous developer by Concordia Homes. Concordia wishes to gate the entrance to the subdivision off of East Avenue and convert the internal streets to private. Concordia also anticipates filing a tentative tract map/design review for development of the property to the north of the site that would also be gated (this concept was reviewed at a Planning Commission Workshop on November :21, 2000 (the Commission was in favor of the gating concept). The proposed gate will have adequate turn around area, substantial treJlises framing the pedestrian entries, substantial stone covered pilasters, omate wrought iron gates/fencing, and a landscaped median. The overall entry statement will enhance the East Avenue streetscape. This is the only modification proposed at this time. No modification to the architecture, grading, landscaping, and sound walls are proposed. 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: There are no major or minor design issues. The proposed design is of high quality. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. G round-mounted equipment and utility boxes shall be cornpletely screened from public view. This includes any Edison transformer boxes and boxes that might be necessary for operation of the gates. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval. Desi.qn Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Larry Henderson Staff Planner: Brent Le Count The Committee reviewed the gating concept for the tract and recommended approval. Exhibit "D" RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-72 FOR TRACT 15911 TO BE A GATED COMMUNITY WITH PRIVATE STREETS IN THE LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (4 TO 8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) OF THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF EAST AVENUE AND THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RIGHT OF WAY, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 227-141-11 AND 12. A. Recitals. 1. Concordia Homes filed an application for Modification of Development Review 99-72 of Tract No. 15911, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Design Review request is referred to as '~lhe application." 2. On the 14th day of February, 2001, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a meeting to consider the application. 3. All legal prerequisites pdor to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved bythe 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 meeting on February 14, 2001, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located on the east side of East Avenue on the north side of an abandoned Southern Pacific railroad right-of-way with a street frontage of 600 feet on East Avenue and lot depth of 1,300 feet and is presently vacant and has been rough graded; and b. The property to the north of the subject site is vacant and developed with single family homes, the property to the south consists of vacant land and the 1-15 Freeway, the property to the east is vacant and the 1-15 Freeway, and the properly to the west is vacant and developed with single family homes: and c. The property is within 600 feet of Etiwanda High School, which has impacted the neighborhood with traffic and parking; and d. The proposed gated community with private streets will provide enhanced security and property values; and e. The frontage improvements include construction of a decorative gate on the East Avenue frontage with landscaping, decorative wrought iron, stone covered pilasters, and large member trellises consistent with the Etiwanda Specific Plan design standards. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-72 MODIFICATION - CONCORDIA HOMES February 14, 2001 Page 2 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced meeting on February 14, 2001, including wdtten and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds and concludes as follows: a. That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and b. That the proposed design is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and the purposes of the distdct in which the site is located; and c. That the proposed design is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code; and d. That the proposed design, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or mal:edally injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and e. That the proposed vacation of interior public streets, storm drain easements, and perimeter landscape easements is in conformance with the General Plan. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below: Planning Division: 1) Ground-mounted equipment and utility boxes shall be completely screened from public view. This includes any Edison transformer boxes and boxes that might be necessary for operation of the gates. 2) All applicable conditions of Development Review 99-72 shall apply. Fire Prevention: 1) The gated entry is subject to review and approval by the Fire Prevention/New Construction Unit to ensure compliance with emergency vehicle access. En.qineerin,q Division: 1) Developer shall process an amended final map for Tract 15911 that includes the following: a) Vacate the interior public streets and storm drain easements and replace them with private easements and/or lettered lots. b) Adjust Lots 1 and 34 to accommodate a lettered lot for the gated entry that is wider than the 60-foot right-of-way for a local residential street. c) Separate a portion of Lot A for the Cornmunity Trail (public maintenance) from the intedor pedestrian connection into the tract (now privately maintained), retaining an easement for City PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-72 MODIFICATION - CONCORDIA HOMES February 14, 2001 Page 3 maintenance vehicles to access the Community Trail through the tract. d) Vacate the public landscape easements along East Avenue, retaining private easements for homeowner association maintenance. e) Amend the landscape maintenance and streetlight maintenance district work programs. 2) Provide CC&Rs that address the following: a) Pdvate maintenance of streets, streetlights, storm drains, intedm cross-lot drainage easements, the pedestrian connection to the community trail, and perimeter landscaping on East Avenue. b) Agreement to accept public street runoff into the pdvate storm drain if the area to the north and east develops with public streets. c) Allow access to the intedm storm drain inlet facility in Lot A for an adjacent developer to extend the storm drain. d) Allow for reciprocal emergency access if the area to the north develops with private streets independent of this tract. Also, specify that property to the north and east may join this homeowners' association and annex to the CC&Rs. Applicable sheets of Drawing 1714, 1714-D, and 1714-S will need to be revised to show which portions are now private, as well as curb and gutter relocations at the entry. Drawing 1714-L, the landscape maintenance district plans, can largely be voided; however, a sheet for the Community Trail is required in the public improvement plans. Add an "exit only" gate on the second access. 3) The pdvate paseo shall be gated on the Community Trail side rather than where the side walls end for Lots 17 and 18 interior to the tract. 4) Shift the jogs in the East Avenue theme wall, between the revised project entry and the south tract boundary, so the spacing between Iow retaining walls is symmetric relative to the project entry. This will also move the Iow wall off the storm drain. 5) The gated entrance design shall include 22 feet between the curb and median on the inbound lane, allowing one carto pass another stopped at the call box. 6) A Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) shall be issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) prior to occupancy or improvement acceptance, whichever occurs first. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-72 MODIFICATION - CONCORDIA HOMES February 14, 2001 Page 4 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2001. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Bullet, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 14th day of February 2001, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS; NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: