Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993/02/17 - Agenda Packet~,I~,:~ ~ CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CI'PY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA REGULAR MEETINGS 1st and 3rd Wednesdays - 7:00 p.m. February 17, 1993 Civic Center Council Chambers 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 *+~ City Councilmembets Dennis L. 5:out, Mayar William J. Alexander, Councilmember Charles J. Buquet, Councilmember Rex Gutierrez, Councilmember Diane Williams, Councilmember r*+ Jack Lam, City Manager James L. Markman, City Attorney Debra J. Adams, City Clerk City ORice: 989.1851 PAGE City Council Agenda February 17, 1993 1 All items submitted for the Clty Council Agenda must be in writing. The deadline for submitting these items is 6:00 p. m. on the Tuesday prior to the meeting. The City Clerk's Office rece(ves all such items. A. GALL 70 ORDER 1. Roll Can: Baguet _, Alezorxier_,Stoul _, Williams _, ontl Gulienez D ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONc C COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC This is the time and place for the general public to address the Clty Council. State law prohibits the City Council from addressing any Issue not previously Included on the Agenda. The City Couneil may receive testimony and set the matter far a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to live minutes per individual. D. CONSENT CALENDAR The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and noncontroversial. They will be acted upon by the Council et one time without discussion. Any item may be removed by a Ceuncilmember or member of the audience for discussion. 1. Approval of Minutes: January 6. 1993 January 20. 1993 Buquet absent) 2. Approval of Warrants, Register Nos. 1/27/93 and 2/3/93: and 1 Payroll ending 1/28/93 forihe total amount of S 1 b35,117.89. 3. Approval to receive ontl file current Investment Schedule as of 10 January 31.1993. 4. Alcoholic Beverage Application for On Sale Beer & Wine Eating lq Place for Rancho Cucamonga Professional Baseball Club, Valley Baseball Club Incorporotetl, 8408 Rochester Avenue. PAGE ~ City Council Agenda q ~--~C. February 17, 1993 ~--~ 2 5. Alcoholic Beverage Application for Off-Sale Beer & Wine. 16 Cond'Rional 7, for Ramona Marker. Sameer Deeb, 9550 W. Foothill Boulevard, UnRS A & 8. o. Alcoholic Beverage Application for Oft-Sole General for Town & 18 Country Liquor, Elia and Isla Tony Hawara. 12962-64 Foothill Boulevard. 7. Apprcval of a resolution amentling the Five-Near Capital 20 Improvement Program antl Twenty-Near Tronsportatlon Plon for Local Measure I Projects to include the 'Haven Avenue Rehabilitation - 4th Street to Foothill Boulevard-. RESOLUTION N0.93-022 22 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA. AMENDING THE FIVE-NEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND TWENTY-NEAR TRANSPORTATION PLAN FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF MEASURE I FUNDS B. Approval to appropriate S125,000.00 from Fund 32 -'Measure I Gas 27 Tox' and approval to appropriate 5370,000.00 from Fund 24 - -Stote Transportation Program' fur the construction and administration of the 'Haven Avenue RehabilRation - 4th Street to Foothill Boulevard'. 9. Approval to auihorrze the advertising of the 'Notice Inviting Bitls' 29 for Haven Avenue from Civic Center To Foothill Boulevard Sheet Improvements and Trotfic Signal Modification, to be funded from Fund 32. Measure I, Gas Tox. Account No. 32-4637-9112 and fund 24, Acca,M No. 24-4631-8838. RESOLUTION N0.93-023 30 A RESOLU110N OF THE CI7V COUNCIL OF THE CffV OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR TFIE 'HAVEN AVENUE FROM CIVIC CENTER TO FOOTHILL BOULEVARD STREET IMPROVEMENTS AND TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICATION- IN SAID CITV AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE 81D3 10. Approval to aufhorize the advertising of the 'Notice Inviting Bids' 35 for the Chafley-Garcia Born Construction Project, to be funded from Account No. 070-0276-0528. PAGE City Council Agenda February 17, 1993 3 RESOLUTION NO. 93-024 36 A IESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CAUFOfiNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE 'CHAFFEV- GARCIA BARN CONSTRUCTION PROJECT.' IN SAID CITY AND AUTHOR{-NG AND DIRECTING THE CITV CLERK TO ADVERTISE AND RECEIVE BIDS 11. Approval to authorize the advertising of the 'Notice Inviting Bids- qp for the Milliken Avenue &ke Route and Bose Line Rood Bike Lane, Phase I, (from west City IImRS to Day Creek), Improvement Project, to be funded from Administrative Air 9uality Improvement Grant Fund, Account No. 14-4158-6028. RESOLUTION NO. 93-025 qT A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CffV OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CAUFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE 'MILLIKEN AVENUE BIKE ROUTE AND BASE LINE ROAD BIKE LAND, PHASE I' (FROM WEST CITY LIMITS TO DAV CREEK) IMPROVEMEM PROJECT. IN SAID CITV AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS 12. Approval to adopt a resolution authorizing submittal for the 46 Householtl Hazardous Waste Grant Application to the CalNOrnia Integrated Waste Management Board. RESOLUTION N0.93-026 qg A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA. AUTHORING SUBMITTAL OF THE 1992/93 HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE GRAM APPLICATION TO THE CALIFORNIA INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD 13. Approval for }he Leo^~e Purchase of (1) three axle, 10-wheel 49 dump, front end Bader sweeper truck from Inland Empire White- GMC of Riverside, COIROnIIa, in ine amount of 524,071.33 ayeor, tar five (5) years, to be fundetl from Gas Tax Account 09-464)-7045. ~ ~ PAGE / {~/ ~~ `~~~§ ~~~~ ~'?, City Council Agenda L-'Jt ~ { t~ ~ ~ February T7, 1993 4 ld. Approval of landmark Designation 93.01 and approvol to 50 execute M!Ils Act Contract 93-O1 -Jon antl Dale Sutton - An application to designate the Emory Allen House, located at 9441 LomiTO, Rancho Cucamonga, os an Historic Landmark and a proposal To implement the use of the Mills Act To reduce the property tax on sold Property -APN: 202-082-13. RESOLUTION NO.93-027 78 A RESOLUTION OF THE CIiV COUNCIL OF THE CI1V OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA, APPROVING HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION 93-01, THEREBY DESIGNATING THE EMORV ALLEN HOUSE, LOCATED AT 9441 LOMITA DRIVE, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, AS AN HISTORIC LANDMARK AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -APN: 202-082-13 15. Approval of landmark DeslpnaTlon 93-03 and approvol to 80 execute Mills Act Contract 93-02 • Wayne and Vanessa Smith - An opplkatlon to designate the Hoppe House, bcotetl at A155 Eost Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, as an Historic Landmark and a proposal to implement the use of the Mills Act to reduce the property tax on sold property -APN: 225-191-16. RESOLUTON NO.93-028 109 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CfiV OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION 93-03, THEREBY DESIGNATING THE HOPPE HOUSE, LOCATED AT 6155 EAST AVENUE, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, AS AN HISTORIC LANDMARK AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -APN: 225-191-16 16. Approval of application and execution of permit (CO 93-017) for ll 1 use of school facilities between the Clry of Rancho Cucamonga antl ABo Loma School District for use of the mufti-purpose room at Carnelian Elementary School for The City's Summer Day Camp Program. 17, Approval of Map and ortlering The annexation to Landscape 112 Maintenance District No. 38 antl S}reet Lighting Maintenance Districts Nos. 1 antl 6 for Parcel Map 14318, located at the southwest corner of Base Line Rood antl Hellman Avenue, submiMed by Pioneer Bank. PAGE City Council Agenda February 17, 7993 5 RESOLUTION N0.93-029 113 A RESOLU110N OF THE CfTV COUNCIL OF THE CTTV OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP 14318 RESOLUTION NO.93-030 114 A RESOLUTION OF THE CfTV COUNCIL OF THE CfTV OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 38 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS NO. 1 AND 6 FOR PARCEL MAP 14318 18. Approval to accept Improvements, Release of 9onds and Notice ill of Completion for Tract 13273 -Milliken Avenue Pedestrian Untlercrossing, located on Milliken Avenue south of Mountain View DMe. Release: Faithful PeROrmance Bond S 338281.00 Accept: Maintenance GuaranTee Bond 33.828.00 RESOLUTION N0.93-031 118 A RESOLUTION OF THE CfTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA. ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT 13273 - MILLIKEN AVENUE PEDESTRIAN UNDERCROSSING AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK 19. Approval to accept Improvements, Release of Bonds and Notice 119 of Completion for the East Greenway Corridor which extends from Milliken Park, east to Terra Vista Parkway. Release: FoHhful PeAOrmance Bond S 421,000.00 RESOLUTION N0.93-032 120 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITV OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA. ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE EAST GREENWAV CORRIDOR AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK PAGE City Council Agenda February 17, 1993 6 20. Approval to release Maintenance Guarantee Bond for Tract 121 12820, locofetl on the south side Of Highland Avenue between Carnelian Street and Jasper Street. Release: Maintenance Guarantee Bond (Sfree}) S 41 pD.C0 21. Approval to release Maintenance Guorontee Bond for Tract 122 13248, located on the sa,~fh side of Highland Avenue between Archibald Avenue and Hennoso Avenue. Release: Maintenance Guorontee Bontl (Street) S 15(700.00 22. Approval to release Maintenance Guarantee Bond for Tract 13318 - 123 Landscape, bcated on the southeast comer of Hermosa Avenue and Manzanita Drive. Release: Maintenance Guarantee Bond (Street) S 9,50D.00 23. Approval to release Maintenance Guorontee Bond for Tract 124 133b7, located on the east side of Hellman Avenue at Highland Avenue. Release: Maintenance Guorontee Bond (Street) S 29882.00 24. Approval To release Maintenance Gxuantee Bond for Tract 125 13b21. located on the northeast corner of Hillside Road and Hermosa Avenue. Release: Maintenance Guorontee Bond (Street) 5 39,(700.00 25. Approval to release Maintenance Guorontee Bond for Tract 126 13644, located on the southeast comer of Hermosa Avenue and V¢ta Grove Stree}. Release: Maintenance Guarantee Bond (Street) S 49,600.00 2b. Approval to release Maintenance Guorontee Bond for Tract 127 13813, located on the west side of Hellman Avenue. 900 feet south of 19th Street. Release; Mainter~oncs Guorontee Bond (Street) S 7.600.00 27. Approval to release Maintenance Guarantee Bond for Tract 128 13873, located on northwest corner of Atwootl Street and Victo4a Pork Lone. Release; Maintenance Guorontee Bond (Street) S 7200.00 PAGE City Council Agenda February 17, 1993 7 28. Approval to accept the Hwen Avenue Rehabilitation from Fourth 129 Street to CNic Center Drtve. Contract No. 92-061. as Complete, Release the Bonds antl Authorrze the City Engineer to file a 'Notice of Completion,' RESOLUTION NO.93-033 130 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITV OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA. ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR HAVEN AVENUE REHABILITATION FROM FOURTH STREET TO CIVIC CENTER DRIVE, CONTRACT NO. 92-061, AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK E CONSENT ORDINANCES The following Ordinances have had public hearings at the time of first reading. Second readings are expected to be routine and non-controversial. They will be acted upon by the Council at one time without discussion. The City Clerk will read the title. Any Item can ba removed for discussion. No Items Submitted. F. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS The following items have been advertised andlor posted as public hearings ea required by law. The Chair will open the meeting to receive public testimony. I. FNVIROP'MENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONA iS P RMR 9 - 131 t a - sM]J_$y r $(jyS - An appeal of the Planning Commission's decision denying the development of o commercial shopping center consisting of a 75,000 square toot grocery stare, two satellite buildings of 3.500 square feel each, and adove-ihru pod Of 4,BOD square feet on 70.6 acres of land in fhe Community Commercial District (Subarea 2) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. located at the rorthwosi corner of Foothill Boulevard ontl Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-10203, 5, 8, 15. 20, 21, and 49. AssoClaled wAh this project is Tree Removal Permit 92-17. (ConHnuad ham January TD,1993) PAG E ~ ~ ~ '' ~ Clty Council Agenda ~~j L-uC:y ` {' ~ ~ February 17, 1993 8 RESODURON NO. 93-034 198 A RESOLUTION OF THE CIN COUNCIL OF THE CffV OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CAUFORNIA. APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-18, THE DEVELOPMEM OF A COMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTER CONSISTING OF A 75,000 SQUARE FOOT GROCERY STORE. TWO SATEIUTE BUILDINGS OF 3.500 SQUARE FEET EACH, AND ADRIVE-THRU PAD OF 4,800 SQUARE FEET ON 10.6 ACRES OF LAND IN THE COMMUNIN COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (SUBAREA 2) OF THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND VINEYARD AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 207-102-03.5, B, 15, 20, 21, AND 49 RESOLUTION NO. 93-017 221 A RESOLUTION OF THE CffV COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA, DENYING CONDRIONAL USE PERMIT 92-18, THE DEVELOPMENT OF A COMMERCIAL SHOPPING CEMER CONSISTING OF A 75.000 SQUARE FOOT GROCERY STORE. TWO SATELLITE BUILDINGS OF 3,500 SQUARE FEET EACH, AND ADRIVE-THRU PAD OF 4.800 SQUARE FEET ON 10.6 ACRES OF LAND IN THE COMMUNIN COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (SUBAREA 2) OF THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN. LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND VINEYARD AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 207-102-03.5, 8. 15, 20, 21, AND 49 2, CONSIDERATION TO AMEND THE RANCHO GUCAMONGA MUNI -IPAL -OD SF .TION 12088Y ADDING SECTION 1208025 TO 224 PROVIDE EXEMPTIONS TQ THE REQI~IREMENiS OF RIGHT-OF-WAY D DI ATION FOR SPE ~IFIC N S OF 9 DIN - RMR~ ORDINANCE NO. 507 (tlrst rending) 225 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CIN COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADDING SECTION 12.08.025 TO THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO EXEMPTION OF STREETS AND HIGHWAYS DEDICA~OON PAG E City Council Agenda February 17, 1993 9 3. r' ~N rRATIOh OF PROFO~ED FEES RELATED TO' A)lOD% GOer A-226 RF Cn~~RY FOR IGHTS IN ALL NE1"J PARKS B) SPORTS GOMPLFX B-229 FS AND ) R LIFT OF IiV'~ EXICTIN LI FfT FEE C-233 l' OSTR ~OVERV PO ICY RESOLUTION NO.93-035 22~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CrIY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CAUFORNIA, THAI UPON ACCEPTANCE BV THE CITY OF NEW PARKS IN RANCHO CUCAMONGA, A USE FEE OF 100% OF FULL LIGHT COST WILL BE IMPLEMENTED. THIS FEE TO INCLUDE ELECTRICAL USAGE AND DEMAND CHARGES AS OUTLINED BY SOUTHERN CALIfORNIA EDISON RATE POLICIES. THIS USE FEE WILL BE UPDATED ANNUALLY OR AS RATE POLICIES BV SOUTHERN CAUFORNIA EDISON ARE AMENDED RESOLUTION N0.92-223-B 231 A RESOLUTION OF THE CfTV COUNCIL OF THE CITY Of RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 92-223 TO INVOLVE USER FEES FOR TOURNAMENT REMALS AT THE SPORTS COMPLEX RESOLUTION N0.92-223-C 236 A RESOLUTION Of THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITV OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING RESOLUTION N0.92.223 REGARDING FIELD UGNT FEES The fol G PUBLLC HEARINGS lowing Items have no legal publlcatlon or poetfng requirements. Tha Chair will open the meeting to receive public tealimony. No Items Submittetl. PAGE City Council Agenda February 17, 1993 1 0 The tollowing Items do not legally require any public testimony, although the Chair may open the meeting for public input. No Items Submitted. The following Items have been requested by the City Council for discussion. They are not public hearing Items, although the Chair may open the meeting for public Input. No Items Sutrnhied. This Is the time lot City Council to identify the items they wish to discuss at the next meeting. These Items will not be discussed at this meeting, only Identified for the next meeting. This is the time and place for the general public to address the City Council. State law prohibits the City Council from addressing any Issue not previously Included on the Agenda. The City Council may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meoting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per Individual. MEETING TO ADJOURN TO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS PERSONNEL MATTERS. I, Debra J. Adams, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby cenify that a true, arcurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on February 11. 1993, seventy~iwo (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54953 al 10500 Civic Center Drive. January 6, 1993 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCB. MINUTES A regular meeting otthe Rancho Cucamonga City Council waz held on Wednesday, lartuary 6, 1993, in the Council Chambers of Ne Civic Center, bated at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. The mceting wac called b order at 7:03 p.m. by Mayor Dennis L. Stout. Present were Councilmembcrs: William 1. Alexander, Charles 1. Ruquet II, Rez Gutierrez, Diane Williams, and Mayor Dennis L. Stout. Also present were: lack lam, City Manager, 7amw Markman, City Attorney; Linda D. Daniels, Deputy City Manager; ]crry B. Fulwoal, Deputy City Manager; Rick Gomez, Community Development Director, Olen Jones, Sr. RDA Analysk Bmd Buller, Cily Planner, Larry Henderson, Principal Planner; Jce O'Neil, City Engineer; Bob Dominguez, AdminisBaGve Services Director; Duane Baker, Assistant to the City Manager, Diane O'Neal, Management Analyst II; Chief Dennis Michael, Rancho Cucamonga Fim Protection District: Capt. Bmee Zeiner, Ranch Cucamonga Police Depanmeny and Uebm 1. Adams, City Clerk. rrrrrr B1. Mayor Stout presented Jerry Uribe, Vice Commander of the Sheriff s Explorer Unit, a Proclamation (or his 2,SW plus hears of volunteer time. Daniel Cortez, Post Commander of the ShcrifCs Explorer Unit, was also recognized for his 2,SW plus hours of volunteer time for the Ezpbrer Program. He was not present but had been presentrd the Proclamation on a previous evening, rrrrrr C L Douglas Pure, 7970 Layton, slated he waz opposing drc proposed transitional housing pmjcel at the China House site, even Ihough he realizal this type of housing is needed. He felt there should be a park in his ncighborhoal. He (ch the homeless housing project would be better in an area where there is already subsidized housing. FIC asked that the neighbors be informed on this issue. He did not Nink this area would be beneficial for the homeless people. Mayor Stout stated the Council could not dixuas this matter at this time Meaux i(was nm rm the agenda. He felt there should be public meetings m dixuss this matter (unher. He felt (here has been misinformation obtained rcgaMing This maucr. He felt everyone in dte City, no matter what neighborheod they live in, should be nested dtc saran. He stated Olen Jones was working on setting up neighborhood workshops regarding this matter and mentioned the City Council Subcommittee would be working on this also, City Council Minutes January 6, 1993 Page 2 Olen tones, Sr. RDA Analyst, stated within the nest two weeks meetings should be set up with Ne residents. Mr. Pure staled they have 300 signatures supporting a park and opposing the homeless shelter. Ceuncilmember Buquet mentioned that this has not been discussed by the entire City Council, that only Ne Housing Subcommittee has discus;W it because this is very preliminary. Councilmember Guliemez stalttl the Subcommittee will deal with this the very best way possibly }{e appreciated the people who came Nnigh[ to show Nev concern for this project. C2. Earl Schroer wondereA how the City Council sclated this site for Ne homeless shelter. He asked that the City Council think about other people's cotmems before they make a decision on this. Councilmember P.!exander slated'TFO^SE' f,:uple being referred a are not scum of the earth, thaz Ney are people like everyone here Knight. C3. Mark Burger stated [hat Mr. Schroer asked a gnasdon arM (ell it should be answered. Mayor Stout stated them will be workshops to answer any questions. Mr. Burger stated ha and his neighbors have legitimate concerns about this. He asked for Mr. Schroer's question to be answered. Councilmemher Buquet stated this is not an agenda item and that Ne City Council could not discuss this tonight. He continued b explain chat the Council does not have all dre information on this project at this times He rcitetated that the neighborhood mccungs will be set up within the nett two weeks. Councilmember Alexander asked Nat Olen Jones roll how this site was selected Olen Tones, Sr. RDA Analyst, suggested Ne rcsidenks call him m gel any information Ncy need about Nis project. He sorted Ne site being considered is presently owned by CCWD who decided not to use Nis property as a maintenance yard, so Ncy called Ne City m sec i(we were interestW in purchasing it. He sorted based upon its designation as a historical silo and sweture, Ne zoning and We availability, it was decided to look into this m purchase Ne site, He sorted noshing is concrete at Nis time because drc City has not dccidW to go forward wiN this project el Nis lime. C4. Lindy Iugan Felt a screening process should be developed as to whom should live in Nis project. She did not Nink she City could build Ne number of homes They are proposing wiN the amount of money Ney have roe This project. She had various questions on how Ne entire program would M run. Councilmember Alexander sorted he agreed wiN all n(her coneems. Councilmembcr Buquet stated these are many steps involved More a final decision is mxhcd nn this matter and that Nc people will have the oppommny to give input to City represenutivcs. C5. Brian German, 12604 Barberry, sated he would like m know what is being done about gm(Bli or tagging. He continued In read a statement (mm his children regarding Ne gmf6ti problem. He stated he would like N nelp. City Council Minulas lazmary 6, 1993 Page 3 C6. Mike McConnel, 9430 San Bernardino Road, sated they would be impacted by the homeless because 1My live across the sweet from the proposed site. He suggestW Here he low income units spread throughout Ne City and no[ just in one area. C7. Keith Pluman, 7870 Ceylon, asked i(onc of Ne Councilmembers would go with him m see a homeless shelter and did not feel a shelter should be in Rancho Cucamonga. CB. Charles Barmack, 9530 Devon, asked Olen Jones how he would feel if a homeless person lived nett to him. C9. John Caplen, 7720 hymn, smtal he felt Nis was supposed m be on this agenda for tonight's meeting and asked why it was not. Councilmember Buquet uatcd Nc mceungs wcm supposed m be set up wiN Ne neighborhood residents before it came back m Ne enure Council, Mr. (:aplen stated his concern is detenorauon of his property value. He adcW why would Ne City pumhasc new property when they already have properly Nat is vacant Councilmembcr Guuertez asked that everyone allow the City Council m do Neir job and Nat Ney will represent Ne people. C10. Dan Stucker, 9550 San Bernardino Road, stated Nis is a big issue m the homeowners. He felt This would impact the commnniry in a negative way. rerrrr Mayor Smut called a recess at 8:04 p.m. The mwting reconvened az B:30 p.m. wiN all Councilmemben present. rrrq• •rrrrr D. CONSENT CALENDAR Jxk lam, City Manager, announced Nat Item D6 had a correction in the amounts listed in Ne stet( report. He slated Ne amount of SI 18,600.00 as shown in Ne title of the mpon on the agenda is correct DL Approval of Minutes: November IR, 1992 December 2,1992 December 16, 1992 D2. Approval of Warrants, Register Nos. 12AN2 and 12/16N2: and Payroll ending 12/3ry2 for the total amount of 52,127,807.63. D3. Approval of Appropriation to the piscal Year 1992ry3 budget for liability and unemployment insurance, U4. Approval of City opposition m the pmwsed use by Ne County of L.os Angeles of Deferred Compensation funds m balance Ne County's budge. ITEM RF,MOVF.D FOR DLSCl155tON 8Y COUNCILMEMBER RUQUF.T. City Counc6 Minutes January 6, 1993 Page 4 RESOLUTION N0.93-001 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CAL~ORMA, NOTING ITS OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSAL BY TF{E COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, TO UTILIZE DEFERRED COMPENSATION FUNDS TO ASSIST IN BALANCWG THE COUNTY'S BUDGET D5. Approvzl of Historic Point of Interest Designation 92-01 - H. W'. Minor Residence - a proposal to designate the H.W. Minor Residence, located at 10304 19th Street, as an tiismric Point of Interest -APN: 1076-14i-Ol. Relined Filc: Tentative Tract 1553]. RESOLUTION N0.93-002 A RESOLCITTON OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING HISTORIC POINT OF INTEREST DESIGNATION 92-0I, THEREBY DESIGNATING THE H.W. MLNOR RESIDENCE, LOCATED AT 10304 19TH STREET, AS A LOCAL HISTORIC POINT OF INTEREST, AND MAKING FMDMGS [N SUPPORT THEREOF -APN: 1076-141- 01 D6. Approval of an Amendment m the CDBG Final Statement of Community Development Objectives and Projected Use of Funds to allow the uansfer o(funds between the 1990-91 and 1991ry2 program years -proposed amendment m the Final Statement for the transfer of SI IB.fi(q.Q7 from the 1990ry1 Southwest Cucamonga pmjut allocation to the 1991N2 projat alkxation in order to provide adequate funding for conswction of the Sierra Madro strcet improvemenec from 91h Street to 300 feet south of Cha(tey Street D7. Approval m execute Amendment W Professional Services Agreement. CO 91-053, wish NBS/L-owry for additional work related to CFD 88-2, Amount not to exceed $12,000,00, m be fundrA from Account No. 76~130- 602R. D8. Approval m accept the public improvements for Ne Arrow Route Bridge Widening at Cucamonga Creek, Contract Nn. 9I-032, as complete, release the bonds and authorize the City Engineer to file a "Notice of Completion." ITP:M REMOVED FOR DtSCUSSION BY MAYOR STOUT. RESOLUTION N0.93-003 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPITNG TI1E PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE ARROW ROUTE BRIDGE WIDENING AT CUCAMONGA CREEK, CONTRACT NO. 91-032, AS COMPLETE AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A "NOTICE OF COMPLETION" FOR THE WORK MOTTON: Moved by Alexander, secomled by Williams to approve the recommendatlons made in the staff mpons of the Consent Calendar with the exception of Items D4 and DR. Mouon carried unanimously, $-0, wish Gwiemez absmining from die minutes. ..~.~~ DISCUSSION OF iTF.M D4. Approval of City opposition to the proposed use by the County n! Lns Angeles of Deferred Compensation funds to balance the County's budget. Courrcilmcmber Auqucl asked why was the City doing Chia. City Council Minutes January fi, 1!53 Page 5 Bob Ibmingucz, Administrative Services Dimcmr, stated it is being proposed at the request of ICMA. RESOLUTION NO. 93-001 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORMA, NOTTNG ITS OPPOSITION TO 7TrE PROPOSAL BY THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES. TO UTILIZE DEFERRED COMPENSATTON FUNDS TO ASSIST W BAtANCBVG THE COUNTY'S BUDGET MOTON: Moved 6y Stout, seconded by Buquei to approve Resolution No. 93-001. Motion caried unanimously, 5-0. •v~~er DISCUSSION OF ITEM NO. De. ADDroval to accept the public improvements for the Arrow Route Bridge Widening at Cucamonga Creek, Contract No. 9i-032, as complete, release the bonds end authorize the City Engineer [o file a "Notice of Completion:' Mayor Stout stated he quesdonW Ihis because the City is accepting a public improvement on Arrow Route at the bridge widening and understood the undugrounding had not been done at the bridge. He sated if this requires a modification to the conduits by Edison because what's done there is unaccepmble, does Nis affect that Ice O'Neil, City Engineeq scored no it would not, that the contracmr has done all the work as per his plans all specifications and that if there are nrodifications that arc rkcessary to Edison, we would have to Gnd anmher way b do that. That it would be an add-on anyway, RESOLUTION N0.93-(103 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE ARROW ROUTE BRIDGE WIDENING AT CUCAMONGA CREEK. CONTRACT N0.91-032, A.S COMPLETE AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A "NOTICE OF COMPLETION" FOR THE WORK MOTION: Moved by Stout, seconded by Bugwt m approve Rewlufion No. 93-003. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. ...... El. CONSIDERATION OF AMEND NT TO C BS TION 1204010Aa OF THE RANCHO ('l l('A MONGA MLMICIPAI. CODE PERTAINING. TCl ~ONDUCf OF ACTIVITLFS IN PI~u K~ Della !. Adams, City Cork, read the fide of Ordinance No. 505A. ORDNANCE NO. 505A (second reading) AN ORDINANCE, OF' THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA. AMENDWG SUBSECTTON 12.04.OIOA.3 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE City Couxil Minuws January 6, 1993 Page 6 MOTION: Moved by Buquet, seconded by Gutiemz w waive full reading and approve Ordinance No. SOSA. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. Nn iwms was submitted. No items were submitted. •"~~r• E. ADVF.RTICF.D Pllltl If NFe Rrn~cc i"~~~• G. PUBLIC HFARIN GC .a~~~. a. CITV MANA(: F.R'.C RTAFF' RFPnRTc No iwms were submitted. ~~r~"~ I. COUNCrL arICINFC~ I I. CONSIDERATION TO APPR0~5 NOMINATIONS TO TI"' 'TI R FFfTr TACK FORCE Mayor Stout suwd he and Councilmember Buquet have submitted a list of names recommended for the Task Force and Thar this does not prtxlude anyone from attending the meetings. Couxilmember Buquet suggested the Editor of the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin also be included in the membership of the Task Force and felt this woulA be a goad way w publicize this correctly as well as bean asset w the group. Mayor Stout suggesed that Mr, Hengle of the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin decignaw someone w 6e on the Task Force. LauAlic German, 12654 Barberry, (elt graffiti was inviting gang xtivity and fell it should be slopped right away. lack lam, City Manager, advised of the City's gmffitl program and the money and Bme spent w swp graffiti. He sated the City pealed w focus on the educadon process and a way w make an impact through the judicial sysem. Nancy Sherry asked for Councilmember Huquet to explain aMmt the gmffiti incident where he caught someone doing graffiti. Councilmember Buquet commented on this and tolA how the justice system through Ne juvenile courts was not doing much w punish the kids doing gmffiti. He sated the City is trying to adopt a municipal ordinance which will enable srxnelhing w be done once the juvenile is caught. He (eh the legislature should do more to make it wugher on people once they am caught. City Council Minutes January 6, 1993 Page 7 Charles Warren. 10730 Church, hoped that the Sheriffs Department was concenvadng on [he graffiti problem also. Mayor Stout felt everyone needed to participate in fighting graffiti. Bill Bateman, 12668 Saffron, sated he is a business owner and operator in Rancho Cucamonga. He asked if drere was a reward system fa catching someone doing gmffid. Mayor Stout smted the City already does this. The Council enwuraged anyone interested in helping with this problem m leave their name with Jerry Fulwood. Brian German stated he did not agree chat this was tomlly the parent's responsibility when they child is doing graffiti. He sated he did nor want m sec a parent lose they home because of something they kids do. He felt the kid should have m pay for the crime. Willie Ivy smted he does not Think the graffiti problem is all gang related. He felt hewer education was needed fa the kids. Robert Addingmn, Athens Sweet, stated he had taken the nme to get an ofiicer to help catch someone doing gmfBti, but that the officer did nM do anything once they caught up wiN Ne Ample at their Aome. He stated the riezt time they catch aommne, they would go to the person's bane themselves. MOTION: Moved Dy Stout. seconded by Alezarrder to approve tiro recammendmion of dre Subcommittee and for a later to be written to the Editor of the InIaM Valley Daily Bu11Uin inviting him ar his designee m be included in the Task Force. Motion tarried unanimously, 5-0. Mayor Stout sated This should be wrapped up in four months and for Ne City Auomey to work on an ordinance m „beef up" the City's fnngmm. r•r•r• I2. V RBAI DIC L7S ION REGARDING SHOPPMG CARTC LEFT THROUC HOJLHESITY Willie Ivy, 10189 Indian Summer Drive, stated he is noticing that KMART and Target, including other stores. have a lot of shopping cans being Icft throughout the Ciry. He felt something should be done by the Cily m stop this problem. Ceuncilmember Buquet felt working through the Chamber of Canmerce and sending the businesses mmespnnder~ce about their carts being left Nroughan the Cily wWld hopefully help the situation. Mayor $WW asked Mr. Ivy how he felt about him talking to these businesses about this emblem and then Mr. Ivy could cane back to the Council in the fuhrte and report how he felt things were progressing. Mr. Ivy concumcrl. ••rr•. No items were identified. City Council Minu[cs January 6, 1993 Page 8 •rrrrr No colnmurications were made from the public. rrrer• MOTION: Moved by Guuemez, seconded by Alexander to adjourn. Motion cartied unatimously, 5-0. The mcedng adjnianed at 9:32 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Debra 1. Adams, CMC City Clerk Approval: January 20, 1993 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COL'NC}L MINUTES A regular meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council was held on Wednesday, January 20, 1993, in Ne Council Chambers of the Civic Center, bated at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California The meetng was called b order at 2l4 p,m. by Mayor Dennis L. Stout Present were Councilmembers: Williarn J. Alexander, Rex Gutierrez, Dane Williams, and Chavman Dennis L. Stout. Also present were: Jack Lam, City Manager, Andrew Arczynski, Assistant City Attorney; Linda D. Daniels, Deputy Ciry Manager, Jerry B. Fulwood, Deputy City Manager; Rick Gomez, Community Development Director, Brad Bullu, City Planner, Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, Larry Henderson, Principal Planner; Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner, Jce O'NeB, City Engineer; Shinb Bose, Deputy City Fiiginear, Peul Rougcau, Traffic Engineer, Dan lames. Sr. Civil Engineer, 7o Lynne Russc~Pereyra, Integrated Waste Coordinator; Bob Dominguez, Administmlive Services Director, Bob Trammel, Data Processing Manager; Duane Baker, Assismnt to the City Manager; Diane O'Neal, Management Analyst II; Susan Mickey, Management Analyst f; Chief Dennis Michael, Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protecdon District; and Debt J. Adams, City Clerk. Absent was Councilmemher. Charles 1. Buquct II. •~r•«• No announcements or presenmdons wart made. •~~~~• No communication was made from the public. r~.... D. rONSFNT ('ALF.NDAR DI. Approval of Warrants, Register Nos. 12{23N2, 12(30ry2 and 1/6N3, and Payroll ending 12/17ry2 and 12/30/92, for the total amount of $910,705.43. D2. Approval to receive and file current Imustmcm Schedula ss of Decamber 3I, 1992. City Council Minuses Ianuary 20, 1993 Page 2 D3. Approval b adopt a Resolution in support of locating a Depanment of Defense Accounting Censer at the rise of Norton Av Farce Base in San Bernardino Counly. RESOLUTION NO. 93-004 A RESOLUTION OP THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, SUPPORTING LOCATION OF A DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ACCOUNTWG CENTER AT THE SI-fE OF NORTON AiR FORCE BASE IN SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA D4. Approval of Founders Day Pamde Evaluation and Modification Review Process. ITEM PULLED FOR DISCUSSION BY COUNCILMEMBER WILLIAMS. DS. Approval b display t'~.e Park and Recreation Commission's Ind Place trophy From dre Annual Founder's Day Parade in the showcase Booth of the Council Chambers as recommended by the Park and Recreation Commission. D6. Approval b desmty records and documents which are rp longer required az povided under Government Cade SoCUon 34090. RESOLUTION N0.93-005 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CITY RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS WHICH ARE NO LONGER REQIIiRED AS PROVIDED UNDER GOVERNh1ENT' CODE SECTION 34(190 D7. Approval m declare az surplus Iwo G.E. handi-tagcie radios and chargers, arM b donate same b Ne Inland Fmpvc Well Chapter of the American Red Cross. DS. Approvalbezlend Canrast Cable T.V.'s franchise. RESOLUTION N0.91-012K A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, EXTENDING COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO FRANCHISE LICENSE WITH COMCAST CABLE T.V. FOR 90 DAYS UPON EXPIRATION OF CURRENT LICENSE WITHIN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA U9. Approval of request by Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce b waive City fees in conjunction wish she annual Business and Community Ezpo. D10. Approval of revisions updating the existing San 8rmardirm County pevnit for she Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill. City Cowxil Minutes ]anuary 20, 1993 Page 3 RESOLUTION N0.93-006 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING REVISIONS UPDATING THE EXISTING SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY PERMIT FOR THE MID-VALLEY SANITARY LANDFH-I. DI1. Approval m execute a Reimbursement Agreement (CO 93-001) with certain property owners in South Etiwanda m wve+consullant costs associated with a pmposeA ascessnient district as requested by property owners. D12. Approval ro execute Settlement Agreement (CO 93-002) with County of San Bernardino regarding Municipal Court Fines. RESOLUTION NO. 93-007 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDiNO, THE TREASURER OF SAtt BERNARDINO COUNTY, AND THE AUDITOR OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT REGARDING MUMCIPAL COURT FINES DI3. Approval W execute Professional Service Agreements with Fieidman, Rolapp 8c Associates (CO 93-OD3), Willdan (CO 93-0Od), and Brown. Riven & HenLSChke (CO 93-005) in relation to a request by property owners in South Etiwarida m form an assessment disudct. D14. Approval ro award and execute the agreement (CO 93-006) for the maintenance contract for General Fund and landscape Maintenance District No. 1 Parks and tarMSCape sires for Mariposa Horticultural Enterprises. Incorporated, of Irwindale, California, for the amount of 559,410.00, to be funded by the General Fund and Lardscape Maintenance District No. 1, Aaount Numbers 01-0647-6028 and 40-0130fi028, respectrvely. Dl S. Approval m award and authorization for execution of contract (CO 93-0D7) fa Siam Madre Avenue street improvements from Ninth Street to Chaffey Alley, a Community Dcvebpment Blrzk Grant (CDBG) program 100% federally funded improvement project, to Easdand Conawction, incorporated for the amount of 598,762.00 (589,783.70 plus 10%contingency). b16. Approval ro cxautc bnprovement Agreement Extension for CUP 88-18, bated on the east side of Haven Avenue between [.anon Avenue and Highland Avenue, submited by Diversified Roperdes. RESOLUTION N0.93-(108 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OP THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSION AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR CUP 88-I8 D17. Approval ro execute Improvement Agrxrnent Extension fnr Tract 13566-3 locaud on No SouNwest comer of Summit Avenue and San Seveine Avenue, submitted try Century American. City Courmil Minuses Ianuary 20, 1993 Page 4 RESOLUTION N0.93-0(19 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSION AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR TRACE 13566-3 D18. Approval to execute Improvement Agreement Extension for Tract 13717 lorared on the NorOseast comer of Church Street and Spruce Avenue, submibed by Lewis Homes. RESOLUTION N0.93-010 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSION AND IMPROVEIviENT SECURITY FOR TRACT 13717 D19. Approval m execute Improvement Agreement Extension (or the Church Sueet Impmvemenrs, located between Elm Avenue West and Spnsce Avenue, submiued by Lewis Homes. RESOLUTION N0.93-011 A RESOLUTTON OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSION AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR THE CHURCH STREET IMPROVEMENTS D20. Approval ro execute Improvemem Agreement Extension for Tmcts 14379 and 14380 located on the Nonhwrst corner of EtiwarWa Avenue end 7Ath Sweet, submitted by Wan Inland Empim, Inc. RESOLUTION NO. 93-012 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSION AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR TRACTS 14379 AND 14380 D21. Approval to execute Improvement Agreement, Improvement Security and Ordering the annexation m Landscape Maintenance Disuict No. 3B and Street Lighting Maintenance Disoict Nos. 1 and 6, fa Conditional Use Permit 90-18, located on the west side of Santa Anita Avenue Nonh of 4th Sneer, submitted by Mmrin 1. Iaska, Irrcapaated. RESOLUTION N0.9.3-013 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-18 City Council Minutes January 20, 1993 Page 5 RESOLUTION N0.93-014 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MARJIENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B AND STREET' LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6 FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-18 D22. Approval of Map, execution of Improvemem Agreement, Improvement Security and Ordering the annexation m landscape Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 2 for Tract 13759 Ioraled on the west side of Haven Avenue, north of the Southcm Pacific Railroad, submitted by Fu Mai Limited Partnership. RESOLUTION N0.93-01 S A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TRACT MAP 13759, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, ANU IMPROVEMENT SECURITY RESOLUTION N0.93-016 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF T:~IE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRTORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 AND STREET LIGI177NG MARV7ENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 2 FOR TRACT 13759 D23. Approval to accept Hellman Avrnue Street Improvements inm the mainmined street system, and reduction of the Performance Hood from $759,085 m $75,900 for Tract la 192.1. Release: Faithful Performance Bond ($rCCLt) $759.085.00 Aecepl: Reduced Faithful Performance Bond (Streets) 75,900.00 MOTION: Moved by Williams, seconded by Alexander m app•ove all soft recommendations conlaincd in Ne atal7 mpons of Ila Consent Calendar wW die exception of Item No. D4. Motion carried unanimously, 4-0-1 (Buquet absen0. •r~~~~ DISCUSSION OF ITEM D4. Approval of Founders Day Parade Evaluation and Modification Review Process. Councilmembcr Williams stated she world like to add language to be included on pages 17 and 18 of the agertda packet. Shc soled That direction is Ming given m send letters b judges for the parade, arM felt more than one service provider should be discussed and considered. She felt information should be obtained thnwgh City-Link by not only Ne City of Fullerton as mentioned, but by other cities that produce in-horse so that input may be oMairmd from them. MOTION: Moved by Williams, seconded by Alexander to amend pages 17 and 18 to include her previous comments. Motion rartied unanimously, 4.0-1 (Buyucl abscnQ. ».~~~. City Courrcil Minutes January 20, 199? Page 6 Nu items were submitted. ~e~~~r @`ADVERTICFD PtlRll HFARINCC Fl . CONSIDERATION OF r ANDNpaK DFCI NATION 9 ^2 -Approval of an application m designate the Pearson Fdhng Smuon and Gamge, located at 12912 Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, as an Hismric landmark -APN: 1100-Ofi1-02, (Continued from December 16, 1992) ~~ - - A request m demolish a portion of the Prarson Filling Smuon and Gamge, located at 12912 Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga -APN: 1100~0G1-02. The Hisurric Prescrvalion Commission recommends the prepamuon of a focussed Envtronmenral Impact Repot (EIR) in order m best assess the adverse impact m This resource, Other options Nat could be considered include the issuanm of a Midgatetl Negative Declaration. (Continued from December 16, 1992) Stiff mport presented by Larry Henderson, Principal Planner. He also mendoned that a fax was received today from the Slate Deparmrent of Parks arM Rccrcadon and commented on this (copy on file in Ore City Clerk's oBice). Mayor Stout opened the meeting for public headng. Addressing Ne City Council was: Banyc Vantlger felt the National Registry Surus was unlikely because of information he has obtaineA. He requested that the canopy be demolished and defer Ore designation of landmark smtus until such time az developmem of the property is Consiekred. Councilmember Alexander azked how Mr. Vandgcr fdt about the designation of hismric landmark wiOr removal of the canopy. Mr. Vantiger stated the full impact of historic landmark designation has not yet been explored by him at this time, but prc(erted not to do this at this time. Councilmcmber Alexander asked Mr. Vantiger if it was his intent to leave the remainder of the suuctum up and prduted. Mr. VanGger smted that was ow option available. Councilmemher Alexander asked if it was his intent m demolish the remainder of Om building even if removal o(lhe canopy might occur, Mr. Vandgcr stated it was not his intent m demolish his building. There being nu further response, the public hearing .vas closed, Cnuncilmember Gutienez stated after looking at this rile, he felt it to be dangerous as waz smted in the Building Offcial's repoq which he read excerpts fmm. He sated he did not Iwl this is a hismrical building. He did not think Jte city would get National Registry smlus from the Smte. City Council Minute January 20, 1993 Page 7 Mayor Saut sated he contorted with Councilmemher Gutienei s comments. He did not think the City woWd get National Registry status because that is a very difficult thing a obtain. He sated he does feel it hat some historical significarree. He felt the Council should go wish Option 2. Councilmember Alexander stated he would like a go on with the demolition right now. [any HeiWerson, PrineipW Planner, sated that once an application is made, no demolition permit can be issued until an action a taken on that application by the City Council. Brad Buller, City Planner, staled a local landmark designation simply says it is of local signiEcance to this community. Councilmember Gudertex felt We Council should give the owner of the properly the opportunity to draw specifications, photograph and maybe mbuild a IiWe fabler back it he would like a build at some lime. Andy Amzynski, Assistant City Auomey, stated what is before them is an application to designate as a laral historic iamdmark. He sated what diet really does is place an impediment in the path of a property owner who wishes a significantly alter a building a demolish iL He sated typically if the owner of a building comes a the Building Deparunent for a permit W demolish it, they check the plans and make sure it is all okay, aM he can tlten knock it down. He stated this draws attention as to should this be demolished or modified. He stated the applicant has indicated no preunt intention of development of the properly, aldaugh they do have options They are presently studying. He stated development of this property would require some type of environmental analysis, and pouibly an EIR if (here is a landmark designation for the properly. He swted this would not preclude the Council in dre (uwre, after proper hearings and review, of wiping out that designation if it is deemed in the best interest of the City to do so. He did rat Wink it creaoed a permanent impediment W the property owner's potential goals of da property, but it does, however, fortify their representation That they don't have any present intent of knocking dte strucwre down. He stated if designating Wis as a hisancal sweture will somehow preclude anybody's ability a work with in the future, be did not believe this was carted. Mayor Stout sated the Resolution does not specifically refer m local landmark, because We Council can only designate az the local level. Councilmember Alexander stated that by allowing demolition of We canopy area this would clear the area for any signalizadon Wet needs a be done at that comer, and asked if this would restrict the removal of We main body of that sWCwre. !arty Henderson, Principal Penner, stated this would require an additional review if the applirant requested i4 and they would Wen have a go Wrough the demolition process again. RESOLUTION N0.92-267 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TI{E CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION 92-02, THEREBY DESIGNATING THE PEARSON FILLING STATION AND GARAGE, LOCATED AT 12912 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, AS AN HISTORIC LANDMARK AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1100.061-02 MOTION: Moved by Stout, seconded by Williams to approve kesolmion No. 92-267 wiW the HABS drawing mquirement far the canopy only, trot for the entire swctum and canopy. Motion rartied unanimously, 4-0-1 (Bttgrat absent). City Council Minutes January 20, 1993 Page 8 rrrrr• F2, ENVIRONMENT I Ac ESS hT ND ONDITION 1 IS p RMIT9 -IR-CMITHC-qn appeal of the Planing Commission's decision drnying the development of a commercial shopping center consisting of a 75,000 square fool grocery scare, two satellite buildings of 3,500 square fcet each, and adrive-Nm pad of 4,800 squarm feet on I0.6 acres of 'rd in the Community Commercial Disnict (Subarea 2 of Ne FooNill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the nrnhwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-102-03, 5, 8, 15, 20, 21, and 49. Associated with this project is Tree Removal Permit 92-I7. Staff repott presented by Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner. Councilrrrember Alexander inquired as to what prompted the archmlogical and geological reports. Deverly Nissen, Associate Planner, sated the archeological report was requested by the Hiswric Preservation Commission, and the geological report was dore because of the earthquake fault in the area. Councilmember Alexander asked who paid for the archrologiW study. Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner, staled Smith's did. Councilmember Gudertez asked i(it would be impossible w get the building to face Vineyard Avenue. Beverly Nissen, Asarociaw Planner, staled this would 6e very hard to achieve. Mayor Swu[ sukd he was not comforwble with deciding on this mauer tonight and suggested there be a subcommittee to work on this endm mane. He stated he would like w lx one of the subcommittce members. Councilmember Williams offered to be Ne other subcommittee member. Mayor Stout smwd they could swdy this further and bring back a recommendation to Ne entire Courrcil m make a decision. RESOLUTION NO. 93-017 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNtA, DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-I8, THE DEVELOPMENT OF A COMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTER CONSISTING OF A 75,000 SQUARE FOOT GROCERY STORE, TWO SATELLITE BUILDINGS OF 3,500 SQUARE FEET EACH, AND ADRIVE-THRU PAD OF 9,800 SQUARE FEET ON 10.6 ACRES OF LAND IN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (SUBAREA 2) OF THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND VINEYARD AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF- MN: 207-102-03. 5, 8, I5, 20, 21, AND 49 MOTION: Moved Uy Stout m form a subcommittce of he and Councilmemhcr Williams to fuller study this mauer and to continue Ne item until Febmary 17. Wynn Furth, Best, Best and Krieger stated they would be agreeable to this being continued, end hoped that it cart be done in two woks. Mayor Shut swwd they really need fan weeks, and asked it Thal would be acceptable. City Council Minutee Ianuary 20, 1993 Page 9 Ms. Furth slated they world go with the tour weeks. MOTION: Moved by Stout, seconded by Alexander to appoint of a Subcommittee of Stow and Williams m funkier study this matter, and continue it m Febntary 17, 1993, Mayor Stan opened the public hearing for those that could not be present az the February 17 City Council meeting. Addressing the City Council was: Ed Combs, ft008 Vineyard, asked if the property owners would be able to attend the Subcommittee meetings. Mayor Stout stated yes. Motion carried unanirtmusly, 4-0.1 (8uquet absent) ureter Mayor Stout called a recces at 8:03 p.m. The meeting was called back m order at g:35 p.m. wish aft members of Courcil present {BrrquU absenQ. teeter F3. ENVIRONMENTAL ACSECCMFNT AND TFNTATIV TRACT 14116 WI [AM COMPANY - pn appeal of the Planning Commission's decision approving a residential subdivision of 19 single family leas on 4.(19 acres of land in Ne I.ow Medium Residential District (4-6 dwelling units per acre), located south of Highland Avenue, west of the Deer Creek Channel - APN: 107661-03. Associated wish this application is Trce Removal Permit 91-28. Smff repot presented by Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner. Cwncilmembrr Gutierrez asked what other tides show for lengths of cul-de-ears. Chief Michael, Fire District, stated That Councilrnember Gutiertez had requested him b check with surtotmding cities for what they show for lengths of cut-0e-sacs. He stated of the eight he checked wish, six of dtern go by 6tq feet length cW-do-sacs or less. Ho study they laser mIXed wish an addifwnal five cities and shat FuBerlon had a length of 750 feet, but the other four were at i00 feet or less. He slated for the west end tides, Montclav waz the only city that had in excess of lAO feet, and they are at 1000 feu. Councilmember Gutiertez referred m page 282 and made comments about dw rronhem portion of the map. He also mferted to the design wnfigumtion on Sanm Clam Court. He did eta think them was consistency within This area for the sueecs. He felt there should be an amendment or considermion given for this area with regards ro the cut-do-sac length. Mayor Stoutopened the meeting (or public hearing. Addressing the City Council were lorry Jacobsen, 10935 Santa Barbaro Place, smted when he bought his house in 1988 he felt there would 6e a col-de-sac and did not wane his sueet to lap around to San Mateo. Ne asked the City Council to leave the arcs as originally proposed. City Council Minutes January 1A, 1993 Poge 10 Philip Talure, ]0961 Sanu Clara, sated Nere was a petition passed arourM by he and Counciimember Gutierrez and that all the msidents were in agrcement wiN his position. He stated he is opposed m three houses on the street as is his neighbor. The petition read as follows: "We the residents of Sai Mateo Place, Santa Barbara Place and Sane Clara Court, attach our signature hereto in illustration of our opposition to the proposed development. The development of the triangular parcel adjacent to our homes u of great concern m us. We are opposed m tla; proposed street configuration of San Mateo and Santa Barbarz. Wean; in favor of cul-0c-sacs fm both San Mateo and Sanu Barbaro. We ate also in favor of limiting doe number of homes added m Santa Clara to two. These characteristic of development as we have requested them best serve our neighborhood and safety traffic and consistency, Please take our opinions into consideration. Signet residents of Rancho Cucamonga." He stated Ne Planning Commiuion mentioned to him that instead of putting three homes in, Nat possibly two homes could be put in wish a shared driveway. He felt Naz was categodcally inconsistent with the rest of the neighbmMtod. He asked fa the Council's help, tae Custano, 10968 Santa Clara, stated he supported the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision. He did not like the idea of da: three homes in the cal-de•sac, and due he world lose pan of what he draught was his property. He smted he supported what other residents have sated. He asked for the Council m support Ne residents' concerns. Mayor Stott[ pointed out that the property on dw side of Mr- Cuatano's property was owned by the Ciry and (ell he should lave ban mkt a[ Ne time he bought Ne property who the actual owner was. He made a suggestion (on the overhead map) for the street design which he felt might be a solution m this. He stated he would like Enghaeuing m Zook at Nis. Brian Austin, William Lyon Company, staled it is their desve m go wiN dte 3 Guide-sacs as originally submitted. He stated he was concerned wiN Mayor Smut's suggestion because he Cell it would take away too much of their property. Mayor Smut felt the public safety aspect of Nis was very impanant He sated he did not like the shared driveway idea because of the potential far neighbors that do not get along. Brad Buller, City Planner, acted they could come back in two weeks m prepare di[ferent optons for the Courtc6's consideration. Councilmember Williams stated she is willing m look at options, but felt strongly about the G00 foot culde-secs. Councilmember AkzaMrs stressed du imporunce of public safety, and the fact that everyone canna live in a culde- sac. Couxilmcmber Guterez soared he is willing to look at Nc Mayor's suggestion on pape+, Brian Austin, William Lyon Company, clarified Nat Ne cal-de-sac was an option in response ro a desue to somehow reduce Ne number of lots on Sanu Clara, He pointed out Nat Ne loop configuration Nat is being pmposrd is something Ney can live with as discussed wiN stab. He stated his engineer pointed out to him Nat his tract boundary is 600 fret from the street so that the culde-sec would have m be developed m meet the criteria far Ne existing neighborhood wnfigumtion. City Council Minutes January 20, 1993 Page 1] RESOLUTION N0.93.018 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITt' COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT 14116, A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF 19 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 4.09 ACRES OF LAND M THE LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (d-8 DWELLING IRVITS PER ACRE), LOCATED SOUTH OF HIGHLAND AVENUE, WEST OF DEER CREEK CHANNEL, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPOR7 THEREOF - APN: 107661-03 MOTION: Moved by Stout, seconded by Gudenez for staff to expkua the options as he previoucly wggesVd and m continue Ihis m the February 3,1993 meeting. Motion carried unanimously, 4-0-t (Roque! absent). ~..... G. PURLIC HEARINGS G1 ABM IF'r'O 4TH cTR ET Staff report presented by PaW Rougeau, TraRC Engineer. Mayor Stour asked if on Church, at Uw four-way stop at Church and Spence, would it be inappropriate now m consider clout-way step sign at dre nen intersection north of that where Wa park is because !hue is a regigvN !rail that goes across there. Paul Rougeau, Traffic Engineu, staled they have looked az that imersection in dte past, and because o(the fact that Elm is only a collector street, and Spruce being a more major so-eu, that it did not look appropriate. He stated that in the next few years they hoped b get a tre(fic signal at Church and Spruce W replace the foe-way stop. Mayor Stout sated he is corkemed about having a regional uail at this area because it is hard for a pedestrian b crass on Spruce. Paul Rougeau, Tm(fic Engineer, stated that with the increased use of the Vail and the change in dte Milliken Underpass, that b information (hat is different than what was looked at before, and felt it would be appropriate b look at this again. lack Lam, City Manage, agreed that this could be looked at again. Mayor Stout opened the meatlng for public hearing. Then being no n;sponse, tba public hearing was closed Debra 1. Adams, City Clerk, read the title or Ordinance No. 606. ORDINANCE N0.606 (lust reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 10.20.020 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY CODE REGARDING PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMffS ON CC•RTAIN CITY STREETS City Council Minutes January 20, 1993 Page 12 MOTION: Moved by Williams, seconded by Alexander m waive full reading and set second reading for February 3, 1993. Mo[ion cartied unanimously, 4-0-1 (HUquet absenQ. ...~~~ G2. CONSIDERATION OF DE OP NT R VI W 9 -I I - DAVIC -Appeal of Planning Commission's decision m require a Community Trail in conjunction with the smnswction of a single family house louring 7,600 square feet on 16.6 acres of land in the Open Space District and Very lAw Residential District (up m 2 dwelling units per acre), located at 9400 Almond Street - APN: 1061-091-UI. Staff repot[ presented by Dan Coleman. Principal Planner. Mayor Stout opened the mewing (or public hearing, Addressing the City Council were: Charles Doskow, Attorney representing the travis', felt the application deals only with the wnsuucuon o[ a lame, that the application did not deal with the trails. He sated the intent is m demolish the existing house and build a new one in its same Iecadon. He stated his client haz agreed az a condition of processing the application to dedicate land for the nail once it haz been determined where it goes. He did tat feel this should be before the Council at this time. He crated there is rro nexus between this discussion and the application before the Council. He continued m highlight some of the comments made at the Planning Commission meeting. He stated he did not think the trail issue needed to be decided now, and he felt dle proper idea would be a wail until this properly is subdivided or du property a the west is developed. He stated his clicn6 did not object to dedicating the properly at this dme, but it made mom sense to wait until Ne proper alignment has bcen decided on. He felt it was unfav b hold up the house because of the nail issue. Mayor Stout asked him if he had studied dle precedent set for requesting uail conswetion on single•family demehed homes. Mr. Doskow sated no, but that all the trails he is familiar with go acrosC the back of the house except for Ikzr Creels, He smted he felt This properly was unique. Councilmember Gutiertex asked if the Davis' agreed to do this az a part of the approval they received to build dte bum. Mr, DOSkO W slated yCa. Bmd Buller, City Planner, slated when the applicants came in requesting appmval to build a hem, City staff ittdirated the trail would be required. ti waled stall did receive a lever from the Davis' indicating day did rat oppose the trail, and they slated they would be willing m dedicate the nail prior a issuance of building permits for da house. Mayor Stout asked That a copy of this 6e made pan of Ne record. Don Terry, President of the Aha Loma Riding Club, stated Ihcy support [hc equestrian activities in da City, but also feel the nail completion impicmentation plan should be (ollowed. He felt the City Council should insist on the uail devclopmcnl now. Gary Beck commented Them would not be (macs allowed in Rancho Cucamonga that would be all enough m kcep someone on a horse from swing over it. He asked that the City Council go along wiN Ne City Plan and have the trail completed al Ne same fime the house is being built. City Courroll Mlnu[es January 20, 1993 Page 13 Gmg Filcher showed the Council a map of Ne trail. He asked that the Council condnw. with the trail plan as the Planning Commission suggested. Jerry Nort, member of AIU lama Riding Club and Sheriff's Equestrian Pawl, felt the trails were a safety measure for residenLS, Jan Stauon, 8760 Golden, felt the Vail should M wnstructed at this time Pam Henry, 9013 Caballero, showed Photos to the Council artd referred to a packet of informadon the Riding Club had deliveral m the Council. She felt the uail should M constructed now. She felt !his was an important link for the bail system and did not feel these people should M exempt from Wtdng in dw bail, She smted them has been a lot of Gme and interest put into Ne Vail system and felt the trail should go on as planned. She asked that people from the audience smnd up that wem in favor of the trail going in. Kitly Nutt, 7966 Thoroughbred, !cI! it was wonderful b haae the trail system that the City has. She hoped the Council would ask Ne Davis' to go ahead with the trail system no•.v. Greg Rambo fell the trails should M kept open and useabk Randy Davis, owner of property, stated M had called the City m find out if (here were any conditions when he purchased the property. He stated they don't have a problem with the trail going in, only going down the middle. He sorted his inswance company also has a problem with this. He did not feel the map shown by slag was accwale as to the design of the properly. He stated it would cost him 550,0!10.00 m put !fie veil m and that it was just another added cost that they have not Figured at Nis time, Suzanne Chivea, 7943 Appaloosa, sated she did na agree with the Davis' suggestion of a zig-zag Vail. She felt the veil should accommodate all riders. She feh the proposed nail would least impact tits property. Mr. Doskow fch the Davis' were giving people and felt unfair things had Mtn said. He stated M felt the City should keep their word when the lever dated July 9, 1992 was sigtred. He slated his clicnLS want N build the nail when it is the proper time to develop iL He askM that the Council trot direct this to M done umil it is the proper time m do so. Tam Cuningham ext><exsed concern if the trail would M closed if it is devebped. Mayor Stout stated it is his understanding that it is citrced, Ms. Cuningham felt snfety should M considered when riding. There Ming no further response, the public hearing was closed Councilmember Alexander stated he felt an implied agreement was made to put in the trail and that M is willing to support the Planning Commission's Ondinq. Mayor Stout felt the City has a respnnsibilily to build tM Vail as safe as possible. Ne felt the trail should M put in preferred condition as shown on Exhibit 1 and that it should M consvucted prior to occupancy. He felt Ute veil xhould M put in now. He felt a Resolution should come back smdng this at the next meeting. Councilmcmbcr Williams stated she concurred She did not feel amess should M denied to the uaih and felt it should M done now. City Council Minutes January 20, 1993 Page 14 Courtcilmember Gudertez stated he contorted with the rest of the Council and fell it should be done now. Brad Bulks, City Planner, stated Opton 3 from page 323 answered Ne Mayor's question on the trail being done at dtc tlme o(occuparicy, MOTTON: Movul by Slnnl, seconded by Aleaander m bring back a Resolution for the February 3, 1993 tneeling refemng to Option 3 as the preferre4 altemale specified for the trail. Motion carried unanimously, 4-0-1 (BUquet abscnQ. .... • r NI. UPDATE ON STATE. BIRIf:F.T PROPOSA_I v (ORAL RBPORT) Jack lam. City Manager, stated drat the Governor is proposing things which will make the City loo money fm Ne City, Redevelopment Agency and F've District. FIe mentioned die rnocey the RDA lost last year, and that Ne Ciry now smnds w bu S4 millbn if the Governor's proposal goes through. He stated that whatever the loss, it will affect Rancho Cucamonga. He suggestW the City take the following defensive measures bateau of the Governor's proposal: I. Delay the start-up of the new animal rare facility. 2. Do not bid for fve station 83. 3. Any new acquisitions oulo(housing ul aside funds be delayed. He sated these are defensive measures bateau of the Governor's pmposal and that it would affect all cites and counties and districts MOTION: Moved by Staut, secmWe<I by Guueraz a approve [he City Manager's recommendations. Councilmember Alexander suggested [fret These types o(malters be more definitive on an agenda in case Here are residents Thal would like to comment or obuin inf«mauon relative :o this matter. Motlon carried unanimously, 4-41(Buquct absent). No items were submitted. . ~+~r• [. COIfNCIL RIISINF.Sg . ~.... No items were identiflcd for the nmt meeting. •~r~~• City Council Minutes January 20, 1993 Page IS No communications wem made from the public. ...~~• MOTION: Moved 6y Williams, seconded by Alexander to adjourn to EzecuGve Session to diuuss personnel madors. Motion carried unanimously, 4-0-I (Baguet absent). The meeting adjourned at 10:52 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Debra 1. Adams, CMC City Clair Appmvcd 2 u O m :NP hl Ofo OO V• •i• :; foi :~' •2• •tl• •2• :w. ~JO NN~eao 000 .:Dina rim.: .. N<h N n<>n n<N NI-OPOwrym• mPOTN nfNOhmPOrNnIN T~N r PPOOeooOOOOOroorrp nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnlfnNNnnnnnnnnmm~n~~IVN1<V•>• =rrnnl. FMMFhPNMhhhnFnnFhhFFMM1MhFMnnnhnhMnnl.rv hnnwnnnhh <1 I f _ f < •m• LLo O• •¢ V V NI m ~ 1 N ~1 In hr fre\r2i rW \ NO N<rNn r\ nWTrM hl6 nVnN JO •• 6rN S _ _ <J miV m Nmr O{ P N>J .ys f ~~w V10lSV V h_h_SVC Wi N h VOu Nri ON NZDf W\i6i SJ J 7 P Ohf W'J SIifWJ Of JWJJ ¢S O Ch 1 _ ~NVUSNf W ZP fVVWC6Vmm<KIVV r hr fNJ WSir'J ~OfwO SVJOO iW JS 21L OVmNm _i 2J0¢__>O ~~~htl ~ fZV~¢WI Si1J WC Y nwW/0 2• C¢ 02hMJLZP2 r2Fi0<JR2>INrlh ¢S¢ YSS rSUJ OiJ N2J OJO ubNr WSJai riiVV ¢V V=120rmr2J<¢O FI NUJ<N JNVJr„=¢i< h2m2~N0 iiWwOGVW¢ JOC<Nef iO r<O hji iy N= W\WD=F V wi WJ\f<JJVfVOWNUhiC VL~WVJOOn iOWNhjiZiJNWU<N~VMOi ¢V, ~V iWVVriNOLL< FTNI¢VNVF W<S 620 w OV<O¢i rt¢¢rri6 r Sirhrhr>rrmh06>hONnwrrrHmVw<m NL¢Ww WWf:f 0Vf0JOOW< ~PF• JOW• ¢ iOw• Ow > r{ 0D40WD>NOiDVD¢¢O66V06>lnNnM16V¢<wNawNDwrvhO>OiM> H M1 i Iir Y.I f l C M1 HS VV_ Vf W r N Mutli 2 J • iV mw N i wO ZN O N2wZVN u ¢<O WJ 2 N ZD OVO it M1OWUV SW ~J> VV 7WUw JF6 f6H _ iN ZOmi •iW p iON NZ Ji Wi Wi GN NO 0 UJV V <S<pF¢NHiWrFUU<LLZ JiW N>JNJ NO JO 6i ~ ~<6 • ¢tHM1rm e f O 60uminam0 noj~> uV UJU<JVJi{ i• uUwmONU< LM1YF:O <O f r0~ VO_FWY<<WVOI\M1 i WfOOWfw~~~WM~~~U~WNi\t~RtROWjY J WtM1<ZIN •Jl 00 ISSiriUH LH y pSi ROitlO JiMiO : .'N 3 NNVVOfuJiij:.~.J .WrG f~<7 WOO:Nr_wip>p• mW O< NO • IOwVHWiNM1FD YO YU JtOOtl¢ NNVN9>m0000><m « tlWWrwl000f iJiiM1 Om m<mfm\mmf « « « <0000000000UUUVUUVVUVVVV000p000 mmhOmnNhHm~Nm:PVNe^r O~IIN>Nf NNNn OhOy r n n inwnwn Nn mn Nnr NnNrwn.~l hlf N~hnT<M1 nNI1 NNNhr annnemooa °o 'e OOONO apo DC Oa DD n'D Cnee°e ~vo+ ooeowo Nm 2 r `NP y~v ¢1 =;0 X00 Or•p 2• ¢~ O: N + m; r m .. N n+NOhf wd••Nn+Nah~PD.•nm.NOh>wDrNr.normPO~Nna N.n - ^ooeaaeooaaaaaaaaaasovovooeooaaaoa~a o~~~zz~zzz~~~z~'~~~,.....>,....~x~zh>I.NNNhh~xzh>.~z~_PNhh _ _ _ _ _ U.W I + W U N 2 ¢ n ~m m n + n nn ZN\ J n\ \ m\ mo + ~mJ V \i\:m JpP+ M N \+m+ + P OJh nD.nN 2 NZZjNPNm N \m •OwW6w f+ \Ir +OFT fw w\w 'Iw f \w WIUN\\U \a6tirV N Pwl VS•D O_i0.1WN +e•Onp p LJZrrf 20 m:JZ WV\Jf J r>,W¢V NI Wr p O S• p lC U\ZD• • ~•D w~WOO~h¢w W ZOwm ~V i IWJINJNVap 1~~~~3w~iVSN~~00p1p W¢nnJ pi md~~z W+\ 1 ~~D¢ >0=~ 6¢dV¢W+wIVOi O •2'• rI1NNwV0WV0••'O rf¢ = r ww •u=1..iw Y JSLLN hWOf LLDM•• I p0 fyOINWwLLw SN3 d !O¢2 \p l __ OZJ:WrN >ZFdOZ >O~hNOhVrM3\LL _OWVWNU••O i.••O wW h M„ asf • fWfV6 O y Y ••00 OLLOfM¢ir _ DWELL r ph•n ••iW w Q F_ _ O_uppJ JN•Ni>wwW YIJfOi+JVOJwi¢ JY wJJ„ 2 NO••WO OL w_ZJj.OFO f WLZLLLL Zyi=>VNOZ¢ VNIO N dZYrWNONUNw JO i:D=ti JW>V y0~ Oi2 N.UJrf JOFWV¢+V D\UNZWNJS IyJ¢MtWW>NOrDO 02 ZjpW+D mZfiW.O POfdw.2 W22¢Nfyy p+www W> >yLL~nW) •WW>JW+ w rOJOw >U 0600.•OW¢O f 00 O>NVOp>h0>LLN6p dN » >p-N¢WLLIOO~U O • ¢ W Z OJ fLL zf °• s OLO •• V V__V it N . JWiJ WLL •L OdrWZVhi~ 'dNU~Oj~siwwCO •h rdZJJ JL~Lhh Oiii WS~~N YZZZZ>fWWW u OOdYd DOwWWWpLLw~VVVVVVVVV V V J V 0 J t w ¢ i 2 V w V Z O 2 nJ . u i - J FL OJ hUf fjJWN f N2w V:i•4W O viwV Ji o0 OSO •adOF> V WJ> NLJh .ice Jd OsN OiT W2OJ JS WSN wN WCp OD WWIN •JOJOS• WOW~JUIVNiNWh2f •( „NW N i0¢ iFwOWJ ZV¢ SUN rON«i••VW wJJiONJ JL p:::290ViV• Zs > WJ~~r0=00==Ww''Ji rY~JwOJf fVW VLiLii ii w 9'1 •[¢•LY J JlitiT +o+a.arvr++ h rPr n+NNNeP.+mwf ..w nn„P mN e Poa nr-.NNnNe. +w.•m•-. a Tnnvmnn-n-Pm.• n PP nPNP NnPwmPwnm~+mnlh~lN ••••n NmNPnN 2 .. O fFP Ofrv US \~ •2• •„• n~ ici •i• ~ ~ tit ~ f ~ ~S~ t• ~O• iii is aasmomm~~a~aomooomaeeaee°ovo~~mas~ rPOti°n°meONmmu rNam..NNOnNONnnn N°DPOOrv m0 rv mNrw rY• n m f N F• nrmNN ntin P rNnfndwOPOrNn•NVnOPO^OOOOOOOC ndNdFePOrN I•Vf•V• m •••V•'I •'11•••aV•1••Iff• VV• V Oi m U° H p \O .n o fin aP°e n i 3Y°\N° ion r~ °o v vV p~ N N• nW•i NnrRw s • yJpu m aW ew ~N ~• s as~ri aPS:p\r~o zm Ifmf p i~ n\~mi.. u zsNe2 1 MOI\ rv Np wH10ip011\dW NI FI Wp nW ~JWin:ONa `II Nw¢M ¢ Y ¢O Yw :om ~\iifprm a¢s m: JN IY VJ 1 1C wy PJYmW YIOfUppVVrvSV~OGVWry)W 10 dOJ02p1y>FO¢ NZtifpV NI> fSJ °ZpNeJJRr~wS O WV FiJ f;=Q i\ 6 WwNNr~ OOJr7<i Of6NMTfZi1nJZInwN J¢Z ~JIwO nJOJWO7MJ6~VW >_> MriN~oW¢j r°m~101 md• NFIi pONaOmpZJOI Vm2niJV Ir JeOlm ~SOZVOWN6rY FSJWe i\ S weFUYONfiLLOZILLL Jid ¢OZII MYWFNNWZf rOnS~IOOJ000N6e0ir~OJIMd nOONVJ NOIZ VO •F NO nin SOpWw >FN 11 Fhlu NiFOFJWW Ow2r~VWWa °ZW26J¢2Z SSVfYSwW S SWiFm32W¢6 LLhS VVZp asN `n °mui iliilaiii ~i~nriWiiiiiz~slri i~iui °n mwin ~Jnn¢°MVJffNi~f 60fN V VO¢OJ 6pR 6frSpn NSNOGpFOWNNOpW p0•O OSOr2fWwFn ¢SmF NiY¢SSfFZU¢iZiOiVriIJFFn rZ02 rSifrWWFOWWryO~SJ pJOFWWrYtO6ZWOr27 J3w0° nimYPSJWV6~00J000L~CCnO CCUaVOiMOW[n JOOOp6iN3NOCN2~foiOpntl Z2 O JO S OS O O Sr n FI• 2 06 Z„ >i `` J O~WZ NO~OOwN YV NZ rFZF66 r Ur6Vri WiOf O f ZVZ WZYFS J 2 ZVNnf USw iYYV Jni w2i ~ Om p¢Or~Oi IN WN f¢WOf W NONVR¢010L JS OVnwYVwWOWr ZfW NVSJJNn N nZ Oir6 rJOiJWwNVVniu~¢tO Y tliSOWnO¢00¢LLG¢FJir ZUV1'w Vm N9VSOrUWm fV i0 VOWN WnW ~OF¢6fw•na O O VV OZONE r ZVpJ02V 1~ ¢LL1yNNf`OLL JJYfd20f OVdW10j OOZYJNnN ¢JN6W i• VOU ¢O fS2S3i ~¢Or3iONWJR6N Od 2r •OtnINWrOWWW1V JSSNfO nwN YwHH YmOLOr2: WW O WWCwNLUZYeOiJJVr n2diZwOLLw f in{nWMf1..i0 SOV OOpV>J6rVnnR2Zn ZmOpYrnnwVV~t000w~.WViZnOiNMiONt3O0>`: fj WW°JNmN OJNf df iZi23SiZ23000mO000ip•\pZppp¢ZZZZZZNNNNNNNNNMNNMNNNN nnmPOm NdN N.p r~NFPNddNehNeFednOPeNnNIhPn~NddmF F•P nPn~ r~r-°narnNOnmNM onnMe•nAn1••NOrnlm•NP Nnro n.mNNN•dnNnN NNNm..nN¢Nnm •Nma Nn nan rnm n N nnnrv PP nPP .~rvmnr m nnNnewN miaNmnm nin nn n°nm 3, 0 ~ww FI 2°O <Oo Ow N LL iii •~• He ;O; :~ Iwo i i i i ~ ~ ~wj i• e/ •L~ tt~ tit we ~ePTOPw.mTe<T.oo.wPOFTeT w;aN TAP -_ m~i ai. ~iiaiaii .~ ~ ~ •V \ • N Y V V N ui ° o w N w< w w aw o air°. rV <i <\ J \ 2J i ~\Vww w ¢ UJ TV SLO NIwN~ JiF IpPW <S LLN 01 W\ w riro y\JO <OwF W.p<oJpp JJWSI<1 v~J6< LLJFnwrPOe IVNr7[w eW .~ouwwxo' N1-o a< :zorc.'1 ~`° i2 <JriUSNw `YNP NV'N~<Y ~~n N s~ a re: <aaer wl\JmPr<V\• <O rvUViO~<p~r~V°1rl<L Y.ne ri 1 J u t T L •Jw Vet O e V N w~oi z u 0 iizoL NizWCZZ .2. ~wsa Y LN ro~W FJSwNl <WN tf wp N~[ JJ u~ z : z ° ~ z eo uzzz ~ S _ V• QiW S JWS ` Y Jwp i aS HFNpSO~tV LNL~ ~nJ2NJ< NhJi RVp 3<OLO6 Nf<W WSLN~Y C<w NNrrFpJJYYiiifi2LiSiwFNN esaa..< < N T nmeom m m Lm n F n~ryNT 4 f V s tNP O<O ¢I Die x w00 WNW OjC y LL E _; ¢; mii \• 01¢ \~¢ :i Di ii ¢• ¢• f 1x• 01 Y• U1 ~N O• •i• w ryt ~ ~ n o~oo<o~e e~anrlvnwleneaano~h olen.enooem norms N.eo °e .A. oa.o ~woo.e n.e.~ 0 ooMN~o eriril:rrl=oMl=o~~e.i .: ~nrrve.~ic emwv.ee rlnerv<r~nol=ro ..NdPaawAn N..A NNnNA NmNNNNNNNNm•aAp N..N mNAarvJ m0 rNNOa! a ..a n P m pmr Neh.werNA+Nah.werNm+NahewerNmaNON.worNA+nah iaiiiiiiiiai i+aa+++++ +•iai~v+~iiii ii+ o//hh..hhhrh._nNhNhhhhh N.+-rhhhh..hNhhhhhnnhrhh+.a..+.nnnn~n~~ i JW> P . „+ V O ¢+ JS \ N A NINYdMhh O~ O ++< WO LFWdO • amNmAAOJwNw r.VN YOOAO 1.N ZL..A mPNNMNMw+ PAO A PMN O > \hd OmNh:NNNFenNh dr: : "a aAeh a° Wr N m<„w °w ti~Nma n+e.. eeoevv0. uP o. oo~ra Wo: e 1 NN. rrrrrrr aW .. _ .eaiwl~UNi as ..Y w..... a. •.. rJ~~ i n~ u ¢NyhW » O 00 V~Y VNO.N VV r < J/ fii\:Y ..r ... YYhYYY..rrN¢Y..n S~YYrJ FYNRZ VJ./Z6..Jr ~ .[....JJ'J ViVVUUQ VOJ6.ZItiJJPJWVVZUYVVWU7 r <WV \ R¢O N ¢ZO U¢¢: <~YOWWWUr`O NVViINNVNOOOANNONN~NWONNyVVOrWO¢r00¢= r L.NJi W.[rW2 Wt0 SOZN nrr+01 rJm O`J AS s+VUn..e w xJ\e M~r< W w o <eee .. .. er l~NPe\ rsWeroOx oZOtLLOJJZNWwr..W2ervnrWWW~..~...ILJA6 ~l0.rWJ.0iO~~.SFW 10 WOOS h>O r<OrrrOeY OJr w 001/ Yi OV¢~ a ypJ.iiW.N~J~.~~.~Y_ryNMNNNNNhe~xrNYYAMZNNY1LNnN7 W.. Z•< Jx<N • fJJf «< 2Y OSfx2P O j< _ PVShWJ ZJwi JJ'JxJJJJWWZ JJJJJWY.J¢WJWW\iJJJi¢ JJW L 10¢W>u<VVf WVJVNWUVYVFi VVVVVUVLyV2NV il`.. JVV VVV>N <Of¢ J<00_WYO_D_O_O_<f~ e0 _O _00_Ot Dh<OffNJV O_O_J<_DP O_+ Y1JL2 FINZUe2 VO WLV MZr Z6G V Vr OV Vi>WJa<~.W..YD'J..JDJ'JD6¢NJ3JJJD'J<JDOm9f <NUh~Or/JOOiWry wLL L LLi1LWM1Il WLLwWLWLLwwwLLwf OWYpwiW WWW2• y26LL LL NL O> wN=w~WWWi > W W) ey,NSWWtWWW=<W hWpyO¢<¢N >V66OWQ¢0600>6Ze¢6660e¢VnC00p R>iR6R JY Z WS W U.. J V i> Z O >NOY w fi V_; 6 F UV• is rD < e No 0 z Pi i .. ua o z°o ¢s "u z r¢e i u¢W• ~ sr /Z>uUwiV JJ .'.G hY > 00> ~lWiZ 10 iY Za Ve! O<JWVM..p<O ZZi N <YJ..VN NY<O ZJ Ow hi ViVf ONN Z4 Z ZWN.[ <N¢2 <N u.N rY N Z.+l <VV..ww O yy ZF¢ w{fOw WVINif OJ.N.n WVOZL fN/V N:oF<MOJf •ViirZ~Jf V• NNONLlNYVWOWriWOWNVYOfrW< I-IiJNVJ/f009frt0'1V W.. ON iJNZVi/« <OL! UwWOY<YO1t0 iWP ZWM/~irOY!<YN <V<J 16 YONULZ) • VeiZJtY w1.OL h OIF V<OYx~<IlY NV.~• p'<• < 02Ji W Z • JViN JJJYiYir 60W .NY600YiV L• OZiKOtWNNi .OS>~.J J WOWO~.fi 11 P000YUJOPtt/hY<IWWiZZ<f.WiJOWSf Jt4>~fHiZZ>YN.Wi JNw3UwJeNhZRJYZif ZifNV<ii900NJJJe6ii<MYFVJJZZ<JYMZ JJJfNJ« <fWWWWWWw..0000¢R7 • « « WZ NOOOOOe9 <f <f<flffffff00000eaORPPOPOOOPOeUVVVUUVUVVVVVVVVUV000 maaNN..a.•.`NerNNNOOA..NNNwNrr+AO+AarO>MAAYNANNA00 p AT.n AAmOAAAAAmAmAA'F^" NAArA Ar A +AAAANNA AN/h .n N hh N/hhhhhr./h/ hAAh hA hMNhNMM 5 ii poetlFOaa•on.0op an NPOONOnOM1• OOaN W nmry MONIIN MON aIN Nn JOPO..ryTVNaNlPO~N n.INaNOpONNT•N NT•NapmpOwNT•NO NNNNnNM1NN NnwnNwryNTnNNNNrTVNnNNNNnNNN >VVV• •IVVViVIV1•VVI•VJA'IIVI•V• ••VI• V•V V.I• ONrynNhhrnNMMwM PI~I~I•NMnnPnMl.MnnM1PFhMM1hMrFnM1h hl~NNhnMwnw V V i `NP 1 V!I =;0 2LLO fOy LLNw OJn •i• •w • h' • ~ • ~ • I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 • ~ • ~ iii •{~ •i1 • ~ tl• 'O• •2• •W• ~> UVVUVVVY o~mNNppppOppp i TNJJJJJJJJ L! NOJm J~7~OJ~JJ n0 elaelmo OF °e ~u~I! !f a<f{aaa pw M1ZCiiiiLi ii > ~aV00000000 y7 aaiZaZihfUN 6JTN JZW nSZrrh YLSJ Muammlw _W WwWw_WW IWL Y C~ Ya aaa ahVMN mZ« <aL<OGp06\NZf UZVVVUNNNNNnNNV>i2 pfppPpWWWWWWWYNil ~JO paJ,=ZOe6ZVVUVwZMW LL~WLLLLLL VOOOOOOWNL7 pw`066!¢GGYGY~oLFV)O 606 6RlR PnONOTNONOOnnOOV0000NPO0IOTNOFi ONOOOn O~nNNNMNNNhNNOePn NIP ±:T ONN•wn~.OENNNNanO..NNTnTOV ml\ m • O • a 1. O P m a NPN N O WO•N a0 r rear oio o i r~00 wJN wJ.. w n • ~~ _ ~ _.\ _f _ .. __ ONr. m0 a Ja 2> ! > Zr h hr<F <p r rr V WyFy yiV Vh VV uu ! v=n u2s IOyR u miNV C[K M1 .111 rIWI lul 1 Iz 11 rre V 2 .NNfwON NOOOFOww ONJ J!w ONONVNNIN WNYON06•N..aOWLL VIwTJO•a•V!•VWa YMOj09 OJawJw >i V NZP_ aZwO OpP eV 6_V i0 » e mZ> !V_m_ rLL~ aG• ~ ]1 WJiN NNNwVNNiN N<NfNONQaO NNN OO<N vNNWN NhNeN•N JYWNN s i J:i+iiN>«{r< N<w«~fxozu « x~ ~ JOVJJJV! JZJ JNJ JN w2JJ0> u V V i W V V .. V P V N V J V N J JOMO<JOOOJ iOTOlOVOeOVOaW0022 OJZVUZiZVJ22 SOi S..S NS>2CrZZVI Ti ».. OJ'J YOOOW~JIJwONJ\phw620 IIL 1L WLLVN 0 LLwLLr~WNLL= o rana.e.~nnrcaininam uliesa NSiw TP Zf as.°..° N V f w f .Zi o V Y o • N N_ N V f •V O J V 1 es N s ~ yJ IJ p i V O 00 .OiVO ZN OJ{if Oho LLOV J40N_ J<..pWZV ZOV>e .P O J{t ML M1Oifip6a 6m JSZ S.,LV •hVFJ<{IOiN 0J{_NWw waw l l'fLL 02Wi0 WNOtn {iJON ltiN .h 4{!V J0 06Jr • JVSW .NO •aw .s •6i WWi •{wcF WM6 .0ir661 LLNNOVr!{Nw OpW>VSOJZN~WrwNZ{WOO WNMWiNM22rw!!PO M1NIIWLL lOJWNMOt OJJhMOJ66JlWWJ{W=GZ>SyYZ2JN2rCV wWWWWLLLLWLLLLLLVVOVhVVVZIi2LLZZZSLZN N = OONONNNH p _ iifi «_<_<_ ~t• ZZ yw0ww2JUVJ..JJJ RM rVPV iWwy iizzzzzzi r«e« NNNNNNN wV!• •BJJ O i N6OpMlhrhh6Yh.. h0< wi0•!{>J!W! 1I6W00 •NVi LLLJiNNNNNNNNFUwwN wWwWW WWWw OOOOOPPOOOpOOpOOPOw naPN OOOOOOFmVO mPOPONrFpN MNmoFP0nO1 P.-~NwiaNNh ehhN000omhV P•P1000mTnI NnNN IaNNOP.I rM1FhnM1TTTTTTTT rV •N T.•MMNNPPPNTPP PrPNPnPTPNPn PwPP 6 2 V INP ~f0 Y¢I =~0 1lNw m• rr ~ w~ •i P ~¢ \• N• f1 ~ 1 •[~ •f• [~ t2• •W~ A)1 OOOOOOOblOPM1nOObOrOWOOO0000I1o r0000M1000M1OnO00pp NOn ONnOrybO1PY00P0lwrNNNONNNOONNNNOP000mO00Pn00 NONhNOONNIm m10mOnM1MIpNN1 ••N NN••OOnN b••OfNINO NOrmNNnbNwmn r••mrm• •ry mbNnaNf NNmaPrrrmOarmNbN w ••nm N nM1 N m •• Nm r OIa N Ja0••NniNO PpOr•NmaNOM1IPOwNniNbYIPOrNnINOhoPOrNmaNO ¢MnN NNNNNNNNIOINNMV wNw NNNNNMNNNNMNNNNNNNNwNNnN V11• •I IIaVVV• Vlffafffflf<abfaVlfbfafJaa OM1~M1M1M1M1YMhY1.nM1hhMNwhM1PM1MFI•hYMhnwM1PM1FPFYM1nM1wnwM1M1hI~wFM1 V< !! ¢ W! w Z rpmr0 nN nPwJO!¢ •N M1 J NoOmP NPO h VN ONN 00 O abM1N w e iM .Pe ~P Mori z .M1•vu naenue i m wf .• eo pW beo ep{a ooio oe~n Y V r w ~• ~• J M Y •• nl •• w n 2 ¢ ___ __ ~ _ __ O n IOZw! 1Y W w f L O YN !Ow !W w W Z ••1-YY Y¢ YYM F YFTYJF YYI•Y YYO W VVVVV NW VVV U VUUV U2 Z II 11111 f 111 IN 11lIOI 1111 1 W IIC • L Z 1 YNii wyUW••On mWNr~OVO Wtl<1 (V~O NrO09Jk2WJ000 W\JOOWrZr J Jrr00 OI N~NWN VS<mWNNamry{M1~fLLbb NYf •W m• NVm mPN 000NOIJ O <NUNU2if !!!¢wO I V WJlIFZwt\'J! I O«<w0«~V I W(O~ w Iw N \JN nN N YU 1-2N¢NNNNN JYN NNI NV:.IO NNN NNNNY N<)WZNVN N •JWZ••NWNNNNNW)O YNNNNN VWMN •N1N{W WNNNNJW NNNO¢fNIN WuViiJN<JJJJ2wf~2JJJVJ2Mf JJlJtJYS SJJJJYJJfWVOJ{J J fJN1 VYVUVVU<!Z(<VVVOV„p<VVNU\UN<YfVUUV<VUVNNSVWV V N WO~000_O_OO_WVI••W_O_Op_LLO_JwW_00_)01'•OYW1W0_000_Y O__ON¢OOONOIO ONfU R F__•_!_h WiN2W•.pY N 60WOZN2w2 _ NJh•J JJ J'J Z JOOiObWZOOJJOOVZ¢Z » ~i ONOJLW¢JJW OrO ZVZ •ILWLL MYNUMWWIL JWIWMWWOW\IL 'O MONWWWILf{W LLJWYLL OIW 06fJ)¢~OWfZ6¢6irlOtOlpe¢O''pj if!lLL6061~ZLLZltR6VZ6r0<C6~Yr¢ N V r < 2 p i Y~ W Y < W J O V i t • V 2 N < ¢ •• O V • • Z J )f 4 i Ot0 V V < YO_ [ i i Z O VJ w y f Z2 WN J O JW y Jf f 6 •• y f f J Y N Y 6JJN N~Nf{iY VV H6•• Z U hJJ N 19 N•JL NOLLO ZW••M )VOO Zf ~ V<n W<)l <VNFiiNiUUO¢O< WJN b¢¢W___rt¢O__O YJO{JN OiNJ>NW •<O Y<OONWnZN••[N riF N W YLNU U660VVilfJ Ni N~1{ JG6JrM0••W WZ NOIyWOlY !pW¢I PO JIYWi<JWJb¢WpZ <t< OVJ i< f•[ •i ¢t2 •WOO<iY< p WhVV )WW VV OV<LL •VNpWyP{pp •<N•• ~JNJJO •i •V J••• YN Y hYYY«Z 1'1JFJl JJfONtY <ZZZ< J Mf OOi •WfY •Ln V•Ii ifW •N JOLif<•JJNW <R<WWYfZ6W'J •JJ f 2iVNYtWW<N O „ONOWI• N OpfNJ• <y~LLJOY JJJJJ „«p=OYfW OyJJW[LLWwJ000FfliOZYZ3~wwJJtY<V~U;lrYl6~W Ji~M1YfOOfVW ~Zirr IOiWWrYJf«<\WNV00'J_fb<f_<fVVVN••M••••000099f_<_W_• JJiY •~ N9Yf~[ WlJJJJJJJJJJ f tiLffif[fff[ff[ OOOOO N.pNNNP mNPnPNPNOhNaONOmNOONw PPPOFpPObNNMn FO VOnNw NPPlPP~P PPP ~PNn oYa ONPaN000PNOONnafO~Obr nM1 nnP rnb<NNN NP nbNbNN N ebb bar OOOPOON• b~ b b n PrPPPPP•• P PPPnPnNmPP PNP NN111P PPPJPPnnn P P P 7 E .. \~' O;~ W• a pPeesrpenOeONnOOpNpNVppOOeOm.PpO PppcPp NOONOONOOFOOeNOON•OOOANYOONOOnNO PONN NmIPONrNwe mry~+MPwNONmNhf6PwONwhrvNmNN PNNNhN nrFi rilO rmNaOmOPNr OmmP• mw nNNONmnNllrvrvPrm wNNON m ae0 r wOn r m r~• r O Nn nn a• Nm r m V m N NNInOPOPO minaPePOrNm•NOwePprNml n.phl Op eTTmnMnrlii~n mil N lNrl wnl wl l/I jr~n lNrI wN1T TwTim mnTnmmn rN N Nan N ~m~X: ::......~.....:.. •....1 .. ...........::::: ewwrwhhwwhhnr.r~•rr-nnr•n rnl-~nrl-l-hn.. h~-nr rr-r-nw rr-nhw.-'-~-nwr- z ~Nn 1 u<O fN =;0 ioo fN¢ ONG U LL • ~ •L• .w• ~ ~ G~ .N. Ht •N. ~ . ~ ~ • ~ • ~ ~ ~ .w• tit ~<• .1~ •¢• :O• O_• ~> W i ' ' ' J 1 ! x s • i u s u • .i O V • 1. N < s i w hu O• • NNN ZJ O 70NOfJ P YNm• OO •O hOOe~PmOW J NN •N!•• OOw 011 Ohu wPmNUNmr1 N OOV OONPNNN t• N•rvN an o^<! i NaNNOea 1Pp afnNaa noeev oe npf oa o ~aoa. zrN °seaeoee oeev n<n.~aNh We <tlNOUrrrs ererrr.. f N.N of N!m !NS ! W •' er•fff i~'~amf FMP ZhOiN¢HJNWV OMYINf hfLL h fNJ ~hlhYhh YhU r OOOVO'JJhVWwFP VhJVUV i O hVwVVUV VVN PV YLLO 16iw'NN <JfYiltff _WW VOVAKV¢ eJ o\¢ •Or •\ Z~01YJF rhYOm 'NN'w1001rx JO •a ONrr NNNN ONO VN OeWVl.e010 O V• }JONNNOO Oh h1F NTONONNr prJ NV•NJiWNO-YNiWfM1OM•NF'Jm~ZNi~m mO00NTTOaOrO Oln N:flnf WpWfr-rff °e: !• wiLL O~~ 'oaorv'ns<. rv~zi.e YO s 'ia~ira°°' o r' POFWJP_O_• O ~f __ _00__O UN• N10_ _O O_p_O_O_O_O_Nrp_O_ __ O_ PSN¢LL h f iOV«N 00 h O O wOrONi Oif _NNVlZOJL'J J'Ji W6 JOJJ'J 70 m901 wJ¢IV wim LLW~WhLLOW w..}ZwWWWWW}p.V }WFWOwwWWWWWPNWWZ PhLLW~LL VYJfVN¢¢1 6 6VVYifOt¢VtV O}v OPO¢ <Z< V< < NNOUV' rIiNN9J KVOJUVNMJ hOJm¢NO NNNNOrNN• ¢OfN hOIVNNWNNM6f• NNNNNNONNf myN~WN fNwNNYNVjhl~VeWW« O<•<OVOf\ ai<jjff< W :jGOi Y:>WJJWa\ <VO<WtsJJJJJJW\OWP~ NJ JJJJmNJJ} OZ VO NOVVLLV<V1ZN N~\WODUOVVV6« W yy VVVUVVV•OVVO VIUVJU ti _ W J V J„ f _ LL f O Z 1_ J ' ¢ U /Oi 4N C O J NF 00 V O Of JV ;[ ~ ZI O N[ 6N2h WZ O U LiNW G OLLf W PO JrNVUWtl Z V N6fJ MY }LL Y J • LO iNi4F0 V ; iNG 2 ¢i.i. ns ii to 'u ui ~r 'si Wuli V f soil o~+~ tlo MO h;Z ZVNLhO< Z O<¢ U<NLL LL J[Y 6>; NOOwW OP<. •NiiN Stlf O[ zfeG O` ::~OJ o>•iWNZ i r tl NL< NNOJ J:¢ JOOn yN LO ZJWWOOOVJ\JNO¢ ViO~ ¢NJU![N fJNVVVONtl[ iJWWyUV! W7WZWOWY• UO. UJ fJW V<h<I~O<f <J~O _ SO ONV _ VW yJ'ywJF=„VViJV INOtlNJ'Y6Y 'WJNOO' LL~SC 60N0• W OIO •i< 0002N• NY ONWWWWY J• NJJNW [ 2WW>LyGO f;WZOZ;L[[it •yh0000Jf Wf<LLIVV« Yi2 LLf JWO ONpYW¢ iNNOONYVV WWWrZiWW <FItliLLWYVUVOOh YF¢hF OVU¢OwGrr\i[NNO<01120NN}OYFWIIi[SS[;LK W_O} « Jtl7 J?ie<h IWWW N[O~lf7<<f<WWtlNf6YNNN'f'f NVW LNNNNN000 00\hY'J ¢ n66¢• •LO¢Yfle• ¢ NNNN NNNN NNN NNNNNN OaNhPNrNN„nON Nrnem•nINeANNarwf NarNmwPVNe mYMa„O i1nNPa1 e N iNNNwnPNUePperNaNN •oarrlaa PwoP e OerYrymNNnNeaN•F m eeNmmeNPrTm emOmemgee A000 H eTme 8 i V SNP Jf0 ZN =;0 V fOO OM1G LL V m~i pia i i •t •f ti •Z •O 0 iz i> on~eenNaMOON.e.o ao aoan°erceeanno oo~m .-oN aie woo~w r:NOw ewmaNNOae m.o °n NNam w°m NaPw.°~ aN e P -. a n a a s oN a aNanrP'n'~~NdnrPewNmaNd !m~°m~.°~.d+mm~~Nnnmm~nnnn °n mmTm°O ~°.~~°.~ >nnnhwnaVaaVVVM1nnhaVaannnnV• p nnnnnnr nnnn wr !dV \ V W \V p 0 i d •O .+Z N O Vrvl !OV FJaWP NUJ !PP O!N !On VOOim N NJY NOViN i ia.W. Ww.W.dlaoN one r}wi OJ 0i~ IOVOZO 00 ZO Uw•mwOmjOWwf w~ •ww f~+ mJVZVI! V! °:r 7MnVPlIOn npr rnF r Wm O V~UWUWV VY V 06N 61.Z nlVZMIM!\Z •W>w0!• .i• ~• i00~ZnJOOw\OiwnNww UP Nd m~ON VJILpNJa\O VVNNm fIOJO1W •NfNZO VONO Sw WVIPNmJO PVP rYVWOZ\\JON\W\ \rVW! n0 V WO _O JIL _00_ZdpVOJNIp ~OSOVOS V__p p_ JO_ YIiZSii n M ! 7 r JSJJLLi NIJL rLLlf 011J.f IJILLL FIJLWW\W \Y. IWJW MWVW WV tW ZJCIOOW\YO s;v> ! N6 Y2NNOWNONnW ONWNWNNN VONNwrNf NnNWNNNOWN fw~jJ!rJOJFJJJNJf J~JWJJ~f 7J V6rVV>eYwVNVOV\V>VZUZVVVNZU VV :J s ~ ..p o y o Sp Wf J O Z W Sr ~S OZW M16W rZVJZWyZZ VJWJOpi^I )f JiWV2WOfOJ ZOiiZ2wnW \J IZ N• M11 SfZ •Z6W ~OM1IW ZiyV WOZ Mnf •ZMUlWnO WyJaf NVOMW ZZZO6ZW -=Y •NnJYOIZ VVZf ZZ /ZOl •YV Z~+•i lwif SW>N• ZV wnONwii06WZ i• .ZiWlWSZ WOWVZW\ZiWWOf• W fZWNWMZV aS~f NOJSlUNSZFZiNHwJJFJ47 •S OfW ufffl WSSYwMOWO N~.r nFhJJ'» >s)ZSZl21f>Zif}zr NaOwan m^aeNrdmnPeNPONaPN M1hnw OPOr aama aowa o rrw r a rw! !! m !mW s - _ ~_.mm- c ji 9 Y~': ,. s: -- ese .. .. .. .. .....' ...K ~. e ` n ~~ _ ~°_. Y4. A . s^'. Y 31G` i w 3 - ~s r ~ • ~ .. a &. ' Y _ ~ ., 'sI Vin' Y S f YI ~ x s 5~ E ~_: Y°{9°~ eR „e. °-ofF e'. 5 ~^ ]~>~Y .4°~] °~['YY i=: 3. +<'Y ^iY 3 A \M ~ \ 10 _ - ez? ..S RS3S.2fiA ~ p~ 5 _ 3 _ m g ~ r _ - Y s is 3.5 .#.~ .~ ~ .R..~. ~ _ = .N = _°-.'S .. °= ~ ~ ' a Ica - ~s€$$r$ ~:a - ~ mea' a.' "~ ~ _ _ t-~ __ m ___ ~; _ _ _ _ Se, x s ~ s I...w K"ss oa tl~ R,x E.~.-;w~"www~e ~ ,C+~~ s ~:: sax~y s :~a ~a ~ , s' s ~c 11 ~~ s - v, ~ ~~ i' ~" 3 t °y n .E. ~g S SR ~'~ _R 88 m 9A; ~5 .~.& € ~R R IR ~ I&S. ~ ~ _~ v~ e.'. ~~ Y$ Ra a~ y m~~y 'e ~ ~. 'K ','~ d .. .- .~ _ m ... # ~ - YR°. € R ~ N ~ 6 y~ .S ., 8 ~$$~tt = ~• S ` `::: >:: I 4Y pY~ w e -dnc°~6 5 v ~, &~e. _ °° _ e: ..~ ~ R R_RS ...... .._~... ~. .. ....m ~. _ GA. s Y ? ~~ - k Y N „G{ °~~ ~ Y ~ - 9Y' ~ . . . , ~ 1.~' 2 i ~ y , k ` ~'p ' y ~ _ - x#~~,~~, ~ ~., ~~ ~' ~~z "# ~ ~ pia ~' a . , , , 4 a' ~ „ _ ~ a ° _ 9 ~ 4 Y ~ 'hi 4 ". ° - % Y n .N 'Y a. COPY__- . _ _.....~...,~.,~...- - wE,.aa. MaflCAfpM.~ NfOMO11C EMME ffr3lyfE 1. TTRRI d 11[D'8[ESl Mf NO. r. o.vwbmN a AImFd4 Ewrap caws 190 lne •i ' BF2'P a KII~ Ri SNt ffCflR ao. ezs ~ ~~6, Cdi.9Alf f ~...«. o.w w.w.~ . faTIIiG Rl0 GEAI COPE 7615 Id~~ Ivu~d S. NAMEIS) a AEIIXAMISi Inrwnc< 1/1/9J T«q. Iwwll VAIlLY IEl9tIWl. ~. It.C. AppSN ~ Sw. ttlY ^ lf~dw Oww FEENEES 1/ ( EAian IN«: lire Eeetere, S ~ ~. tAflsl a TEAasACIM]WSl rEe uc. lrE! W aw r ney. [ pay nnlecnedlt Paw f yr.m SI ..~ _ _... _. _ . _ Mrrl M - _ 375.00 41iu~:e,-cngn FKO(es^lrnrl i'a!elvll flu ~IlraflAEfOEEp lAICAffOr10A S. lwvNen a Mnimu-NNnbw od S1r~N BE00 psCmtar Aw. CCdp ~ LII SI913E liI nl3131 ~1 51i1 3 ~ ClE]f~L'd 91729 9N1 Pglavo 6 II hzni.b tinmd, r ~, UnNN] '"MP Yes SNw f q a __ E. NbNr9 fl ARwml Nen n~~'µl P.~. IbS l5'I', FT~c1a Ctic-lzz+Y.' ~, [T~l]"O„ i'rrr v. Ne.. yw,.,w Iwm rebirbd a e la..N lo. na.. rm .,...ta.l.d wn a v.. v~w+ a T. AIWeF fe.wafr Cwbd M w ~a a Mb orveNaml T' bMwlf b M M] 11. fmlaM aTFS" mmr b ilm~ f w 10 m m mwN..wa .ANN +hd lw dM.d pwl a Nh vppfrofon. IS. STATE d uufofNU Cwnry a ..____________________________________3NNf....____._._....________.. r ~+. + mow, .+ w, sxrn~ rn M w. nir. ~ m a w ,rMa+. ~ x.. MW I A, 7Y~ ~.+w~ 4 4~~ olMwi~. "y 4~ • =`~1 NI ~. M w1n~r ~'~y~ ~.nr ~ min. ~~ :a iL, ,b14'• ~ rt~F`nr~ w ~~Y.ti .Y M, 'N~~,~. tiA h:. w~4..+,i+Y. x. n..Y.~..N....~ _ .~.+~ ..u,, ....w . w.r. ...~+ ~ . v .. xw• . ~~....w ... w. n h~ ~ ~Y ~~A+~M~ n YM ~M M On~~~ ~ n ~ ..YYJ , ~M,n~ w ,r M1r ~ J w ~ w n sr+. u. AEnICAr+r ' SIGN NEEE ..___ ~_.._____)_ ...............!_..., __..._........__________......._____.....____._________., Valley PaecGll Clul+. ,frc. ___._.. ~MtICAT10N ~~ TftfWfFOlOft I3. S1ATf d CMI/OIIMA CwNf a______________________________________INTb........._____._......_.____ wr ..ri...-f.r. ,.e .~ +m.,• u... sw...r «.~ ni w . r wm~ ... ....n...r.. w ~. ~-..-• i m., w n, .~~~ ~w~ M ~ ~ r. w .~.r~ ~~ .. n_.c~nri Nw..~b. ~i.~ ~x~w a ~..~qIM~ ~ •~•r • u~ ww~r w w.w ni / ~w ~ ~~ ~~ w,A. w .w r w rur~mr a . r. ~ w .ems.. ~w .w ~. +.r rn e.re ~, rr ~ r w r.~ . ur .r a. • wi+ ~ •' e/ww~. n ~ I~ ~ a,Iw. I ~M1~ ~ ~ iF~ ~ W+. w. aW~ M v ~~ ~IMr ~n Y ~IM~. N, Nw~w.. 2 '.S i{ :v ~~ .F.~ 14 Do Na MrW Mlrb IX Lhb; Fa ()f'blbfnf Vb WF IawMd~ ~ RwwM ~.N.e, O ~~-~4________________________._.__-GOERS AU4N .______.Il/11/93.___...____.__.___. ,~~ Em...Uf«a_._......_.W w...._____-______-________OR«m_________________AraEl flw ,__._....._....__..... ~...~..oo,_ ~,~.~ ~~_ >~_~' ;-_ ,- , , -~~~ ~.~ ,m !~ ~~ 1 ~ _ ~~~ i \': r~ ~~ ..~a~.i. t~ ~~ '~ I r, ;~ . ~: r-' m.. .1T 9 N W b. I ~~ Z W / L(( Q ~~~ ~ W '•~ iJ _ _ ln~, Vl f Y non o ~ o.auar I `III ~ rt _ ~ _ - ~~ ~ ~ \ __ __ ~~~ I = - -- - - -- _~I: ~ _c~_ - , -. ~-_ '-- --1 - - ~ _~~ .~. T _ - --'~- -- ARROW ROUTE VALLEY EASEBALL CLUB, INC. to operate within the SPORTS COMPEER located at 8408 ROCHESTER, RANCHO CUf.AMONGA 91729 APN 229-011-05,06,07,16,17,18,22 and 23 Currently Zoned: General Industrial, Subarea 8 of the Industrial Specific Plan Zoninq of Adjacent Properties: North: Industrial Park, Subarea 7 of the iSP South; C,eneral Industrial, Subarea 8 of the ISP East: General Industrial, Subarea 8 of the 1SP West: General Industrial, Subarea 8 of the ISP sasse O1/25~ . COPY...w..Y~«rw...~.. Y.~__.__...... _. •FisfnflDN fa lltcofiolfe fAMR11N FfA'Wiln r. Irnm a IKFNSDSI INe No. r« D.r«f4f^I N A4NA F..w.N. crNrN Iro1 Mfnl.q RIPb'1^.I PI: O7Y=;AIJ: OLIT. 8 l'IIIC non ND..,r„' lgwrlw111, CI1. HFli Iw.r.r......r......^..r CfWtA11fICAl CODt :7fr L' tA. wllwrymlAwNr w+Dn lw Re IIIwII.a.IMI n I4/ww URIUl'f10NA1. ] DeN hI.M }. NAAnlfl d AMKAHt(f) Iw"i' I.rM f I 1 P, .^ '-.~! I . L.~ AFNMw DNn ''"Nn~ a F11..X.. Darn 1 IrRIf) b IAA1fAC0nN(SI IA lK. T1R P^r/hr Trf. R 5n rq DECEIVED CIIV CIEDR i N«nNRYrIrIIT,I, 1, „rr,, l DE0001992 f. IwNbw «wxn«.-n.,aw d srr.w 9950 i1 . F m h 111 Dbd. l'n It A h n t « r (p . C ~ / Dnn~ho e,ucmarRn (lU7 ^l7?J SIVrC~io rorAl i~'~ ~ fiww IINf N lknrw IIF-].dll7fr7 f:rndl 7 r Clry UNnI «~ inn R. AMAIrrN Adiwl M ANfrIN Irew fl-Nwkw eM dMM rrl nwN rnr ~~ ^~.~ f. IYr4lti «w 6«n wrnin.~ N • INw9t IR. Nm IA «w NNorfd wr N 1M waNiwwn N IM AkflreF< Rnn•4Nf Cw«N An w r.TNNI.r, N .r. DfFwwwA Nw. _ ~ INN^F Y dr. A.n 11. lglNn • ^r!f^ «n.r M A«« • w ID « n. wrwA««rr wFkA rA.F M dlf.lfd wN M 11N aglkwlw. If. 11wDrwrl lr.n IN NM nr1 Ir'wMn r^IMrM M «I.reM FnnnA wM.n wMl M.. N111n MIMkMMn N ~ 0..mw. wM M1I dwr M .111 M .NhM w rww w NrwN M W MNw1 wrr N IM pMMwn N Ihn AbFia Mrg1 Cnr4N AN. Rl rnrnldn l' ../n7 11. SIAiF d GINONMd <4urlllr N .________________.____.....______.OM _._._'/._______________.. Y.Iw wylry N .wy.. nA .wrr -M err wwr 41r. rnnM w.1 wr rll « 4 M rMr w J Y Mr. w _ Y _.Fw. • w4.. Mr +.wYM 4 • Yr .r.rlrw_ r T M Y wr ru wr.. wFwlr J IF ^^ Y _yY..r r_Mww ry _r Y.rr w Y yu r ~M..r~YU N wln.uw F w wMYwrn ynr~Y ~ • H.r u 1~1M w. wwN W r v .I.^r ern n.r M.f M 1w w. x V .M Y «.nrrn~w rL w rnYr.. wMrrr ^r ~rrw _r w ry^, wr w«nw M wnrr_~ In Yr Y w_rY w/rrwln _r M .w.In•r M .Ynw Y wMYw w Y Lrr. w rrr.ly Yuw. Y 4r.wr..r IL ANl1GN1 SIGN NFf! .......................................... ........................................................... A--IKATION ~T TAANfii~011 Itlrcrnldn 12-1~C If. SIAIF d CAINORNIA Canty N ......................................bM_.._____________.___________ Y.i rnMr N .wlw.. _A .rrr ~Yn rlrrwr wwr Kw. rwNw ti wrr• III M1 Y M nnrw, w w rwrwn Ww M M rw.w.w M1r.w. ~I Y Y Iwrwq wNrr r«M1A_. 4r wVIM Y ~. Y 1_Irw wMrww w •I YI V IwrF u^ MYwI_ Y 4 N wN. Lwnlrl r.rYY Kw M 4 Yrlw wr Y .ryrYwl ../ wwlnw4. 44wY w Y ww..wrro A Y Mole wn 1 nA Y«rlw 4 ww..N YI Y Mrwi nl 4 Y Y.n1w MM w or«M .wrY 4 w _« w rwry Y «t_o J . 4_ w .rn rrY I+. ~ r.F Yn nM1 Y Yn o wrl Y rrlw wxlwlo F W .Y Y n.wr~r o or wNIY N Ywrrrrw w ry ilr«I w Mo n wrM M Y«rlwwi In Yr Y wrY MM1 ~ Y .Y... Yrrn4 Y wF.w w Y iowr NY w «Mw Mwr 4 Y Iowrro W Nr~~/rr noon, rnnu n. ~ ~ ,o. .-:n71;71:,1r.1 6117 1 I IinC(~~," iaghill tl~ir},"'~t nr Ci^chn __.... IM NN NNh MIAw FF4 W1 iw dNlnwen Uw f)rdi ArrwMd~ ~ R«adN rleWf. Q IlAflfrr RfNw\ p ___________________________________________________ COiIlS AuR[D ..._.__ ~ : ~.. ~.........._..............._. IV oEC i ~ aEC~ iH0 CUC.rINt,.. I dG DIVISION 151992 Q iwnwA Iw M_....._....NN w .............................ORk1 .1...._._._.. _.....Rwfyl ISn ................._._... I w nor ~~ --' ~ ,,%,~ j ro r ,. a %; .l ,, ` o ~:~~ ~ w Q y ~~ w ro ~ n ~ N O C C fd r O .9 J ~ 0 4. J L ~~ Y V V ~ O W k O LL ~ •~ y(I O N N N II 0 L 0 6 O K Y N VI ~n 6 m } ~ 01 w o J ~~ ' ~ m ~= / W p] q O O Ij J H ~ LLiOi .J. a a v ~ ~ F- N Y Y O 6 O W Y ,.' I ~ ? LL 9 O O ~ o m m F V 4 U Y W N C p L i N M U E ~O i0 ~_Ol ~ W 41 ~ V1N 'L Y r+ Cr •U C C Ol p ~ U U C J C ~ i+ •r- •r- C O Vi C 4- V- `~ m~a s ~ i svoo V-JO ti Y U Y 3 ~~` n Y r+ 4 N 3 C O d ~O N N JKv-.~ C S U ~p '/~ 'O U V U I'f1l.L.?_l.Ca .r(;~' ¢~'~ ( v m E E L i ~ ~,~_,~ FoU ti v c o~ E vv F 6~ 0 C N Q p'O E E w OCU ti J ~ V- L£UU Y o] £ V1 2 2 •O O ¢m ~rn4i a ¢ c c .. .. 4Q L c ~ ~ v~Y zo ~ J o 0 o ro v U N I (/1 W 3 4 Z K ~ ~~, anNanv vnouva sa sse 01/25/9317 a ~MIK111gN tOt ISl[Olglfl' MHIt11t'] eettfetptl 1. i7fft5) OF IICENSL(51 f!lt Iq. Tw [Mtaenmr d AWdk tErerge Cored IWI 4<rd.w CZ'If"tSI~L EfCEHt NO. Sauv..+n. CdF. 95111 .w...Kr r..~.. ue.w~ OFi-SA1J: C!]3YAL OrAAlte[u CppF J61] ih. rdwri9wd ErnbY ePPr r b ra.ae. der.ib.d w Idea CaN Iwrd x. NIME(51 W A9RICANIItI iwp. fplril tiAb'ARA, FS In l 5 [[relw ls3tlfCe ^ Ellarin tare. WNARA, Iwn Tonf ~'~'( :rtn•,{ %(.. ]. iM151 M rtAwSACTIOW]I F@ LK. TYFF Pcr/Por Trarwfnr 11,274.00 21 GTE 20 4 Nww N IrYrrr 'rwn 4 (S'.mtN l.i.winr !, IwaM d Irriww-NuwMr aM Seer IZ962-b4 Faothlll OlTd w~tr ReelrycSo tC~o;a (1N) 91739 :an odno rOr4 5 1.274.Ou 0. Ir M1emiar li(.nwE, 1. M r,.Mln Iwlw SMO. irp d lkmr 21-119346 Gry limMi 7n` e. IAUImo Aden rf sMNnl f,en r,--Nor.. aye sever n..,,ll..,.r for.... a rprlnllm. a Im wpalnml pa• 'ill fµltin a "Yf5" aaAr p'Mn. V a 10 en m allr[Nnm, .M1kF Yell M N.aHd pwl rf Mir a1pN[alen. i Ix. Applke 1 o9.rr Ir) rM oro wrnate, eTpbfed M .roM IipnW p.mr« .:n bon oll M prnhelara d o limrw, oM ~ Ibl IhOlnb, .ill ml .cable a ever a 9erTlr a be nNOM onY of Me perrvwn d dr AkNrN< em.rt. Cemd An. Rffenlde yp/?q/n2 ~ U. STATF Of CAl1TORNM Carmy N ..___ . .............. ...............Orb__ _.__..__...___ _.___.... i ,wr Mr M n~~wn +4 n+ ~.~.. rv M i4 .Mr.. .M1. ~+h „y+vw~+r.~.~~~^+~~w.M w1 M wA w, i ~~,4 ~ ~~ 4M1 ..whin~,w Mrnx.nr ~irw w •iM ~~ .i X^N. M+Mw. ~rw/ ~TH n..,.. ~ N r.M.h AW vNF.w+Iw Y+nM1+'~.i ~ ~ ..4 11TT`~14 {'.' ~OI • n ,wn Ln w.+4n M ~, +. ~w .N. ~'W +.? M1 ~n•rn~ +.ni.w~~+• M ~~ ti M •~~In~ r~14O OuC ON ren....,. , . v . ~,.. Vr 4r w M M..i4 iL X.n x. ..,MMww. r r. -.w.-. r ,win + .w +...n +d ., .n/,w ryVr~yAr.`"~~R(R O(~\ri 51GIf MEEf 1 G t~. fife-INA+MEA .............--------" iaen-TonTfMVARS-----'---- ' -' .Sn 11hlfCAiION ~r tFU1FtfFeeW w I5. STAIE Of CAIIfOENIA rwmry N.. BLICTAIde____________ __________~-_ I(7-26!d _--,_~ v..r wlr, M ,.• .. M ,.r +ti w+wn, n,~• r4. w r~ ili nr~ ~ ~ •n•.n~ .M. M h ..w.w ro+n. +~ 4 w„ n.k ~w.nw. M. ~M . J. H Nor y/4. N nn wN Ifl Tor 4 I+.rr~; n ~nw+• s nn..ti +,.wr + IMwN.I Iwi1 .rr w_I+ w M w TM ~ ~.,++~ V:M ., i4, ,. n „yv.nr . 1r'n.' w.I y~V ~•Er.~. ~~ vwF ~+ /..ear-"o ti Dw.+.. A n,WiY ~n eF~I • nN~~ / +•4r. n M w u...r Mn..r ~r M +nwe~.. ti .An h .,1.... i4 i .~ cave ., nMh iWMr w Y ew~+ 16. Nemdrl rl lkmrN9 II. q N lkrnrerld It, liamr Nwnbwfq L1X, Ibv busng 1. ~ ~ ~ 21-i1^34o LIU, IEO7van ,~r ^1-1If31~r. LIUr tk1 ;I-IIHJ'1 19. ~weMen NraMw ml llwfr 'e '17~11F. CeN CprMf L:G2-4'. i~^:~Chl!' "lyd, RnnCro :;n<'-un~a (11. 16r rnarv: Eno R Na ArNe More Tµ Lirr Par DgivltrrrM Vw Qrh AMwlyd+ [~ Fraed core., ^ fdu.lery FY.n I n/?q/nT p ................_._.._.__.____.__....__.._._._confa 41ARF0.__..._._..._.....__..___.___...___._..._ ~.....~ ^ tew.d~ Iw N____.......W a .... ......................... aelee m......__...._..._1baMer Ne.._..___._.....__.... 18 W J Z W Q O 3 w ~ TOWN & COUNTRY LIQUOR FOOTHILL TOWN & COUNTRY LIQUOR 12962-64 Foothill Blvd, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739 APN 1100-161-03 Currently Zoned: Medium Residential, Subarea 4 of the Foothill Specific Plan Zoning of Adjacent properties: North: fdedium Residential, Subarea 4 of the Foothill Soecific Plan South: Community Commercial, Subarea 4 of the Foothill Specific Plan East: "tedium Residential, Subarea 4 of the Foothill Specific Plan West: Community Conmerc ial, Subarea 4 of the Foothill Specific Plan 1.7 sasse 07./04/93 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT `~ DATE: February 17, 1993 ~"~ :w ~? T0: Mayor and Members of the City Council '~`i Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Nilliam J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Mike Olivier, Sr. Civtl Engineer SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF q RESOLUTION AMENDING THE FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND TNENTY-YEAR TRANSDOItTATION PLAN FOR LOCAL MEASURE I PRWECTS TO INCLUDE THE HAYEN AVENUE REHABILITATION - 4TH STREET TO FOOTHILL 80ULEVARD REC01/EIDATION It 1s recommended that City Council adopt a resolution amending the CTty's Five-Year Capital Improvement Program and Twenty-Year Transportation Plan for Local Measure I protects to include the Haven Avenue - 4th Street to foothill Boulevard Rehabilitation protect. BACK9101RD/AJfALYSIS For FY 92/93 5220,000 was budgeted from Fund 22 - Transportation Fees, for the construction and construction administration (soils testing, construction survey, etc.) for the Naven Avenue Rehabilitation from 4th Street Lo Civic Center Drive. These funds are used as a "local match" with State Transportation Program (STP) grant Funds. The City will receive approximately BSZ of the prolect's cost from this STP grant. As you know, the downturn of the economy has resulted in a reduction in the developer impact fee revenue which Ts assessed and collected upon bulldtng permit issuance. Nhi1e staff feels that it was conservative 1n its protection of this fee revenue for the current fiscal year, receipts have fallen off much more than was protected last January during the City's budgeting process. Asa result, 1t has become necessary to look to alternative funding sources 'w complete the rehabilitation protect without placing an additional burden on Fund 22. Measure 1 is a County Gas Tax, which qualifies as a "local match" with the STP funds. The Measure I funds received by the City are designated by SANBAG as either Arterial, which is protect specific, or Local, which must 6e 1n a capital improvement program approved by City Council. The funds required for the Haven Avenue protect are designated as Local. Therefore, before Lhese Measure I funds can be spent on said prolett, it 7s first necessary to include 1t 1n the Ctty Council approved Five-Year Capital Improvement Drogram and Twenty-Year Transportation Plan. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT AMENDMENT OF 5-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROYEMENT PROGRAM 6 20-YEAR TRANSPORTATION PLAN FOR LOCAL MEASURE I PRWECTS February 17, 1993 Page 2 Recommended for adoption 15 an addendum to the previously adopted Five-Year Capital Improvement Program which adds 1n the protect to improve Maven Avenue from 4th Street to Foothill Boulevard. The City was recently awarded a matching STP grant to finish the Haven Avenue Rehabilitation protect all the way north to Foothill Boulevard. This addendum to the Five-Year Plan will allow Local Measure I funds to be used to match the STP grant and pay for certain rehabilitation items not covered under the grant. The types of improvements and their percent allocations listed Tn the Twenty-Year Transportation Plan do not change from that plan previously adopted by Council. Respectfully submit,ld, L~i~ N1111am J. O'Ne11~ City Engineer NJO:MO:sd 21 RESOLUTION N0. ~~-~aa A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND TNENTY-YEAR TRANSPORTATION PLAN FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF MEASURE I FUNDS NHEREAS, San Bernardino County voters approved passage of Measure I in November 1989 authorizing San Bernardino Associated Governments, acting as the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority, to 1~ose a one-half of one percent retail transactions and use tax applicable in the incorporated and unincorporated territory of the County of San Bernardino; and NHEREAS, revenue from the tax can only be used for transportation improvement and traffic management programs authorized in the Expenditure Plans set forth in Ordinance No. 89-1 of the Authority; and NNEREAS, Expenditure Plans of the Ordinance require each local ,iurlsdictton receiving revenue from the tax to expend those funds pursuant to a Five-Year Capital Improvement Program and a Twenty-Year Transportation Plan adopted Dy resolution of the iocal furtsdlction; and NHEREAS, Expenditure Plans of the Ordinance also require that each local ,lurisdictlon annually adopt and update the Ftve and Twenty-Year plans and amend them when necessary. NON, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, hereby amends the Measure I Five-Year Capital Improvement Program and Twenty-Year Transportation Plan. A copy showing the amendment is attached to this Resolution. GLi z z z i x ~ m > v ~ m m a F ~ > ; m > m s x r x m a ~i a x m x m x m m m » N n s i v m ~ x n { y y a m > qq m y - K > a x ~ -~ i c > n ~ o '~ m < H ~ ; _ m ~ > m y z K z < N ; ' ; a ; a ; ~ z K T a 2 S m y ; N N ~ T T y ~ T K K m N N > y ~A O T ; C >> 2 9 ~> 2 S m pp N p (/1 p 4) p !T > > 2> N m ~ ~ ~ Z m ~ > K m K ~ y << C 2 ~. 1 F 2 n Z m p m pa oTY m a N T v i > p Z < ~ ~ p ~ p 9 ~ > ~ T O `> > ~ ~ m ~ a a O 1 ~ ~ 9 p T T c O O T a a ' a p ~ 0 S > < ~ [n~ T K a ~ C L Z ; Q fi paQ 9 S Z y T T F L L n C a CCCV C T 9 D D ~ y a > -1 a 'y 'p p T• 0 1 ~ > m> y a pp m ~ e a ~ > f 0 > s i ~ y ~ a a m ~ p p ! ~n 6 p p C p p L o L m O ~ y ~ O t O ; ~ ti > ~ m a ¢ < i< n < m m > Sl ~ a ~ ~ 0 8 ~ -~ ~ ~ s x m > Fi >p F ; ~ m > f>/I ~ ~ a ! x ~ < z ~ 9 o T e N m > ~ 9 ~ ~ y V s ~ T ~T< ~j T m ; o N ~ S mZ 1 S -1 a Z z 8 F o f N y ~ L y n mO Z ~ 2 S 0 = o r y O p ap N N o K ~ m O a > O it m 2 ~ m S >_ 2 ~ F O N ~ ( M ~ ~ ; ~ G p ~ a y N Q F y ~ ~ -1 O O NO C m O x O F ' -1 a s ~ y m o . ~ 0 y = y y ti x H a O a y O ~ p y > _L ~ a < ~ > p n ~ A a O m m .y O O n x r Z -~ O > c ~ 0 ; ~ r -I ~ v O 5 ~ ~ 4 l O r > K. ' ^ ~ ' > m -1 O ^~ J m < m p ~ ~ y m > ; a > a s y_ O r; ~ ti H O '~ -Ni > p Q! y y T O > ~ ~ ~>` 2 t 22 j a Z y Z O m O Q 2 Jc m T y -1 > O a s 0 y ~ y 9 T _ O 2 m ~ fZ O N _ m N m K O ~ a > R ~ ti g ~ ~ v m > a ~f ~ ; - a N 4 H a N H a N ti a N -i a N -~ a N '-I D N -~ a N 1 a N -~ a N -1 a N '-1 a N H a N -1 a N -1 a N ti a N ~1 a 'y > - N H m ~ y m ~i y m N 1 9 N ti 9 N ti a y a .~. -1 m ~. N ti N o a p r y ~ -, m 9 C1 G K a > N -1 > rtm - 1 rt m1 1 -i R m~ -1 m ~ m ~ m ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ R 1 y a T a N m ~ m ~ ~ ~ a N m a ~ p > 9 N r a C ~ T C ~ a C 0 ~ F o a i s ¢ f o F o F m F o F o F a F 6 ~ x S ~ x ~n x E o E v o a s ~ ~ m x m x r~i x ~ o T =1 ~'i -~ ~ o n a 7,~ 7 =i ~ 'r n ~' ~n .~ n i i m >z i i z zm i z g' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ $ ~ g g ~ ~ ~ ~ F 3 ~ ~ ~ z $i ~ g ` Z G 2 ] O a P 1 Z O rC Gf TL O r2 Ll tP Ll =' L7 Ti O f a a s ~ ~ ~ ~ g Gl g Cf 8i ,y > ~ 9 C i v T ~ ~ ^ ~ ~' O ~'' ~ ~ O N Z ~ a a ~ H ti x m > ~ N ~ ~ ~ O ~ - v O ~ a a g g m a i~. iii ?R ~ ~ ~ g g g ~ ~ g ~ m ` ° '~ ~ g ~ g a ~ ^5 g $$ "r ~ ` ~ Z ^ i ° ~ x t x sm x ~ x > m z > m x > m x > m x > Go x 'ia x ~ x ~ $ ~ ! ~ ~ r c ~ ~ m $o ~ ~ ~ a =~a ri a =~ T ~ F =a i> a !m a F a t a F a r~ir ~ ~ ti ~ a ~ fi y > ~ > ~ > -~ > ~ > ti ~ > -~ f ti > -a > -~ > -+ t g ~ ~ > -~ ~ {P m N ~ g g g g g g g g 7 R _.K . ~ a S o M ; b e 8 p S p S qq S Q Q E Q p S Q Q 2S e H 8 Q Q S $ o{ ~ ~ ~ £i '.}y~~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~i ~ ~ g g $ e $ $ Q Q b o Q Q S p p S 8 8 4 4 S Q S Q y 15 $ $ e g p p S g g e Q Q b ~ V ~ M O ~~{{ Ili fY S o ~ ~ Iii ~i ~ V ~ {s O p p X S g $ $ $ `6 g $ $ C G 5 5~~ S ~ gg S ~ y V ~ M O Q g Q a Q a $ a a 9 Q sy m T K K T K f~ T <m N @i V O S G S K Q ~qa T N > m m K ~ C C > N > N T ~ N > > ; N ]C (7 S m _N N ~ 'E F. T N N F fI) tIl ~ y Z ~ < Z K N O 9 S ; ~ _ S" I - Y - I Y y > - I > "I > T r I ' > Ji O j Z m n m L7 ~ ~ ~ Q Z ~ O y A A L) 9 O A <O m _ >> T m Y C T T D t ! T a ~ T A < T T C m T ~ T ~ T < T T C m T t > > T i S Z 'j > ; 9 ~ rm L' y T ~ T 0 0 T 0 T 0 T > < m N T T T D a T c g m p G_~ ~ p31 i O ! p Tp C p Dp L p Dp C Q p D L ~ T p aQ N ~ N -1 > m > m O y p 9 ! O A L > ~ > m T O Y m ~ o D i ~ ~ > S pp i ~y S N y Z O n v ~ s p C i ! ' A ~ DO D T =_ _ ~ y v t a ~ m ~ T O c ~ N ~ O a ~ N a ; ~ ~ T ~ x L pO ! ~ S ~ Z > a ti OO p y ~ p r3 8 Z ~ Fs ~` y i 1 C ~ 0 > ~ 9 s ~1 0 < > ~ m 9 0 OF m F S ~ S n ~ 9 ~' N > Z Z Z N 9 O F 2_ Z T ~ > L T O 8 0 -1 cTT y a D 9 O 0 N 0 C O v > ~ O E y O --1 ti O F 1J D T 1' Z ! 2 > -i p~ N > -~ O O > i N A O a m Z -1 Q 0 A F '~ O O y 2 '~ ; i N 0 0 a Sm ~ y 0 0 0 S p -1 > n ~ -~ > y O r2 0 rz ~ =~ ~^ ! -~ ~ n 6-i i s a O E s a ~ O n x C w cii ° ~0 i 0 ~ m ~ Z E ~ m H S ~ ~ > S ~ S S 9 ~~ jj YS S f ti 9 m A ~ o O Z y y 1 Z t > Z a ~ > > > ~ ~ ~ O A > ~ m Y = ~ O ~ ; O O O y m Z 2 < m y y N -1 N ti N H N -1 N -~ N -y N y N H N ~-1 N ~i N ~1 N H N ti N ti N ti N 1 N ti N ~I N y N ti N ti N ti N -~ N -i N 1 N ~ N ti IDS 'TmD 1 ~ RmSmm~ 1 Y Immp y I~m~ y {$${jj~~ y mmmmD y 9 ~ mmD ~1 mmD Y /m9~ 1 mm9 Y 9 ~ mmD y mm9 1 Ty 1 S ~ m9 y 19~ y mm9 1 m9 ~i mm Y Tm9 y 3m1 y ml Y mma -1 mAT N mm ~i mm M F f m F F F ' E ' E E E f f S E Pn ~ ~ ~ m m m F F F F E F E F v o ~~ x m o P o Y o 4 o ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 P 0 ~ o F s m s ~ o ~ o i x ~ x m x m o 4 0 P 0 F 0 F o E v o 'f 0 P z ' Fr P Y g P 'F P P P E Z P r r c~ 'E r .~ - a 2 F P g E g P OO ~ O 4l 0 0 0 O O O O O O ~ a ! O ~ a G'1 O O L7 O 47 O Y R m~ yo ! ~ ! ~ ! ~ ~ ! ~i ! ~i ! ~ ! ~ M iTn Y r~ ! iPi yo y f l ~ ! Pn o~ No oy R ~ ! m ~n ! ~°n ! ~n ! ~ ! m ! ~i S x 2 T 2 2 S S S S Y Z 2 t S Z Z 2 i S S 2 2 S S m m ~ m m ~ ~ ~ ~ tv ~ ~ > ~ ~ m m m P- a s r a r ~ r 7 r a ~ a - a rz a r a P a R a ~ > P -i a a a ~ a a a =1 ->I H H g H ~ ti ~ ~ g H g 1 g y ~ ->i g y g -Y-1 $ H ~ ~ € -YI g y $ ti g y ~ y g ~ g ; g ->I g y g gg « ~ « ~ ~ °a ~ ~ ~ o a ~ ~ ~ # ~ ffi ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g ~ r tt (quawa l3 uoli ¢ln»q u¢ld T¢uauag s, 6317 aaSl OZ siaau3S 6ulislx3 }o leas 6uu nl5 OT 53uawanoudm] 6uls soul paa ll¢N OT siuaaunadwtI uo {laasualul OZ s6uluaplM Sea+3S OT s3uaWanwdm] I¢u615 ~l}}¢ul s6enpeoy 6u13s 4x3 }o ~leday pu¢ OE uoliellllQ¢yay ~aoueuaiul¢W qua~~ad luawano~ mT }o a 1 IJ auU¢W 6alMallo} a43 u{ pa3 eooll¢ aq l Un spun; ayi 1e43 Pa3ad{7{3ue sl 3t •as eq e se luawaT3 uo µ¢lmu{7 u¢ld leuaua0 s, 6]l7 ayi asn ll{n spun} T au nseaW }o au n3 {Puadxa ayi uo} ue ld uo µe3uodsueul I aanseaW leoo~ ueaA-OZ a41 Ntl~d NOI1tlNOdSNtltl1 I 3tlOSY3W 'T¢OOl W3A-OZ i~~ 4 s~ 3 m t~ C7 T '~ s ~~QN~i LL9 ?a .~a~ y 9$O n 's~G mr7i ^~~3xr~~s~ C fD yy 3~ < a -' y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ I I I ~ W ~ ~ ~~ a o i ,, ~~ ~ €~~ la'AY VCISEYN UriV VUUAMVIVVA STAFF REPORT DATE: February 17, 1993 T0: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: N111iam J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Mike Olivier. Sr. Civil Engineer SUBJECT: APPROVAL TO APPROPRIATE 5125,000 FRDM FUND 32 - "MEASURE I GAS 7AX" AND APPROVAL TO APPROPRIATE 5370,000 FROM FUND 24 - "STPTE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM" fOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE HAVEN AVENUE REHABILITATION - 4TH STREET TO FOOTHILL BOULEVARD It is recommended that City Counctt appropriate 5125,000 from Fund 32 - "Measure I Gas Tax" and appropriate 5370,000 from Fund 24 - "State Transportation Program" to pdy constructton and administrat/on costs pertaining to the Haven Avanue - 4th Street t0 FootA111 Boulevard rehabilitation praJect. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS For FY 92/93 3220,000 was budgeted from Fund 22 - Transportation Fees, for the construction and constructton administration (soils testing, constructton survey, etc.) for the Haven Avanue rehabilitation from 4th Street to Civic Center Drive. These funds are used as a "local match" with State Transportation Program (STP) grant funds. The City wiil receive approximately 85% of the project's cost from this STP grant. The City was recently awarded an additional matching STP grant to finish the Haven Avenue Rehab111tatton protect all the way north to Foothill Boulevard. The additional grant is approximately (370,000. City funding required is estimated to be 5125,000 which will be used to match the STP grant and pay for certain rehabilitation items not covered under the grant. Measure f is a County Gas Tax, which qualifies as a "local match" with the STP funds. The Measure I funds received by the Ctty arc designated by SANBAG as either Artertai, which 1s protect specific, or Local, which must be in a capital improvement pregram approved by City Council,. The funds required for the Haven Avenue Drolect arc designated as Local. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT HAVEN AVENUE REHABILITATION - 4TH STREET TO FOOTHILL BOULEVARD February 17, 1993 Page 2 The appropriation of these funds from the undeslgnated fund balance of Fund 32 - Measure I, will not adversely impact any ongoing Drofects approved by City Council in the FY 92/93 Budget. Respectfully submit / ~~ ~~1"" Nillfam J. O'Neil U City Engineer NJO:MO:sd Attachments urrY ur~ xANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: February 17, 1993 T0: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICD, City Manager FROM: Niiliam J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Linda Beek, CiWI Engineer SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE THE ADVERTISING OF THE "NOTICE INVITING BIDS" FOR HAVEN AVENUE FROM CIVIC CENTER TO FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, STREET IMPROYEI£NTS AND TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICATION, TO BE FUNDED FROM FUND 32, MEASURE I, 6115 TAX, ACOUNT N0. 32- 4637-9112 AND FUND 24, ACCOUNT N0. 24-4637-8838 It is recommended that Clty Council approve plans and specifications for Naven Avenue from Civic Center to Foothill Boulevard, Street Improvements and Traffic Signal Modification and approve the attached resolution authorizing the City Clerk to advertise the "Notice Inviting Bids". BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS The subject protect plans and specifications have been compieted by staff and approved by the City Engineer. The Engineer's estimate for construction is 2442,868.00. Legal advertising 1s scheduled for February 22 and March 1, 1993, with the bid opening at 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, April 1, 1993. Respectfully submitted, ~~ N1111am J. O'Ne~Y City Engineer NJO:LB:Iy Attachment ~~ RESOLUTION N0. 9~' O a3 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATION FOR THE "HAVEN AVENUE FROM CIVIC CENTER TO FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, STREET IMPROVEMENTS ANO TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICATION" IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS NHEREAS, it is the intention of the City of Rancho Cucamonga to construct certain improvements in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. NHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cucamonga has prepared plans and specifications for the construction of certain improvements. NOw, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the plans and specifications presented by the City of Rancho Cucamonga be and are hereby approved as the plans and specifications for the "Haven Avenue from Civic Center to Foothill Boulevard, Street Improvements and Traffic Signal Modification". BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to advertise as required by law for the receipt of sealed bids or proposals far doing the work specified in the aforesaid plans and specifications, which said advertisement shall be substantially in the following wards and figures, to wit: "NOTICE INVITING SEALED BIDS OR PROPOSALS° Pursuant to a Resolution of the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, Caiifornia, directing this notice, NOTICE [S HEREBY GI YEN that the said City of Rancho Cucamonga will receive at the Office of the City Clerk in the offices of the City of Rancha Cucamonga, on or before the hour of 2:00 o'clock P.M. on the 1st day of Apr11 1993, sealed bids or proposals for the "Haven Avenue from Civic Center to Foothill Boulevard, Street Improvements and Traffic Signal Modification" in said City. Bids will be opened and publicly read immediately in the office of the City Clerk, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Ranchd Cucamonga, California 91730. Bids must 6e made on a form provided for the purpose, addressed to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, marked, "Bid for Construction of Haven Avenue from Civic Center to Foothill Boulevard, Street Improvements and Traffic Signal Modification". PREVAILING NAGE: Notice 7s hereby given that in accordance with the provisions of California Labor Code, Oivtsion 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Articles 1 and 2, the Contractor is required to pay not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for work of a similar character in the locality in which the public work 1s performed, and not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for holiday and overtime work. In that regard, the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations of the State of California is required to and has determined such generai prevailing rates of per diem RESOLUTION HAVEN AVENUE FROM CIVIC CENTER DRIVE TO FOOTHILL BOULEVARD STREET IMPROVEMENTS AND TRAFFIC SIGNAL MOFIFICATION FEBRUARY 17, 1993 PAGE 2 wages. Copies of such prevailing rates of per diem wages are on file in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, 10500 Civic Center Drive, upper level, Rarh:ho Cucamonga, California, and are available to any interested party on request. The Contracting Agency also shall cause a copy of such determinations to be posted at the job site. The Contractor shall forfeit, as penalty to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, twenty-five dollars (j25.00) for each laborer, workman, or mechanic employed for each calendar day or portion thereof, tf such laborer, workman, or mechanic is paid less than the general prevailing rate of wages hereinbefore stipulated for any work done under the attached contract, by him or by any subcontractor under htm, in violation of the provisions of said Labor Cade. amended abyo Chapter 971 ,heStatutesonof f1939tioand7ln 5accordancebowithdethe regulations of the California Apprenticeship Council, properly indentured apprentices may be employed Tn the prosecution of the work. Attention is directed to the provtsions in Sections 1777.5 and 1777.6 of the Labor Code concerning the employment of apprentices by the Contractor or any subcontractor under him. Section 1777,5, as amended, requires the Contractor or subcontractor employing tradesmen in any apprenticeable occupation to apply to the Point apprenticeship committee nearest the site of the public works project and which administers the apprenticeship program 1n that trade for a certificate of approval. The certificate will also fix the ratio of apprentices to ,journeymen that will be used in the performance of the contract. The ratio of apprentices to journeymen in such cases shall not be less than one to five except: A. When unemployment in the area of coverage by the joint apprenticeship committee has exceeded an average of 15 percent in the 90 days prior to the request for certificate, or B. When the number of apprentices 1n training in the area exceeds a ratio of one to five, or C. When the trade can show that it is replacing at least 1/30 of its membership through apprenticeship training on an annual basis statewide or locally, or D. When the Contractor provides evidence that he employs registered apprentices on all of his contracts on an annual average of not less than one apprentice to eight journeymen. The Contractor is required to make contributions to funds established for the administration of apprenticeship programs if he employs registered 31 RESOLUTION HAVEN AVENUE FROM CIVIC CENTER DRIVE TO FOOTHILL BOULEVARD STREET IMPROVEMENTS AND TRAFFIC SIGNAL MOFIFICATION FEBRUARY 17, 1993 PAGE 3 apprentices or Journeymen in any apprenticeable trade on such contracts and if other Contractors on the public works site are making such contributions. The Contractor and subcontractor under him shall comply with the requirements of Sections 1777.5 and 1777.6 in the employment of apprentices. Information relative to apprenticeship standards, wage schedules, and other requirements may be obtained from the Director of Industrial Relations, ex-officio the Administrator of Apprenticeship, San Francisco, California, or from the Division of Apprenticeship Standards and its branch offices. Eight (8) hours of labor shall constitute a legal day's work for all workmen employed in the execution of this contract and the Contractor and any subcontractor under him shall comply with and be governed by the laws of the State of California having to do with working hours as set forth 1n Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Article 3 of the Labor Code of the State of California as amended. The Contractor shall forfeit, as a penalty to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, twenty-five dollars (f25.00) for each laborer, workman, or mechanic employed in th¢ execution of the contract, by him or any subcontractor under him, upon any of the work hereinbefore mentioned, for each calendar day during which said laborer, workman, ar mechanic is required or permitted to labor more than eight (8) hours in violation of said Labor Code, Contractor agrees to pay travel and subsistence pay to each workman needed to execute the work required by this contract as such travel and subsistence payments are defined in the aDPlicable collective bargaining agreements filed in accordance with Lobar Code Section 1773.8. The bidder must submit with his proposal cash, cashier's check, certified check, or bidder's bond, payable to the City of Rancho Cucamonga for an amount equal to at least ten percent (10%) of the amount of said Did as a guarantee that the bidder will enter into the proposed contract if the same Ts awarded to him, and in event of failure to enter into such contract said cash, cashier's check, certified check, or bond shall become the property of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, If the City of Rancho Cucamonga awards the contract to the next lowest bidder, the amount of the lowest bidder's security shall be applied by the City of Rancho Cucamonga to the difference between the low bid and the second lowest bid, and the surplus, if any, shall be returned to the lowest bidder. The amount of the bond to be given to secure a faithful performance of the contract for said work shall be one hundred percent (100%) of the contract price thereof, and an additional bond in an amount equal to one hundred theLent (100%) of the contract price for said work shall be given to secure payment of claims for any materials or supplies furnished for the ~. RESOLUTION HAVEN AVENUE FROM CIVIC CENTER DRIVE TO FOOTHILL BOULEVARD STREET IMPROVEMENTS AND TRAFFIC SIGNAL MOFIFICATTON FEBRUARY 17, 1993 PAGE 4 performance of the work contracted to be done Dy the Contractor, or any work or labor of any kind done thereon, and the Contractor wilt also be required to furnish a certificate that he carries compensation insurance covering his employees upon work to be done under contract which may be entere8 into between him and the said Ctty of Rancho Cucamonga for the construction of said work. No proposal will be considered from a Contractor whom a proposal form has not been issued by the City of Ra~ho Cucamonga. Contractor shall possess a Class "A° License (General Engineering Contractor) in accordance with the provisions of the Contractor's License law (Ca iifornla Business and Professions Code, Section 7000 et. seq.) and rules and regulations adapted pursuant thereto at the time this contract is awarded. The work 1s to be done 1n accordance with the profiles, pions, and specifications of the City of Rancho Cucamonga on file in the Office of the City Clerk at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Copies of the plans and specifications, available at the office of Lhe City Engineer, will be furnished upon appllcatTOn to the City of Rancho Cucamonga and paymerrt of 525.00, said 525.00 is nonrefundable. Upon written request by the bidder, copies of the plans and specifications will be mailed when said request is accompanied by payment stipulated above, together with an additional nonreTmbursable payment of 515.00 to cover the cost of ma 111ng charges and overhead. The successful bidder will 6e required to enter into a contract satisfactory to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. In accordance with the requiremerrts of Section 902 of the General Provisions, as set forth in the Plans and Specifications regarding the work contracted to be done by the Contractor, the Contractor may, upon Lhe Contractor's request and at the Contractor's sole cost and expense, substitute authorized securities 1n lieu of cronies withheld (performance retention). The City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, reserves the right to reJect any and all bids, By order of the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. Dated this 17th day of February, 1993. RESOLUTION HAVEN AVENUE FROM CIVIC CENTER DRIVE TO FOOTHILL BOULEVARD STREET IMPROYEMENTS AND TRAFFIC SIGNAL MOFIFICATION FEDRUARY 17, 1993 PAGE 5 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Rancho Cucananga, California, this 17th day of February, 1993, or ATTEST: y er ADVERTISE ON: February 22, 1993 and March 1, 1993 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAiyIONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: Pebruary 17, 1993 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Ism, AICP, City Manager FROM: Brad Huller, City Planner HY: Scott Murphy, Associate Planner SV&TECT: APPAOVAL TO AUTHORIZE THE AOVERTI SING OF THE "NOTICE INVITING BIDS" FOR THE CRAPFEY-GAACTA BARN CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, TO BE PUNDEO FROM ACCOUNT NO. 070-0276-0528. RBCOMffi7MTIGP Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution authorizing the pub li ahing of the Notice Inviting Bids for the conattucti on of the Chaffey- Garcia Harn. HA(7pG110BND Over the past few years, the City has plared greater emphasis on preservation of historic structures within the City. Since incorporation, the residents of Rancho Cucamonga have witnessed the re atoration of the Virginia Daze and Thomas Hrothe rs Wineries, the relocation and restoration of the G.P. iR dig Rouse, the re atoration of the Chaffey-Garcia Aouce, and many others. A[AGYSIo As a continuation of the preservation efforts, the City, in conjunction with the Etiwanda Historical Socio ty, ie now undertaking the construction of the Chaffey- Garcia Harn. The 2,514 square foot structure will be located at the rear of the site occupied by the Chaffey-Garcia House. The barn will be designed to reflect the original de sign of the Chaffey-Garcia Barn. The barn will house historic a rtlfacta gathered from the community and provide a caretaker's residence for the site. The final plena and specifications hove Daen prepared for the construction of the Chaffey-Garcia Barn and are ready for bidding. The ^Notice Inviting Hide" will be published twice in the Inland Valley Deily Bulletin, with the bid opening to be held on April 15, 1993, If a qualified bid la received, staff enticlpatea the awarding of the bid et the first City Council meeting Sn May. Funding for this project will come from contributions Wade by Foothill Marketplace partners es part of their historical mi tlgation for the development of Foothill Marketplace (Account Number 070-0276-0528). No City fun de will be used for the construction of the barn. City P~'Sfi BB:SM/jfe Attachments: Resolution Authorizing Publication a7iJ RESOLUTION N0. 93'~a~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE "CHAFFEY-GARCIA BARN CONSTRUCTZON PROJECP," IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLEWC TO ADVERTISE AND RECEIVE BIDS WNEREAS, it is the intention of the City Council to promote the preservation of historical and cultural resources in the City of Rancho Cucamonga; and WHEREAS, the Cowcil has prepared plans and specifications for the construction of the Chaffey-Garcia Barn to be used for displaying historical artifacts. NoW, THEREFORE, the City Cowcil of the City of Rancho Cucamonga dcea hereby resolve that the plans and ape ci£ications presented by the City ba and are hereby approved as the plane and specifications for the ^Chaffey-Garcia Barn Con9trvetion." BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk ie hereby authorized and directed to advertise as required by law for the rece Spi of sealed bide or proposals for doing work specified in the aforesaid plane and specifications, which said advertisement shall be substantially in the following words and figures, to wit: "NOTICE INVITING SEALED BIDS OR PROPOSALE" Pursuant to a Re eolutlw of the City Cowcil of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, San He rnardino Cowry, California, directing this notice, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that said Council will receive at the office of the City Clerk located in the Civic Center at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California, on or before the hour of 3:00 P. M., on the 15th day of April 1993, sealed bi da oz proposals for the "Chaffey-Garcia Barn Construction Project" in 9814 City. A pre-bid meeting is scheduled for 10:00 A. M. on March 25, 1993, at 7150 Etiwanda Avenue, the site of the Chaffey-Gezeia Barn. This meeting is to inform bldde rs of subcontracting and material supply opportunities ae well ae to allow contractors to view the site. Bidde re' attendance at this meeting is a prerequisite for demons ttating reasonable effort of participailon. Bids will immediately be opened and publicly read beginning at 3:00 P. M. on April 15, 1993, Sn the Rains Room 10500 Civic Center Dri~~e, Rancho Ncamonga, California 91730• Bids moat he obde on a form provided for the purpose, addressed to the City Clerk and marked "Bid for Construction of Chaffey-Garcia Bern Constrvction Project." l7C) CI?Y CODNCIL RESOLUTION NO. INVITE HIDS FOR CRAFFEY-GARCIA BARN February 17, 1993 Page 2 PREVAILING WAGE: Notice is hereby given that in accordance with the provisions of California Labor Code, Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Articles i and 2, the Contractor ie required to pay not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for work of a similar character in the locality in which the public work is performed, and not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for holiday and overtime work. In that regard, the Director of the Department o£ Industrial Relations of the State of California is required to and has determined such general prevailing rates of per diem wages. Copies of such prevailing rates of per diem wages are on file in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, 10500 Civic Center Drive, upper level, Pancho Cucamonga, California, and are available to any interested party upon request. The Contracting Agency shall also cause a copy of such de toxminatfona Lo be posted at the job site. Pursuant to provisions of Labor Code Se ctiw 1775, the Contractor shall forfeit, as penalty to the City, not more than fifty dollars ($50.00) for each laborer, workman, or mzchenic employed for each calendar day or portion thereof, if such laborer, workmen, or ma chanic Sa pnid less than the general prevailing rate of wages hereinbefore stipulated for any work done under the attached contract, by him or by any subcontractor under him, Sn violation of the provisions of said Labor Code. In accordance with the provisions of Section 1777.5 of the Labor Code as amended by Chapter 977, Statutes of 1939, and in accordance with the re gulationa of the California Apprenticeship Council, properly indentured apprentices may be employed in the prosecution Of the aozk. Attention Sa directed to the oravisiona in Se cticne 1777.5 and 1777.6 of the Labor Code concerning the employment of apprentices by the Contractor or any subcontractor under him. Section 7777.5, as amended, requires the Contractor or subcontractor employing tradesmen in any apprenticeable occupation to apply to the joint apprenticeship committee neereei the site of the public aorke project and which administers the apprenticeship program in that trade for a certificate of approval. The certificate will also Fix the ratio of apprentices to journeymen that will be used in the pe xformance of the contract. The ratio of apprentices to journeymen in each cases shall not be lees than one to five except: When unemployment In the area of coverage by the joint apprenticeship committee has exceeded an average of fifteen percent (758) in the ninety (90) days prior to the request for certificate, oz H. When the number of apprentices in training in the area exceeds e ratio of one (1) to five (5), or C. When the trade can show that it is replacing at least 1!30 of its membership through apprenticeship training on an annual basis stateside or locally, pr CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION ND. INVITE BIDS FOR CEAFFEY-GAACIA BARN February 17, 1993 Pa ge 3 D. When the Contractor provides evidence that he employs registered apFrentices on all of his contracts on an annual average of not leas than one (i) apprentice to eight (S) journeymen. The Contractor ie required to make contributions to funds established for t)~e administration of apprenticeship programs if he employe registered appren iices or journeymen in any apprenti ceable trade on such contra cta and if other Contractors on the public works site are making such con tzibutiona. The Contractor and subcontractor under him shall comply with the requirements of Se etion6 1777.5 and 1777.6 in the employment of apprentices. Information ze lative to apprenticeship standards, wage schedules, and other requirements may be obtained from the Director of Industrial Re la tion e, ex-officio the Administrator of Apprenticeship, San Frencieco, California, or from the Division of Apprenticeship Standards and its branch offices. Eight (R) hours of labor shall constitute a legal dey~s work for all workmen employed in the axe curios of this contract and the ContrnMOZ and any subcontractor under him shall comply with and be governed by the laws of the State of Ce lifornia hewing to do with corking hours as set forth in Dlvi/ion 2, Part 7, Chapter 7, Article 3 of the Labor Code of the state of California, as amended. The Contractor shall forfeit, ae a penalty to the City of Poncho Cucamonga, twenty-five dollars ($25.00) for each laborer, workmen, or mechanic employed in the execution of the contract, by him or any subcontractor under him, upon any of the work he reinbefore mentioned, for each calendar day during which ea id laborer, workman, or mechanic Se required or permitted to labor maze than eight (e) hwra in violation of said Labor Code. Contractor agrees to pay travel and eubeiatenrn pay to each aorkmnn needed to axe wte the work required by this contract as such travel and subsistence payments are defined in the applicable collective bargaining egreemsnte filed in accordance cith Labor Code 9e coon 1773.8. The bidder moat submit with hie proposal cash, caehier~e check, certified cheek, or bi dder~e bond, payable to the City for an amount equal to at least ten percent (108) of the amount of said bid ae a guarantee that the bidder Gill enter into the proposed contract if the same Ia awarded to him, and in event of failure to enter into such contract said ca eh, caehie r~s check, certified check, or bond shall become the property of the City. If the City awards the contract to the next lowest bidder, the amount of the lowest bidders cecurity shall be applied by the City to the difference between the low bid end the second lowest bid, and the surplus, if any, shall b° returned to the lowest bidde z. JO CITY COUNCIL RSSOLDTION NO. INVITk: BIDH FOR CRAFPEY-GARCIA BARN February 77, 7993 Page 4 The amount of the bond to De given to secure a faithful performance of the contract for acid work shall be one hundred percent (1008) of the contract price thereof, and an additional bond in a„ amount equal to one hundred percent (1006) of the contract price for said work shall be given to secure the payment of claims for any materials or auppliee furnished for the performance of the work contracted to be done by the Contractor, or any work of labor of any kind done thereon, and the Contractor will also be required to furnish a certificate that he carries compensation insurance covering his employees upon work to be done under contract which may he entered into between him and the City for the constrvction of said work. No proposal will be coneiderad from a Contractor to wham a proposal form hoe not been issued by the City. Contractor shall posseae any and all contractors licensee, in form and class required by any and all applicable laws with respect to any and all of the work to be performed under this contract, including but not limited to, a Close "B" License (General Building Contractor) in accordance with the provisions of the Contractor's License Law (California Husinesa and Yrofessiona Code, Section 7000 et. seq.) and rules and re gulationa adopted pursuant thereto. The Contractor, pursuant to the ^Ca lifornia Huslnesa and profeaeione Code,^ Section 7028.15, shall Sndicate nis or her State License Number on the bid, together with the expiration date, and be signed by the Contractor declaring, under penalty of perjury, that the inforsation being provided is true and correct. The work is to be done in accordance with the profiles, plena, and specifications of the City on file in the office of the City Clerk at 10500 Civic Center DtSVe, Rancho Cucamonga, Cn lifornia. Copies of the plane and epecificatiana will be available nt the office of the planning Division by March 15, 1993, or upon completion of plan check by the Building and Safety Division, end will be furnished upon application to the City of Rancho Cucamonga end payment of seventy-five dollars ($75.00)• Said seventy-five dol l~ ra (575.00) is refundable if plane are returned in usable condition. Upen written request by the Didde r, copies of the plane and ape clficatione will if mailed when avid request is accompanied by payment stipulated above, together with an additional nonreimbursable payment of twenty-five dollars ($25.00) to cover the coat of nailing charges and overhead. The successful bidder will be required to enter into a contract eatf.efactory to the City. In accordance with the requirements of Section 9-3.8 of the General Provision e, ae set forth in the plans and Spe cificatione re gerding the work contracted to be done by the Contractor, the Contractor may, upon the contractor's request and et the Contractor's sole cost and expense, eubetftute authorized securities Sn lieu of monies withheld (performance retention). The City rase ruse the right to reject any and all bide. urrz ur xarvutiu uuunmuNC>n STAFF REPORT DATE: February 17, 1993 T0: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, ATCP, C1ty Manager FROM: M7111am J. O'Ne11, C1ty Engineer BY: L1nda R. Beek, Civil Engineer SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE THE ADVERTISING OF THE "NOTICE INVITING BIDS" fOR THE MILLIKEN AVENUE BIKE ROUTE AND BASE LINE ROAD BIKE LANE, PHASE I, (FROM HEST CITY LIMITS TO DAY CREEK) IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, TO BE FUNDED FROM ADMINI5TRATIVE AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT GRANT FUND, ACCOUNT N0. 14-4158-6028 RECd/EIOATION: It is recommended that Ctty Council the M1111ken Avenue 61ke Route and (from Nest City Ltmlts to Oay Creek) attached resolution authorizing the Inviting Bids". epprove plans and specifications for Base L1ne Road B1ke Lane, Phase I, Improvement Prolect and approve the C1ty Clerk to advertise the "Notice BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS The subject protect plans and specifications have been completed by staff and aDProved by the City Engineer. The Engfneer's estimate for construction is f53,500.00. Legal advertising 1s scheduied for February 22 and MarcA 1, 1993, with the b1d opening at 2:00 PM on TAursday, March 4, 1993. Respectfully subml~Eed, ~~ Nilttam J. O'Ne11 City Engineer MJO:LRB:sd Attachment RESOLUTION N0. 93' oa.J A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA APPROVING PLANS ANO SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE "MILLIKEN AVENUE BIKE ROUTE AND BASE LINE ROAD BIKE LANE, PHASE I (FROM NEST CITY LIMITS TO DAY CREEK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT," IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS WHEREAS, it is the intention of the City of Rancho Cucamonga to construct certain Improvements in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. NHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cucamonga has prepared plans and specifications for the construction of certain Improvements. NON, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the plans and speclfications presented by the City of Rancho Cucamonga be and are hereby approved as the plans and specifications for "Milliken Avenue Bike Route and Base Line Road Bike Lane, Phase I (from West City L1m1 is to Day Creek)." BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to advertise as required by taw for the receipt of sealed bids or proposals for doing the work specified in the aforesaid plans and speclfications, which said advertisement shall be Substantially 1n the following words and figures, to wit: "NOTICE INVITING SEALED BIDS OR PROPOSALS" Pursuant to a Resolution of the Council of the City of Rancho Cucanonga, San Bernardino County, Cal7fornia, directing this notice, NOTICE [S HEREBY GIVEN that the said City of Rancho Cucamonga will receive at the Office of the City Clerk 1n the offices of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, on or before the hour of 2:00 o'clock P.M. on the 4th day of March 1993, sealed bids or proposals for the "Milliken Avenue Bike Route and Base Line Road Bike Lane, Phase I (from West City Limits to Day Creek)" in said City. Bids will be opened and publicly read inmedlateiy in the office of the City Clerk, 10500 C1v1c Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. Bids must be made on a form provided for the purpose, addressed to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, marked, "Bid for Construction of Milliken Avenue Bike Route and Base Line Road Bike lane, Phase I (from West City Limits to Day Creek)". PREVAILING WAGE: Notice is hereby given that 1n accordance with the provisions of California Labor Code, Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Articles 1 and 2, the Contractor is required to pay not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for work of a slmiier character 1n the locality in which the public work 1s performed, and not less than the generai prevailing rate of per diem wages for holiday and overtime work. In that regard, the Director of the Department of industrial Relations of the State of California is required to and has determined such generai prevailing rates of per diem wages. Copies of such prevailing rates of per diem wages are on file 1n the 41 RESOLUTION N0. MILLIKEN AVE. BIKE ROUTE d OASE LINE ROAD BIKE LANE, PHASE PAGE 2 FEBRUARY 17, 1993 office of the City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, 10500 Civic Center Drt ve, upper level, Rancho Cucamonga, California, and are available to any interested party on request. The Contracting Agency also shall cause a copy of such determinations to be posted at the Job site. The Contractor shall forfeit, as penalty to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, twenty-five dollars (525.00) for each laborer, workman, or mechanic employed for each calendar day or portion thereof, 1f such laborer, workman, or mechanic is paid less than the general prevailing rate of wages herelnDefore stipulated for any work done under the attached contract, by him or by aqy subcontractor under him, Tn violation of the provisions of said Labor Code. In accordance with the provisions of Section 1777.5 of the Labor Code as amended by Chapter 971, Statutes of 1939, and in accordance with the regulations of the California Apprenticeship Council, properly Indentured apprentices may 6e employed 1n the prosecution of the work. Attention is directed to the provisions in Sections 1777.5 and 1777.6 of the Labor Code concerning the employment of apprentices by the Contractor or any subcontractor under him. Section 1711.5, as amended, requires the Contractor or subcontractor employing tradesmen in any apprenticeabie occupation to apply to the Joint apprenticeship comm/ttee nearest the site of the public works protect and which administers the apprenticeship program 1n that trade for a certificate of approval. The certificate will also fix the ratio of apprentices to tourneymen that will be used 1n the performance of the contract. The ratio of apprentices to tourneymen to such cases shall nat be less than ane to flue except: A. Nhen unemployment in the area of coverage by the totnt apprenticeship committee has exceeded an average of 15 percent /n the 90 days prior to the request for certificate, or 8. When the number of apprentices to training in the area exceeds a ratio of one to five, or C. When the trade can show that it is replacing at leest 1/30 of Its membership through apprenticeship training on an annual basis statewide or locally, or D. When the Contractor provides evidence that he employs registered apprentices on all of his contracts on an annual average of not less than one apprentice to eight Journeymen. The Contractor 15 required to make contriDutlons to funds established for the a8minlstration o9 apprenticeship programs if he employs registered apprentices or tourneymen 1n any apprentlceable trade on such contracts and if other Contractors on the public works site are making such contributions. RESOLUTION N0. MILLIKEN AVE. BIKE ROUTE b BASE LINE ROAD BIKE LANE, PHASE PAGE 3 FEBRUARY 17, 1993 The Contractor and subcontractor under him shall comply with the requirements of Sections 1)77.5 and 1777.6 Tn the employment of apprentices. Information relative to apprenticeship standards, wage schedules, and other requirements may be obtained from the Director of Industrial Relations, ex-officio the Administrator of Apprenticeship, San Francisco, California, or from the Division of Apprenticeship Standards and its branch offices. Eight (R) hours of labor shall constitute a legal day's work for all workmen employed in the execution of this contract and the Contractor and any subcontractor under him shall comply with and be governed by the laws of the State of California having to do with working hours as set forth in Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Article 3 of the Labor Code of the State of California as amended. The Contractor shall forfeit, as a penalty to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, twenty-flue dollars (f25.D0) for each laborer, workman, or mechanic employed in the execution of the contract, by him or any subcontractor under h1 m, upon any of the work heretnbefore mentioned, for each calendar day during which said laborer, workman, or mechanic is required or permitted to labor more than eight (8) hours 1n violation of said Labor Code. Contractor agrees to pay travel and subsistence pay to each workman needed to execute the work required by this contract as such travel and subsistence payments are defined in the appiicablz collective bargaining agreements filed in accordance with Labor Code Section 2773.8• The bidder must submit with his proposal cash, cashier's check, certified check, or bidder's bond, pn,yable to the City of Rancho Cucamonga for an amount equal to at least ten percent (10%) of the amount of said bid as a guarantee that the bidder will enter Into the proposed contract if the same is awarded to him, and in event of (allure to enter into such contract sold cash, cashier's check, certified check, or bond shall become the property of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. If the City of Rancho Cucamonga awards the contract to the next lowest bidder, the amount of the lowest bidder's security shall be applied by the City of Rancho Cucamonga to the difference between the low bid and the second lowest bid, and the surplus, if any, shall be returned to the lowest bidder. The amount of the band to be given to secure a faithful performance of the contract for said work shall be one hundred percent (100%) of the contract price thereof, and an additional bond to an amount equai to fifty percent (50%) of the contract price for said work shall be given to secure the payment of claims for any materials or supplies furnished for the perfornmnce of the work contracted to be done by the Contractor, or any work or labor of any kind done thereon, and the Contractor will also be required t0 furnish a certificate that he carries compensation insurance covering his employees upon work to be done under contract which may be entered into between him and the said City of Rancho Cucamonga far the construction of sa/d work. RESOLUTION N0. MILLIKEN AVE. BIKE ROUTE a BASE LINE ROAD BIKE LANE, PMASE I PAGE 4 FEBRUARY 17, 1993 No proposal will be considered from a Contractor whom a proposal form has not been issued by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Contractor shall possess a Class "A° License (General Engineering Contractor) in accordance with the provisions of the Contractor's License Law (California Business and Professions Code, Section 7000 et. seq.) and rules and regulations adopted pursuant thereto at the time this contract is awarded. The work is to be done in accordance with the profiles, plans, and specifications of the City of Rancho Cucamonga on file in the Office of the City Clerk at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Copies of the plans and specifications, avallaDle at Lhe office of the City Engineer, will be furnished upon application to Lhe City of Rancho Cucamonga and payment of E35.00, said 535.00 is nonrefundable. UDOn written request by the bidder, copies of the plans and specifications will be mailed when said request 15 accompanied 6y payment stipulated above, together with an additional nonretmbursable payment of 515.00 to cover the cost of mailing charges and overhead. The successful bidder will be required to enter into a contract satisfactory to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. fn accordance with the requirements of Section 902 of the General Provisions, as set forth 1n the Plans and Speciflcattons regarding the work contracted to be done by the Contractor, the Contractor may, upon the Contractors request and at the Contractor's sole cost and expense, substitute authorized securities in lieu of monies withheld (performance retention). The City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, reserves the right to reject any and all bids. By order of the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. Dated this _ day of , 1993. PASSED AND ADOPTED Dy the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, this day of 1943. ATTEST: y er ADVERTISE ON F~EBCHAiY 221993 ayor RESOLUTION N0. MILLIKEN AYE. BIKE ROUTE b BASE LINE ROAD BIKE LANE, PHASE I PAGE 4 FEBRUARY 17, 1993 No proposal will De considered from a Contractor whom a proposal form has not been issued by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Contractor shall possess a Class "A" License (General Engineering Contractor) in accordance with the provlsi ons of the Contractor's License Law (California Business and Professions Code, Section 7000 et. seq.) and rules and regulations adopted pursuant thereto at the time this contract is awarded. The work 1s to be done 1n accordance with the profiles, plans, and specifications of the City of Rancho Cucamonga on file 1n the Office of the City Clerk at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Copies of the plans and specifications, available at the office of the Ctty Engineer, will be furnished upon application to the City of Rancho Cucamonga and payment of 535.00, said 535.00 is nonrefundable. Upon written request by the bidder, copies of the plans and specifications will be mailed when safd request is accompanied by payment stipulated above, together with an additional nonreimbursa6le payment of 515.00 to cover the cost of mailing charges and overhead. The successful bidder will be required to enter Into a contract satisfactory to the Ctty of Rancho Cucamonga. In accordance with the requirements of Section 902 of the General Provisions, as set forth 1n the Pions and Specifications regarding the work contracted to be done by the Contractor, the Contractor may, upon the Contractor's request and at the Contractor's sole cost and expense, substitute authorized securities in lieu of monies withheld (performance retention). The City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, reserves the right to reject any and all bids. By order of the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. Dated this _ day of 1993. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the Ctty of Rancho Cucamonga, California, this _ day of 1993. ATTEST: y er ADVERTISE ON FERRUARY 22,1993 MARCH 1, 1993 ayor uti x yr nr+rvc,nv ~u~.vmvtvvrx STAFF REPORT DATE: February 17. 1993 TO Mayor and Members of the City Councfl lack lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William L O'Neil, City Engineer BY: In Lynne Russo-Pereym, Integrated Wazte Coordinator S[,'BIECT: A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL FOR THE HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE GRANT APPLICATION RECOMMENDATION The City of Rancho GLcamonga Ciry Council adopt the attached Resolution authorizing the submittal of the City's Household Hazardous Waste Discretionary Grant application to the California Integrated Waste Management Board. BACKGROUND The California Integrated Waste Management Board established the Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) Grant Program upon enactment of Assembly BiB 2448. The purpose of the program is to award grants to local agencies with the responsibility of managing programs that prevent the improper disposal of household hazardous waste. The Integrated Waste Management Board is currently conducting the cycle for discretionary grants which aze awarded for the establishment of new household hazardous waste programs and public information projects. Earlier this year the Ciry received anon- discretionary grant in the amount of 52,218 which funded salary reimbtusement for personnel staffing the City's Permanent Household Hazardous Waste Collection Site. Staff is in the process of developing a grant application which will request funding for public education materials to help publicize the City's Permanent Collection Site and increase the community's knowledge regarding the safe disposal of HHW. The grant application will request funding for the production of an informational video and brochure. The objective of the public education materials will be to mice the community awareness regarding the proper handling of HHW, encourage safe alternatives in place of HHW, and instinct residents on the proper disposal of HHW. The City's AB 939 Policy discusses the need for public education programs to be repetitive and conducted over a long period of time in order for the information to be effective. The video will be used for community and school presentations, periodically shown on the local cable channel, and available on loan at the local library. The brochure will be disuibuted ro residents by the City's conVact refuse haulers during their weekly collection schedWe. The brochure will also be available at public locations such as community centers, and become part of the City's on-going library of printed materials which are rued at community displays and fairs. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL FOR HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE GRANT APPLICATTON February 17, 1993 Page 2 of 2 As part of the grant application process the State requires the City to include a Resolution from the applicant's governing body authorizing the submittal of the application to the California Integrated Waste Management Board. FISCAL IMPACT The grant application requests funding in the amomi of approximately S iSS~. The applicaton does not require the City m provide any matching funds. Grant awards will be announced in May 1993. Respectfully submi William I.O'Neil City Engineer WIO:jltp Attachment 47 RESOLUTION NO. ~ 2 ~ ~ a ~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF THE HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE GRANT APPLICATION TO THE CALIFORNIA IN'CEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD WHEREAS, The City of Rancho Cucamonga recognizes that it is in the public interest to enact and implement an integrated waste management plan m address the State's diminishing landfill space and potential adverse enduonmental impacts from landfilling; and WHEREAS, funds have been established by Assembly Bi112448 (Eason, 1987), and are availablefrom the SoBd Waste Disposal Site Cleanup and Maintenance Account in the General Fund through the CaGfomia Integrated Waste Management Board for grants to local government for waste diversion and separation programs to prevent the disposal of hazardous waste, including household hazardous waste, in solid waste IandfilLs. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby resolve that effective Febmary 17, 1993: $Efti4ll_y The Household Hazardous Waste Gram application is authomed for submittal to the California Integrated Waste Management Board. C ..lion The City Manager of the City of Rancho Cucamonga L hereby authorized and empowered to execute all necessary apphcaoons, contracts, and agreements and amendments hereto for the purposes of securing grant funds and to implement and carry out the purposes specified in this application. '!O uii: yr tce+rvunv uuue+mvivisn STAFF REPORT DATE: February 11, 1993 T0: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer 8Y: Oary Varney, Maintenance Superintendent Streets d Storm Drains SUBJECT: APPROVAL FOR THE LEASE PURCHASE OF (1) THREE AXLE, 10 WHEEL DUMP, FRONT END LOADER SWEEPER TRUCK FROM INLAND EMPIRE NHITEGMC OF RIVERSIDE, CA, IN THE AMOUNT OF f24,071.33 A YEAR, FOR FIVE (5) YEARS, TO BE FUNDED FROM GAS TAX ACCOUNT 09-4641-7045. It 1s recommended that the City Council award the tease purchase of one (1) Three Axle, 10 Nhee1 dump, Front End Loader Sweeper Truck to Inland Empire NhiteGNC of Riverside, California as the lowest responsible bidder. Lease purchase over five years (5) for the amount of twenty-four thousand seventy- one dollars and thirty-three cents (f24,071,39), Tne purchase to be funded from Gas Tax account 09-4647-7045. BACicsaalMOiAMUrsts At 3:00 P.M, on December 22, 1992, bid proposals for the lease purchase of one (1) three axle, 10 wheel dump, front end loader sweeper truck were received and opened in the City Purchasing Office. Of the flue Droposals sent out four were received and only one, Southland Truck 8 Equipment Sales was a no bid, they were unable to meet minimum specification requirements. The bid received from Inland Empire Nh1teGMC of Riverside is in compliance Dy meeting or exceeding the City SpeClficatlons on the performance safety anA equipment standards expected. This unit will replace the old unit that 1s broken. Respectfully submitted, ~~~~~~ William J. O'Neil City Engineer NJO:GY:,Ih Attachment lal'Y UN' HANUriU UUUAMUNUA STAFF REPORT DATE: February 17, 1993 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Anthea Hartig, Associate Planner SIJBJECI: APPROVAL OF LANDMARK DESIGNATION 93-01 AND APPROVAL TO EXECUTB MILLS ACT CONTRACT 93-01 - DALE AND JAN SUTTON - An application to designate the Emory Allen Eouae, located at 9441 Lomita, Poncho Cucamonga, as an Bietoric Landmark and a proposal to implement the use of the Mills Act to reduce the property tnx on said property - APN: 2a2-082-13. I~901rOA'EIOM Staff xecommende that the City Cowell approve Landmark Designation 93-01 an9 thereby designate the Hmory Allen House ae an Historic Landmark and thnt the Cowcil approve the cwtract for Mille Act Agreement 93-01 between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and Jan Sutton and Dale Sutton for the said property. BACRC.HODMU In August 1988. the Cowcil reviewed Sncentivee that would promote historic preserva[SOn and the rehabilitation of the commwiLy'e cultural heritage. The Mille Act allows for the atmet of n designated landmark to realize property tax reductions upon entering into a preaeroatlon contract with the City. The first each contract was epprovad by the Cowcil Sn April 1990, and prior to that Lima staff addressed the potential minor lose of revenue from the General Fwd. If approved, Mille Act Agreement 93-01 will be the fif[h each contract entered into by the City. an average, owners of historic properties with Mille AM Contracts have saved 60-75 percent on their property taxes, and again on average, the City loses only between $55 and $85 a year per property wder contract. Staff hoe mot with the Suttone, visited their home, end reviewed carefully the proposed Smprovementa and the contract anfl finds that in approvSn9 this contract we are meeting our objectives of providing incentives to owners truly concerned with prase rvinq the City'a historic resources. CITY COUNCIL STAPF ItEPOAT LV 93-01 - HMORY ALLEN HOVSS Pebrua rY 17, 1993 Page y HISTOBIC P~17ATIOli C01@QSSIQ7 ACTIQ7 At their January iy, 7993 meeting, the Historic Preservation Commission unanimously approved the forwarding of a recommendation to designate the Emory Allen House to the City Council (please refer to Exhibit "A^, the HPC Staff i+epozt). The Commission concluded that the home has been an important part of the built environment of the historic care of the Alta Lama community for sixty years. At that same meeting, the Commission also recommended that the Council approve the execution of Mills Act Agreement 93-H1 with ais to rs Jan Sutton and Dale Sutton. Respe u y submi d, Brad ler City Tanner HH:AN:mlg Attachmenis: Exhibit "A" - EPC Staff Repozt 77nted January 12, 1993 Exhibit "B" - HPC Resolution No. 93-01 Resolution of Approval 51 Ul'1'Y VP' 1t.ANGHV CUCAMONUA STAFF REPORT DATE: January 12, 1993 T0: Chairman and Members of the Historic Preservation FROM: La rzy J. Henderson, AICP, Principal Planner DY: Anthea M. Narti g, .Associate Planner SUBJECT: LANDMARK DESIGNATION 93-01 AND MILLS ACT CONTRACT 93-01 - JAN SUTTON AND DALE SUTTON - An application to designate the Emory Allen House, located at 9641 Lomita Avenue, as a local Landmark. 1n addition, review of a request to enter into a Mills Act ContraeT. for the said properly. APN: 202-082-14. HACxGROUND 6 ANALYSIS: Sisters Jan and Dale Sutton purchased the Emory Allen Houae in the historic core of the Alta Loma community in December of 1992. the Co~iasion reviewed the structure in October 1991 as part of the Old Alta Loma Survey and rated it ae a potential local landmark. Jan Sutton had many converse dons with staff prior to and during the purchase of the home regarding the possibility of applying for a landmazk deaf gnation and restoring the building. Although altered, most of the modifications are reversible and the Suttona are excited and coamitted to preserving and restoring their new home. Posed upon meetings with Ms. Sutton, site visits to the historic home, and a careful review of the proposed improvements for the property, staff finds that approving their request for a Mille Act contract meets objectives of providing incentives for eanera interested in the long- term preservation of our cultural resources. The attached contract, Exhibit "HPC-1," especially Exhibit "C" therein contains the list of improvements proposed by the Suttona. Aftet review by the Commission, a recommendation sill De forwarded to the City Council and is tentatively scheduled for the agenda on Pebruary 17, 1993. SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION: Location and Description: Situated on the southwest corner of the intersection of Lomita Drive and Layton Court, the site ie relatively f Lat and dotted with a number of mature trees. The parcel is just over one-quarter of en acre in sSze, please refer to Exhibit "NpC-2," Site Map. Site Land Uae, Zoning, General plan Designations: Low density re sidentinl (2-4 dwelling unite per acre) zoning is overlaid on the site per the General Plan. ~~~(-r ..~„ 52 HPC STAFF AEPOAT LD 93-01 - SUTTON January 12, 1993 Pzge 2 Surrounding Land Use, Zoning, Gen_ral Plan/Epeci£ic Plan Desienations: The land to the iimoediate north, south, east, and west is also zoned for Low density residential use, although the property lies on the residential edge of the covunezcially zoned business district of Alta Loma around the intersection of Amethyst Avenue and Hase Line Road. Physical Description (Please refer to Exhibit "HPC-3" for Survey Form): This roughly square-shaped, two-storied strvcture of wood-framed constructior. is supported by a field-stone wall foundation. GUrrently covered with stained wood shingles, the original 6-inch wood siding still exists underneath this added layer. The medium-pitched, front gabled roof is mirrored in the constrvetion of the front, ea et facing porch whicn is supported by unadorned piers atop an extended field stone wall. From Assessor's records, it appears that in 1940, Mr. Allen expanded the interior of the downatai rs kitchen area into the southern portion of the front porch, constructing the new walls from bricks made with his own hands. The owner previous to the Buttons replaced the wooden windows in the kitchen area with alweinum eliding windows and added a layer of stucco to the brick building faces. Likewise, the walls of the enclosed rear (west) porch that Mr. Allen built of brick and were stuccoed by the same owner. To the south of the house lies a structure probably used originally as a stable and garage. This single storied building has a steeply-pitched, front-gabled roof that allows for an airy interior loft accessible by ar. exterior hay door located in the center of the east-facing pediment formed by the gabled roof Lines. Other features worthy of note include a stone-floored patio between the southeast corner of the house and the garage/barn and accessed from the kitchen door. ANALYSIS: Historical Background: This structure was built shortly after the peak of citrus development Sn the Alta Loma area and when the town was a thriving, if small, town. Sltrzounded by many ranches, most of them citrus, the town's packing houaea were busy and attracted more and more workers who built more homes, schools, and later community buildings like the Fire Nall. Emory Allen constructed the home for hie family in 1933 and expanded St as his family grew. He had a very impressive record with the local residents as a handy man extraordinaire. Planning Commissioner Peter Tolstoy recalls Emory Allen as the moat aensical yet creative repair and construction craftsman he knew. Mr. Allen worked for [he Cucamonga County Water District after its creation and as the A Llen family yrew they became an integral part of community life. Signi Ei can ce: RSStozl ea 1, Cultural, and Architectural - As part of the hi at or is reai dent Sal core of the Alta Loma community, and with it6 proximity to the small business dist tict, the Emory Allen house stands a firm reminder of life in the area during the Depreeaion years. Of stral ghtforward styling and construction, the home represents the dedication of men and women who built a life in this rural area. iA7 HPC STAFF REPORT LD 93-01 - SDTTON January i<", 7993 Page 3 The Allen home represents an example of an owner who acted as a builder and from all available accounts as an architect as well of his van home. The architectural integrity of the Allen house has decidedly suffered from recent alterations which detract from its original appearance. However, the basic form and shape of the structure, beyond Mr. Allen's own additions, has not changed. Issues; Due to the enthusiasm displayed by the Sutton sisters to rehabilitate and restore the house as close to its c. 1934-1940 appearance as possible, and that they are applying for a property tax reduction with a Mills Act contract, staff feels comfortable in recommending the Allen House for designation as an Historical Landmark. Because the contract specifically grants the City powers to review and if necessary revoke the contract if the applicant fails to perform the mutually agreed upon restoration work, and that the Sutton sisters plan a full restoration over the next ten years, staff believes that their Landmark artd Mills Act contract applications merit approval. Environmental Assessment: Landmark designations are exempt under CEQA per Article 19, Section 15308. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: Per Section 2.24.090 of the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance, the following findings are made in support of this designation application: Historic and Cultural Significance: Finding: 1'he proposed landmark is particularly representative of an historical period, type, style, region, or way of life. Pact: The Emory Allen home exemplifies the architecturally simple lines and craftsmanship of the region's vernacular housing stock from the 1930s. In the context of the growing Alta Loma community, Emory Allen's handiwork, diligence, and craftsmanship (including the making of his own bricks) in building a home for his family, serve as fine examples of the sense of community and family spirit of the community. Neighborhood and Geographic Setting: Finding: The proposed landmark in its location, represents an established and familiar visual feature of the nei ghbothood, community, or city. Pact: For almost sixty years, the Emory Allen house has stood at the corner of Layton and Lomita Streets es an intngral part of the physical fabric of the his[oris Alta Loma community. CORRESPONDENCE: This item hoe been advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Deily Bulletin newspaper, the property hoe been posted, end notices were sent to the adjacent property owners within 300 feet of the project. t7t RPC STAFF REPORT Ll1 93-01 - SUTTON January 12, 1993 Page d RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the Commission should recommend to the City Council that the Pmory Allen House be de si grated es a local Lan&aark by adopting the attached Resolution and that through minute action the Commission recommend that the City Council approve the request £or a Mills Act property agreement and rnntract with the City for the property. Respectfully su~b~m~ittedj,//~,, ~///(//%/^•/~~ x fi'r' ~ y `~"a' A V ~ Larry" J. Henderson, AICP Principal Planner LIH:AMN/jfs Attachments: Exhibit "HPC-1" - Mills Act Contract (drafC) Exhibit "HPC-2" - 61 to Map Exhibit "HPC-3" - State Survey Porm Resolution of Approval i7t1 RECORDING REQUESTED HY and when RECORDED MAIL T0: City Clerk, City o£ Rancho Cucamonga D~~~ P•O• Box H07 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 B18TORIC pROP81ar PR86'BitVATIQI AGIZR81~lP1 THIS AGREEMENT is zeds and entered Into thi9 17th day of February 7993, by and between the CITY OF AANCHO CUCAMONGA, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "City^) and ,Ian Sutton and Dale Sutton (hereinafter Yefelred to ae the "O-wnex"). W I T M H H S H T 6: A. Recitals. (i) California Government Code Section 50280, et seq. authorize cities to enter into contracts with the Owners of quallfled Historical P'~'Pe rty to provide for the use, maintenance end reetorati on of such Hie torical Property so ae to retain its charecterietios ae property of historical sign Sficance: _~_ ~~T ~-I (ii) Owner possesses fee title in and to that ce riain real property, together with associated structures and improvements thereon, commonly known ae the Emory Allen Rouse and generally located at the street address 9441 Lomita Drive, Pancho Cucamonga, CA 91701 (hereinafter such property shall be referred to as the ^Historic Property^). A legal description o£ the Historic Property is attached hereto, narked as Exhibit "A^ and is incorporated herein by this reference; (iii) On February 17, 1993, the City Council of the City of Rancho Ncamonga adopted its Resolution No. • thereby declaring and designating the Historic Property as a historic landmark pursuant to the terms and provisions of Chapter 2.24 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code; and, (iv) City and Owner, for their mutual benefit, now desire to enter into this agreement both to protect and presern the characterlatica of historical significance of the Historic Property end to qualify the Historic Property for an aeaessment of valuation pursuant to the Provisions of Chapter 3, of part 2, of Division 1 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code. H. Agreement NOW, THEREFORE, City and Owner, in conaide tart on of the mutual covenants and conditions net forth herein, do hereby agree as follows: 1. Effective Date and Terns of Agreement. This Agreement shall be effective and commence on February 17, 1993, and shall remain in effect for a term of ten (1o) years thereafter. Each year upon the annive renry of the effective date, such initial term will automatically be extended ae provided in paragraph 2, below. 2. Renewal. Fach year on the annive teary of the effective date of this Agreement (hereinafter referred to ae the "renewal date"), a year shall automatically be added to the initial term of this Agreement unless notice of _o_ 57 nonrenewal is mailed as provided herein. If either Owner or City desires in any year not to renew the Agreement, Owner or City shall serve written notice of nonrenewal of the Agreement on the other party in advance of the annual renewal date of the Agreement. Onless Such notice is ae rued by owner to City at least ninety (90) days prior to the annual renewal date, or served by City to Owner at least sixty (60) days prior to the annual renewal deie, one (1) year shall automatically be added to the term of the Agreement as provided herein. Owner may make a written protest of the notice. City may, at any time prior to the annual renewal date of the P.gI'eement, withdraw its notice to Owner of nonrenewal. If either City or Owner serves notice to the other of nonrenewal in any year, the Agreement shall remain Sn effect for the balance of tha term then remaining, either from its original execution or from the last renewal of the Agreement, whichever may apply. 3. Standards for Historical Property. During the term of this Agreement, the Historic Property shall be subject to the following conditions, requirements, and restrictions: a. Owner shall press rue and maintain the cheracteziatics of historical significance of the Historic Property. Attnched hereto, marked ae Exhibit "H", and incorporated herein by this reference, is a li et of those minimum standards and conditions for maintenance, use, and preservation of iha Historic Property, which eha 11 apply to such property throughout the term of this Agreement. b. Owner shell, where necessary, restore and rehabilitate the property according to the rules and re gulatlone of the Office of Historic Pre ae rva ti on of the State Department of Parka and Recreation and in accordenee with the attached schedule cf potentisl hone improvements, drafted by Che applicant and approved by the City Council, attached hereto ae Exhibit "C^. c. Owner shall allow reasonable periodic examinaLione, by prior appointment, of the interior and ezte riot of the Historic Property by -3- JO representatives of the County Assessor, State Department of Parks and Recreation, State Board of Equalization, and the City, as may to necessary to de to nnine Owner's compliance with the terms and provisions of this Agreement. 4. Provision of Information of Corporation. Owner hereby agrees to furnish City with any and all infornation requested by the City which may be necessary or advisable to determine compliance with the terms and proviaions of this Agreement. 5• Cancellation. City, following a duly noticed public hearing as set forth in California Government Code Sections 50280, et seq., may cancel this Agreement if it determines that Owner breached any of the conditions of this Agreement or has allowed the property to deteriorate to the point that it no longer nests the standards for a qualified historic property. City may also cancel [his Agreement if it determines that the Owner has failed to restore or rehabilitate the property in the manner epeci £1¢d in subparagraph 3(b) of this Agreement. In the event of cancellation, Amer may be subject to payment of those canoe ilatfon fees set forth in California Government Code Sections 50280, et seq. 6- Enforcement oP Agreement. In lieu of and/or in addition to any proviaions to cancel the Agreement as referenced herein, City may specifically enforce, or enjoin the breach of, the terra of this Agreement. In the event of a default, under the provisions of this Agreement by Owner, City shall give written notice to Owner by registered or certified mail addressed to the address stated in this Agreement, and Sf such a violation ie not corrected to the reasonable satisfaction of the City within thirty (30) days thereafter, or if not corrected within such a reasonable time as may be required to cure the breach or default if said breach or default cannot be cured within LhirLy (30) days (provided that acts to cure the breach or default may be commenced within thirty (30) days and must thereafter be diligently pursued to completion by Owner), then City may, without further notice, declare a default under the terms of this Agreement and may bring any action necessary to specifics lly _q_ enforce the obligations of Owner growing out of the terms of this Agreement, apply to any court, state or Cede ral, fet injunctive relief against any violation by Owner oz apply for such other relief as may be appropriate. City does not waive any claim of default by Owner if City does not enforce or cancel this Agreement. All other remedies at law or in equity which are not otherwise provided for in this Agreement or in City's regulations governing historic props rhea are available to the City to pursue in the event that there is a breach of this Agreement. No waiver by City of any breach or default under this Agreement shall be deemed to be a waiver of any other subsequent breach thereof or default hereinunder. 7. ainding Effect of Agreement. The Owner hereby subjects the Historic Property described in Exhibit "A" hereto to the covenants, reservations, and reatri.ctiona as set forth Sn this Agreement. City and Owner hereby declare their specific intent that the covenants, reservations, and restrictions as set forth herein shall be deemed covenants running with the land and shall pass to and be binding upon the Owner's successors and a6signa in title or inte teat to the Historic Property. Each and every contract, deed or other instrument hereinafter executed, covering or conveying the Riatoric Property, or any portion thereof, shall conclu6loely be held to have been executed, delivered, and accepted subject to the covenants, reservations, and restricti one expressed in this Agreement regardless of whether each covenanter reae rvabona, and re9irictione are set forth in such contract, deed or other instrument. City and Owner hereby declare their uncle retanding and intent that the burden of the covenants, reae rvationa, and restrictions set forth herein touch and concern the land in that Owner's legal interest in the Historic property is rendered leas valuable thereby. City and Owner hereby further declare their uncle ra tending and intent chat the benefit of each covenants, reae rvatlons, and restrictions touch and concern the land by enhancing and ma intainlnq the historic chnracteristice and significance of the -5- W Historic Property for the benefit of the public and Owner. e• Notice. Any notice required to be given by the terms of this Agreement shall be provided at the address of the respective parties as specified below or at any other address as may be later specified by the parties hereto. To City; C: ty of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive P. O. HoX 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Attention: City planner To Owner: San Sutton b Dale Sutton 9441 Lomita Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701 9. General Provisions. a. None of the terms, provisiane, or condi tiona of this Agreement shall be deemed to create a partnership between the parties hereto and any of their heirsr successors or assigns, nor shall such is xma, provisions, of conditions cause them to be considered joint venture6 or membe re of any joint enterprise. b. Owner agrees to and shall hold City and Sta elected officials, officers, agents, and employees harmless frwa liability for damage or claims for damage for personal injuries, including death, and cla ima for property dame 9e which may arise from the direct or indirect use or operations of ogner or those of his contractor, subcontractor, agent, employee or other pe raon acting on his behalf which relates to Lhe use, operntion, and maintenance of the Historic Property. Owner hereby agrees to and shall defend the City and Sts elected officials, offtrnrs, agent e, and employees with reaps ct to any and all actions for damages caused by, or alleged to hove been ceased by, reason of Owner's activities Sn connection w3 th the Historic -6- 61 propetty. This hold harmless provision applies to all damages and claims for damages suffe rnd, oz alleged to have been suffered, by reason of the operations referred to in this Agreement re gardleas of whether or not the City prepared, supplied or approved the plans, specifications or other documents for the Historic Property. c. All of the agreements, rights, covenants, reservations, and restrictions contained in this Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties herein, their heirs, successors, legal representatives, assigns and all persons acquiring any part or portion of the Historic Property, whether by operation of law or in any manner whatacever. d. In the event legal proccedings are brought by any party or parties to enforce or restrain a violation of any of the covenants, re servationa, or restrictions contained herein, or to determine the rights and duties of any party hereunder. the prevailing party in such proceeding may recover all reasonable attorney's fees to be fiwad by the court, in addition to court costs and other relief ordered by the court. e. In the event that any of the provisions of this Agreement are he18 to be unenforceable or invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, or by subsequent preemptive legiel8iion, the va1181ty and enforceability of the remaining provisions, or portions thereof, shall not be effected thereby. f. Thle Agreement shall be construed and governed in accordance with the laws of the Siate of California. 10. Recordation. No later then twenty (20) days after the parties execute and enter into this Agreement, the City aha 11 cause this Agreement to be recorded in the office of the County Recorder of the County of San He rnardino. _7_ 11. Amendments. This Agreement may Zoe amended, in whole or in part, only by a written recorded instrument executed by the parties hereto. IN NI'RI6HS gNSHHOP, City and Owner have executed this Agreement on the day and year first written above. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Gated: Hy: Dennis L. Stout, Mayoz Dated: Hy Dated: By -H- Owner Ownez LHGAL D89CRIPEIOq for 9441 Lomita Drive Rancho Cucamon qa, California 91701 TR 2190 LOMITA HEIGHTS W 47 FP N 121.99 fT LOT 16 AND N 121.99 FP LOT 15• ID[9IBIT •A• lJY TBB 58CR@fARY OF INT61tIOR•S RH0IBILITATIOR STABO117B/5 I. Every reasonable effort shall be made to provide a coapatible use for a property that requires minimal alteration of the building, structure, or site, and its environment, or to the use of a property for its original intended purpose. IS. The distinguishing original qualities or character of a building, structure, oY Site, and its environment Shall not be destroyed. The removal or alteration of any historical material oz distinctive architectural features should be avoided when possible. iII. All buildings, structures, and sites shall be recognized as products of their own time. Alterations which have no historical basis and which seek to create an earlier appearance shall be di seoura ge d. IV. Changes which may have taken place in the course of time are evidence of the history and development of a building, structure, or site, and its environment. V. Distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship, which characterize a building, structure, or site, shall be treated with sensitivity. VI. Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced, wherever possible. In the event replacement is necessary, the new material should match the material being replaced in composition, design, color, texture, and other visual qualities. Repair or replacement of missing architectural features 6hould be based on acaaraie duplications of feaiurea, substantiated 6y hietorica 1, physical, or pictorial evidence, rather than on conjectural deaf gne or the ova liability of different architectural elements from other bu11d1 ngs or structures. VII. The au rfare cleaning of structures ehal7 be undertaken with the gentlest means possible. Sandblasting and other cleaning ae thode that will damage the historic building materials shall not be undertaken. VIII. Every reasonable effort elan be na de to protect and preae rue archaeological resources affected by, or adjacent to, any acquisition, protection, atabi ll ration, preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, or reconstruction project. I%. Contemporary design for alteration and additions to existing properties shall not be discouza gad when each alterations and additions do not destroy sign iticant historic, architectural, or cultural material and such design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material, and character of the property, neighborhood, ox environment. I• Wherever possible new additions or alterations to structures shall be done in such a manner that if such addl Lions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential foxm and integrity of the etructuze would be unimpaired. ®IBIT ~B~ W PPOPtffi'Y M1IIPTAiMC6 Property Maintenance. All buildings, structures, yards and other improvements shall be maintained in a manner which does not detract Eras the appearance of the immediate neighborhood. The Following conditions are prohibited: Dilapidated, deteriorating, or unrepaired structu rea, such as: fences, roofs, doors, walls, and windows; 2. Scrap lumber, junk, trash or debris; 3. Abandoned, die carded or unused obje cte or equipment, such as automobiles, automobile paY S, furniture, stoves, refrige ratorsr cane, containers, or similar items; 4. Stagnant water or excavations, including pools or spas; 5. Any device, decoration, design, structure or vegetation which Se unsightly by reason of Sta height, condition or its inappropriate location. II9IBIT ~D-t' Manned Resrorafion: 1 AIJIjCCiI>'INC: lltan Yea Tall[ POTBN7iAL xoMe fbipROVBMPxrs "Mills Act" Agretmem 1441 l,.ovnritw Ar<et~tne Rancho CUtawsvvgw~ Cq 4i7of ~i ~ Y Or ttFNCHO CU-. ,M~„ DEC 15199L 19f1u; il;liy ; ;; I g14f SPN Generel goals are to relandscapc yard and add such elements of design u wi0 be appropriate fora 1930'5 farmbarse. Where possible, Plant materiels wiB be of types available m time of original canatruction, or rwsonable facsimiles dtereof. Design ekmenn will be stntcturcd as m blend into style of home. 1. 1 Fsmblish major trees,/shrubs of type suitable fa period. 2. 2 Begin planting ortduud tress of type suitable fa period. 3. 3 Begin establishment of Heritage Rose and vegetable gartkrt areas suitable for period. 4. 45 Continue development afgatden arras 5. 6 Build small gauko in a style oompaubk wish house. 6. 7B Replete perimeter forcing with wood picket tencirtg. 7. 9-10 Build slwu/wood entry arras for eaA and oath gateways bin style suitable for home. C'IR I("R IRp; GOterel goals ere b rehabllllate and ma[ae bS moth Of dte origirtd Iltalefi813 nn WC hawse as possible, a m repair aM replace with rwaonebk facsimiles if original matuials are beyatd raovay. ~SISF.EElCLl9[ Item Yea Tact t. 1 Remove aluminum Gamed screens fmm the front porch and reecran using Ne original wooden Games and btslall a wooden parch tureen does. 2. 2 £.emove aluminum window scrcens end replace with wood Gamed screens ae aigtrnlly used 3. 2 Runovc window av cadidoner in upskbs bedroan window. 4. 3 Remove roof tv. antenna, and undergtotutd table Lv, line. 5. 4 Repair window ra3entems mound bane, 6. 4 Put loose wrong on south side of house inm conduit compahbk with conduit on oath side, 7. 5 Replace bubble akyrght in kitchen with more appropriate and less obtrusive design. 8. 6 Remove elder ehingka Gan original wood siding, and either rolnbirtete arigitul aiding err mplace wiN canpatibk siding. Fa(lFIBIT v`, V! Horse Extmicr fCmdn ]faro Ysa TarF 9. h Replace aluminum sliding vmdows wbh wooden framed sash windows m match original willow design 10. 7 Remove satcco and testae adgbal brick whue passible. 11. 7 Remove wall air cosMitiatkr unit 12. 8 Coves smca ai page with material aanparibk wish haue. 13. B Palm ezteria ofhauseaM page. 14. 9 Remove poorly con9QtCYed 51otn wall extmsiai and buck patio men end replace with canpedble atae wale. 15. 10 Renovates interior of page, wvdc roam, and btY. }iNLffiI01~ llr~ YTS Task 1. 1 Rcnrove arpeting, trod all refudsh haNwaod Ooara. 2. 2 Rrylaa modem hudwme (switchplates, daarlmabs. haMles, emJ with antique a rcplice pieces. 3. 3 Replxe broken weights in windows 4. 3 Remove amuslical ceiling, 5. 4 Resuac plaga b ailing and wall areas as needed 6. 5 Replace kitchan cabinea with style appopiate fa period 7. 9 Ranadel belhroans m aryle appmpriam for period of bona. W ~~ ~~ k}cu.e trEM: 3 - of M'I'LE: SI'T'S 7L+t~nJ N EXHIBfT:~~~6CALE: Nly HPC-2 69 Strh e1 CMibrMr - TM Rrreurcw Aymcv Ser, No. DEtgRTMfM Of PARKS qNP RfUfATION HABS~iAER_Lac-SHL No.._~NR Sbtw_ UTM: A C HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY B o IDENTIFICATION 1. Common name: y. Historic name: F'mo v All H us 3. $trnt or rural ddrns: °"' ' ' CItY Rancho Cucamonga __Z(p 91730 County San Arrnardi nn 4. p+rpl number: in~_na~-tx 5. Preunt Owner: Jan Sutton and Dale Sutton Addra+: 9441 Lomita Drive Ciry Rancho Cucamonga Zip 91730 OwmrNip u: PUblk priwte X 6. Preunt We: o=sib- Orisind ua: Residence DESCRIPTION 7e. ArchitKtur+l style: Vernacular bungalow 7b. BrieflY deKrihe tM Prt++nt PnYacs~goG.vsra+of Me sin ar snuetun+rM daeriM nY m+ior+lbrrtian hom ib anginal ovrMition: This roughly square-shaped, two-storied structure of wood-framed construction is supported by a field-stone wall foundation. Currently covered with stained wood shingles, the original 6-inch wood Siding still exists underneath this added layer. The mediumpitched, front-gable roof is mirrored in the construction of the front east facinc porch which is supported by unadorned piers atop an extended field, stone wall. From Assessor's records, it appears that in 1940, Mr. A11en expanded the interior of the downstairs kitchen area into the southern portion of the front porch, constructing the new walls from bricks made with his own hands. The owner previous to the Suttons replaced the wooden windows ir. the kitchen area with aluminium sliding windows and added a layer of stucco to the brick building faces. Likewise, the walls of the enclosed rear (west) porch Mr. Allen bui],t of brick were stuccoed by the same owner. To the south of the house lies a structure probably used originally as a stable and garage. This single-storied building has a steeply pitched, front-gabled roof that allows for an airy interior loft accessible by an exterior hay door (coot) DpMtmCtlPn dm: ErtimatW 1931. f+ctu+l 6 ArChitKt Emory Allen Emory Allen 10. BuilMr~.---- 11. AppmK. PrPpeny sin (in fe+tl Frontp+ D+pM-- or eppfOK Kraal 1/9 acre 1x. OaeUl of enNPpd pbotopfPhlsl 191 OpR 6z31Rw. 11/86) ~~~j H~-3 1~ 13. Condition: Excellent -Good ~ Fair x Deteriorated _ No longer in exirtmce 11. Altttatiom: Stucco over brick wainscoat; enclosure of Front and rear porches 15. 6unoundings: (Check moro Nan ou if nacessaryl Open land %Sut[ered buildings X Densely built-up Rnidentid X IMUrtrial _Commertial_Othtt: 16. Thrcets ;o site: Norae krwwn a Private dawlopmmt Public Works project __ O[htt: Zoning _ VvAalipn 17. Is me struRUre: On its original site) yes Mavad7 Unknown? ifl Rda[ed feature: Garage/Darn SIGNIFICANCE 19. Briefly Hate hutoriul and/pr architectural importanp IinUude data, worts, srd arsons assaeiete0 with Me site.l Thrs structure was built shortly after the peak of mtrus development in the Alta Loma afea and when the town was a thriving, if small, town. Surrounded by many ranches, most of diem citrus, the town's packing hcuses were busy and attracted more and more workers who built more homes, schools, and later community buildings like the Fire Hall. F.m~ry Allen constructed the home far his family in 1933 and expanded it as his family grew, as he had a very impressive record with the local residents as a handy mar. extraurd inaire. Peter Tolstoy recalls F]nory Allen as the most sensical yet creative repair and construction craftsman hi? knew. Mr. Allen worked for the Cucamonga County Water District after its creation and as the Allen family grew they became an integral part of community life. As part of the historic residential core of the Alta Loma community, and with its proximity to the small business district, the Emory Allen house stands as a firm reminder of life in the area during the Depression years. Of straightforward styling and constraction, the home represents the dedication of men and women who built a life in this rural area. (coot) 2G. Main theme pf the hisroric resource: (If more Man one is shacked, numoer in order of impor[enu.) ArMitacTUn Arta & Laiwn Eoonomk/IrWUacrial _ExWoratian/Settlement Gowrnmmt Miliury RNiggn Soutial/EdWtion R 21. Sourus (List beaks, dorvmmis, strrvaya, perwnd intarvievn and Meir darn(. History of Alta Loma, Martha stoebe, 19A1; interview with Peter Tolsto' (28 December 1992) 22. Data form prepared 29 December 1992 By lrume)-_llnthea Hartig Orpaniaation.- Ci tv of Rancho CUCanYanga Adtlrm:~06C0 Civtc Center Urive City - Rancho Cucannga Zip 97730 Phom: (909) 9A9-186] Lneatiorul iketeA map (draw arW IaMI siu arM amounding rtreati, roads, arM prominent landmarkal: NORTH MASTER FILE HISTORIC RESOURCES DATA ENCODING SHEET NOTE: The numMn in WrentMaes irrdieeu eimer the mmMr of ehantten Ilaaan, numW n, pumnaeion marks, spans) thae may M eirtend er tM nunMr o} lima that mry M cheekatl. 2. Ser. No. 1701 _ _ 10. Registration Stator 111: Gry Zip (dl Form No. 1141 Prop. No. 10-01 _1I lismd -dab (61~_/ _dl may become eligible USGS Ouad Map No. Idl _21 debrmined eligibe - _51 eligible local lirtinq veer 121 _61 ineligiae for alrove 3l avwan allniN. i. ....._~_.__. UTM Zane (21 F.atin9181 NoMinq 171 A 8 C D 3. Propem Name: Common Name 1301: 6lnory Allen House 11. Property Giwn Registration Sbtus u (11: _7) part pf tlittritt _Tl individual propam _31 both of above 12. NR Class Gtegorv (/1: Historic Name 1401: ~ I d'utritt - Na. of properties 1631 _21 sid Emorv Allen House g3) Wilding Pvcal No, 10.171 0202-062-13 _41 rt~10O X51 object 4. Addrea: 9A61 Lomita Orive Number (651 Street Norma 14.20) Lavton Nwnft Cross Street 10.201 ter,,, r - aNRown 13.201 91701 Vicinity of Zip code 151 Ciry?own 1~ County J•latter designatd 5. Type of Ownanhip I1-71: _11 unknown 21 federal _ 31 stab 8. Present Ud (1.81: _1l unknown _21 Commercial A 31 mimntial A 41 primp _51 county 81 city 71 flaeciN diatritt _dl Privab noncomm. _ s) vuaie __81 nom 7. year of Initial Cenftructim: Individual Propem 141 1933 District 181 e. ArchitectlU (6z51: f'nn rv A11e 13. Other Ragistratrm 1691 _11Hiscaic Am. Biq. Surrey _81 GI. Historial Landmark _21 Historic Am. Enq. qae J) County Pt of Hift InbnR _31 NatrmN Hist laMmark x81 Local Uttinq _41 Sdd Historic Park _91 County/Raponal Park .51 ether 14. Propam AttriWtn: _1l unknown ~L21 sire. family prop. -31 molt bmily prop, _41 ancillary dg, -sl nodl/meal .8; cdmm, aq. 13 n _ 71 comm. ag. over 3 ft . el ifWuftri.l ag. _ gl Pump utility ag. _101 tMam _711 enginnnnp ttrucL _721 civip auditorium .131 aunty rntrhx, hNl _141 govemrtwnt ag. _15) edtxatienN aq. _181 nlilpous aq. _171 R/R Oepot _I81 train _19) bride ~0l panty/aqueduct X11 dam -241 lake/river/ndrvoir ~I ship .241 IighMOUN _25) amudmmt park _281 monummt/murN/grwestona _271 folk art _281 stmt fumitun _281 IarM¢apa archiv. _301 trees/vegadtlon .711 urban apn Watt _321 nrN open apace _331 Nrminndl _341 milidry RoPam _351 CCCMIPA ftrucOSro .381 ethnic minority propam eUnic group I6-201 X71 highway/trail _381 wormn'f wowm _A0) am.dry ._3g1 otlter BuilGrlf110.251: 78. ArMidnurN Rant Emory Allen : arsd SPaeifiubom: yw X No 8. year of SurnY 121: 1992 OPR 680IRer, 12/831 1!+ HISTORIC RESOVRCES INVENTORY SVPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 7b. located in the center of the east-facing pedement formed by an exterior hay door located in the center of the east-facing pedement formed by the gabled roof lines. Other features worthy of note include a stone-floored patio between the southeast corner of the house and the garage/Earn and accessed from the kitchen door. 19. The Allen home represents an example of ar. owner who acted as a boil der and from all available accounts as an architect as well on his own home. The architectural integrity of the Allen Norse has decidedly Buffered from recent alts rations which detract from its original appearance. However, the basic form and shape of the structure, beyond Mr. Allen's own additions, has not changed. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION LANDMARK SURVEY Address: Q`f4~ ~-OIM.t{~~.i WL Ap# ~p9.~OfrI ~l3 n I i :~ - ..- ..-,.:.a . ~ g ~¢ ... .. ,: y,. .. _ ~ , _. ......_ ~.. . ,~__ . ... ..~tlNk.: •7 © L View Looking l,Uint~ . Date ofPhoto,~4/ ... I .. ., ,a~4o i i ,.a: . ~ ~ ~~ ~ .r~r ~ ~ . - ~ _ View Looking Sou~'~An~ . Date of Photo q 9/ , HISTORIC PRESERVATTON COIvIl~IISSIOPk LANDMARK SURVEY Andress: q~F4l IiOVY41-FA T~-iVY. App 2oZ-o81-13 -- 4 <~ View Looking SoIMIt WyG .Date of Photo q ~ A I y - ~'k ,.1~. ~~, . j ~` ~„ ., ~ .. .....:a.. View looking t1lank .Date of Photo 9 I91 , RESOLUTION NO. 93-01 A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIAr RECOMMENCING APPROVAL OF HISTORIC LANDMARK 93-01 TO DESIGNATE THE EMORY ALLEN HOUSE, LOCATED AT 9441 LOMITA DRIVE, AS A LANDMARK - APN: 202-082-13 A. Ae ci to lS• (i) Jan Sutton and Dale Sutton have filed an application for a Landmark as de scribed in the title of this %solution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Landmark 18 referred to as ^the application.^ (ii) On January 12, 1993, the Historic Pre Bervatlon Commission of the City of %ncho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. (iii) All legal prerequisites tc the adoption of this %solution have occuzre d. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it ie hereby found, darn rmined and resolved by the Historic Preservation of the City of %ncho Cucamonga as foliose: 1. This Coom,iseion hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the %citals, Part "A^, of this %eolution are true end correct. 2. The application applies to approximately one-quarter acre of land, basically a aquam configuration, located at the southwest corner of Layton Court and Lomita Drive. 3. Based upon eubetnntial evidence presented to this Covm:l action during the above-referenced public hearing on January 12, 1993, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, and purauent to Section 2.24.090 of the %ncho Cucamonga Municipal Code, this Commission hereby makes the following findings and facts: A. Historical and Cultural Elgnificance: Finding 1: The proposed Landmark is pattlcula rly repro eentetive of an historic period, type, style, region, or way of life. Facts: The Emory Allen home exemp11f1ee the architecturally simple lines and crnfteaianehip of the region's vernacular housing stock from the 1930x. In the can text of the grnwinq Alta Loma community, Emory Allen's handiwork, diligence, end craftemenahip (including fhe .making of hie own bricks) in building a home for his family, act rue na fine examples of the sense of community and family spirit of the community. LxNIBiT B 76 HPC RESOL[Tf ION N0. 93-07 LD 93-07 - SVTTON January 12, 1993 Page 2 Finding 2: The proposed landmark was connected with someone renowned, important, or a local personality. Facts: IDrory Allen ee rued a critical role in the young agricultural communities of Alta Loma and Ncamonga as Zanjero for the Cucamonga Water Company, managing water for irrigation and consumption. Re was also a well-recognized mechanic and builder, having the reputation of a consummate handyman and craftsman. B. Neighborhood and Geographic Setting. Finding 1: The proposed Landmark in its location represents an established and familiar visual feature of the neighborhood, community or city. Facts: Foz almost sixty years, the 1Liory Allen house has stood at the corner of Layton Court and Lomita Street ne an late gral part of the physical fabric of the historic Alta Lama community. d. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and coneide red Eor compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 7970. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions cet forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commiaelon hereby resolves that pursuant to Chapter 2.24 of the Aancho Ncamonga Municipal Code, that the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of Rancho Lucamonga hereby recommends approval on the 12th day of January 1993, of Landmark Dealgnatlon 93-01. 6. The Chairman of this Caam:iseion shall certify to the adoption of this Peaolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 1993. C Me reha Mee sake, a rman AYES: COMMI9SIONERS: ARNER, HANRS, BILLINGS, XASRVITZ, SCHMIDT, TESSIER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMML SSIONERS: COOPER 11 RESOLUTION NO. ~ 2 ~ O ~l~ A RESOLUTION OF TAE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCtl0 CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION 93-01, THEREBY DESIGNATING THE EMORY ALLEN HOUSE, LOCATED AT 9441 LOMITA DRIVE, RANCHO COCAMONGA, AS AN AISTOAIC LANDMARK AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT TlIfiREOF - APN: 202-0H2-13. WHEREAS, Jan end Dale Sutton have filed an application for Landmark Designation 93-01, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Landmark Designation ie referred to as the "application." WHEREAS, on January 12, 1993, the Hia toric Preservation Comm asion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Conducted a duly notlmd public hearing on the application and, following the conclusion of said public hearing, adopted Resolution No. 93-01, thereby recommending to this City Council that said application be npproved. NHERBAS, on February 17, 1993, the Ciiy Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a meeting on the application and concluded said meeting a; that date. WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the CS ty of Poncho Cucamonga does hereby find, determine, and resolve as follows: SECTION 1: The application applies to property located at Aa cesBOr Parcel Number 202-0E2-13. SECTION 2: Aa pert of the historic residential core of t1re Alta Loma community, and with its proximity to the smell business district, the Emory Allen Aouee steads ae a firm reminder of life in the area during the depression years. Of atreightfoxward styling and conairuction, the home Emory Allen built fot hie family represents the dedication of man and women who forged a caamnmity in this once rural arse. The proposed lnndmerk meets the following criteria established in Chapter 2.24.090 of the Aanchc Cucamonga Municipal code; A. Aietorical and Cultural Significance: 1. The proposed Landmark ie particularly repse centntive of en historical period, type, style, region, or way of life. 2. The proposed lendmerk was connected with someone renamed, important, or a local personality. 78 CITY COUNCIL R65OLPPION NO. LD 93-01 - ENOHY ALLEN HOUSE February 17, 1993 Page 2 B. Neighborhood and Geographic Setting: 1. The proposed Landmark, in its location, repreaente an established and familiar visual feature of the neighborhood, community and City (Ord. 70 S9, 1979). SECTION 3: Designation of a Landmark is exempt from CHQA (Article 19, Section 15308). SECTION 4: Hased on the aubatantial evidenre received and reviewed by this Council and based on the findings set forth above, HE IT FURTHER RESOLVED Chat the City Council of the City of Pancho Cucamonga approves the designation of the Emory Allen House as an Historic Landmark. Gt1'Y Vp' liANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: February 17r 1993 T0: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager ', PROM: Hrad Huller, City planner HY: Anthea M. Ra rtig, Associate Planner SUHJECP: APPROVAL OP LANDMARK D6HIGNATION 93-03 AND APPROVAL TO ERECOTE MILLS ACT CONTRACT 93-02 - WAYNE AND VANES6A SMITN - An application to designate the Hoppe Houser located at 6155 Bast Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, as an Riatoric Landmark and a proposal to implement the use of the Mille Act to reduce the property tax on said properly - APN: 225-191-ifi R600MMBPDASZQf Staff recommends that the City Council approve Landmark Designation 93-03 and thereby designate the Roppe Rwee ae an Historic Landmark and that the Council approve the cwtract for Mille Act Agreement 93-02 between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and Vanessa and Wayne 6mith for the said property. BACR,6AODMD In August 1988, the Council reviewed incentives that would promote historic press rvntion and the rehabilitation of the community's cultural heritage. The Mille Act allwa for the owner of a designated landmark to realize property tax reductions upon entering into a preservation contract with the City. The first such contract was approved by the Council in April 1990, and prior to that time, rteff addressed the potential minor lose of revenue from the General P.iw.d. if approved, Mille Act Agreement 93-OZ will be the sixth such contract entered into by the City. On average, was ra of historic properties with Mille Act Contracia have saved 60-758 on their property taxes, and again on average, the City loses only between 955 and $HS a year per property under contract. 9taEf has net with the Smiths, visited their home, and carefully reviewed the proposed improvements end the contract and finds that in approving this contract we am meeting our objectives of providing incentives to owners truly concerned with preserving the City•a historic resources. ' OV CITY COUNCIL STAPF REPORT LD 93-03 & MAC 93-92 - SMITH February 17, 1993 Page 2 BISTORIC PAE.SHRVATION COMMISSION aClION At their meeting of January 12, 1993, the Historic Preservation Commission unanimously approved the forwarding of a recommendation to designate the Hnppe House to the City Council (please refer to Exhibit "A ," the HPC Statf Report). The Commission concluded that the home has 'x en an important pazt of the historic and agricultural landscape of the Etiwanda cooaaunity for Dyer eighty years. At that same meeting, the Commission also recommended that the Council approve the execution of Mills Act Agreement 93-02 wish Vanessa and Weyne Smith. Resp y aubmitt ' Bras er City annex BB :AMH/jfa Attachments: Hxhibit ^A" - HPC Staff Report dated January 12, 1993 Exhibit ^B" - i~C Resolution No. 93-02 Resolution of Approval 81 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: January 12, 1993 To: Chairman and Members of the Historic Preservation FFDM: Larry J- Henderson, AICP, Principal Planner BY: Anthea M. Marti g, Associate Planner SUHJECT: LANDMARK DESIGNATION 93-U3 AND MILLS ACT CONTRACT 93-02 VANESSA AND WAYNE SMITH - A proposal to designate the Hoppe Mouse, located at 6155 Eaet Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, ae a local Landmark. In addition, review of a request to enter into a Mills Act Contract for the said property. APN: 225-191-16. EACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: Musba nd and wife Wayne end Vaneaea Smith, purchased the Hoppe Mouse in the Etiwanda community in June of 1992, after searching specifically for a historic home in Rancho Cucamonga. The Commission reviewed the atrvcture in 1987 as part of the City's survey and rated it ae a potential local landmark. Vanessa Smith had many conversations with staff prior to and during the purchase of the home regarding the possibility of applying for a landmark designation and restoring the building. The home stands as an excellent example of a rural ranch home for a large Etiwanda family and the Smiths have already begun to rehabilitate their new home. Upon meetings with Ms. Smith, site visit9 to the historic home, and a careful review o£ the proposed improvements for the property, staff bel ievea that approving their request for a Mille Act contract meets our objectives of providing incentives for owner6 intereeted in the long- term preservation of our cultural resources. The attached contract, Exhibit "NPC-1," especially Exhibit "C" therein, lists the improvements proposed by the Smiths. After review by the Comniaeion, the application will be forwarded to the City Council tentatively scheduled far the agenda on Pebruary 17, 1993. SITE LOC7~T IGN AND DESCRIPTION: Location and Description: Situated on the east aide of Eaat Avenue just south of Summit Avenue, the site is relatively Flat and dotted with a number of mature tree a. The parcel is one-half acre in size (please refer to Exhibit "MPC-2," Site Map). user gnatrone: Very Low Residential (lees than two dwelling unite per acre) zoning is overlaid on the site per the Etiwanda Specific Plan. HPC STAFF REPORT LD 93-03 - EMITH January 12, 1993 Page 2 Surrounding Land Use, 2onin General Plan/Specific Plan Designations: The land to the immediate north, south, east, and west is also zoned for Very Low Re sidentlal use. Physical Description (please refer to Exhibit "HPC-3" for S y Form): Thrs rectangular, two-storied structure of wood-Framed construction is supported by a raised field-stone wall foundation of which a full basement is also constructed. The medium-pitched, cross- gabled root allows for a double, west-facing porch which is supported by unadorned piers atop an extended field-atone wall. The intersecting gable roof covers a one-bay extension on the north and south sides of the home. Along the southern side, a lower-story bay window protrudes allowing for extra light into the dining room area and providing exterior architectural variety. The roof is covered now with grey composition shingles. The roof line extends to the First floor level and the broad pediment molding exhibits slightly flared return treatments at both cave intersections. An interior fireplace of brick construction extends its chimney along the internal joining of the south side's cross-gabled dormer wing. Porches on both the ground and upper levels accentuated the front (west) facade of the home. The molding treatment and the broad, overhanging eaves of the roof are mirrored in the design of the lower-story's covered porch. From the upper story, a five-panelled door provides acceaa to the open porch, the floor of which serves as the porches roof. A 3-foot high wooden balustrade encircles this upstairs porch. The supporting walla of the porch unit are of field stone construction, laid in the same manner as those in the foundation walla. Pour unadorned pie re with slightly flared bases and capitals support the porch roof. The current owners have added a circa 1890 decorative wooden lattice scroll to the porch that lies under the cornice molding and in between the piers and a similar treatment to the pedimental triangle between the eaves of the front gable. Beveled, three-inch, lap aiding covers the house's exterior. The window and door surrounds are all simply worked as are the surrounds of the latticed attic vents tucked just under the front and rear gabled roof ridges. Other decorative treatments Snclude two broad cornice bands wrapped around the west, north, and south elevations. This cornice treatment returns and crops when it arrives at the rear (east) elevation. Wood-framed steps provide acceaa to the rear of the home. The fenestration patter of the home reaponde to interior spatial needs rather than to any exterior demands for symmetry. Moat of the windows are of a standard double-hung, one-over-one paned variety, except for the two front (west) windows end the center portion of the south bay window clusters these three lights have a fixed paned upper panel in a diamond pattern. Very few additions have jeopardized the structure's architectural integrity since its construction in 1912. The home was used as a boarding house after the Hoppe family children grew up and moved out of W HPC STAFF REPORT LD 93-03 - SMITH Sanuary 72, 1993 Page 3 the home. It was for this use that a rear staircase, landing, and upstairs entrance was added. The stairs have since rotted away and have been removed, leaving the landing and its supporting members remaining. Two out-buildings mimic, in construction and detail, the house. The single-storied garage, lying to the east of the StruMUre, has a modern, metal, retracting door and is covered with 3-inch wood siding. A single-storied storage room lies to the east of the house, adjacent to the kitchen. Significance: Historical, Cultural, and Architectural: The Hoppe family has contributed to the development of this region since their 1898 arrival in Grapeland from Santa Monica. According to Hobert Hickcox's History of Etiwanda, the Hoppes moved to Etiwanda from Grapeland in 1900 and acquired property at the southeast coiner of Summit and Eaet Avenues. After purchasing shares Sn the Etiwanda Water Company, the Noppea planted grapes and apricots and established themselves in the young and growing Etiwanda community. After purchasing more land at the noriheaet cornet of aum6it and SaeG Avenues, the family began planting lemon and orange trees and in 1912, began building their home ai 6155 East Avenue. The Hoppes had first lived in a smaller four-room house that was full and lively with Mr. and Mra. Hoppe and their five children. As the Noppe offspring grew, soma stayed in the Etiwanda community. Son George Hoppe planted one of the first co~erciai Christmas Tree Farm's on family land south of the original grove, according to Robert Hickrnx. Plora Hoppe O'Rane lived Sn the home until it was purchased by the Slnithe this year. Thus, the almost 100-year legacy of the Noppe family in Etiwanda is commemorated in their well-preserved home. Architecturally, the home presents a simple, dignified presence and is one of the larger and finer residences of citrus ranchero in the Etiwanda area. Both on the interior and exterior, there is careful attention paid to detail and quality of craftamanahip. The broad over-hanging eaves complemented with decorative cornice end pediment molding lend to the structure a clean, defined appearance. Environmental Assessment: Landmark designations are exempt under CEQA per Article 19, Section 1530H. FACTS FOA FINDINGS: Pei Section 2.24.090 of the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance, the following findings are made in support oP this designation application: O HPC STAFF REPORT LD 93-03 - SMITH January 12, 1993 Page 4 A. Historical and Cultural Significance Finding 1: The proposed landmark is particularly representative of an historic period, types style, region, or say of life. Facts: The turn-of-the-century Iealiti es of the family-based, rural, agricultural lifestyle in the Etiwanda community are exemplified in the Hoppe House. Near to their acres of lemon, orange, and apricot groves, the home was removed geographically from the core of the Etiwanda town, but connected in many ways through economics social, cultural, educational, and religious ties. Finding 2: The proposed Landmark is an example of a type of building which was once common but is now rare and the proposed Landmark is connected with a business or use which was once rnmmon but is now rare. Facts: The number of grove houses, while never multitudinous, has decidedly declined as residential development hoe replaced agricultural production. Still relatively rural, the present-day setting of Noppe Nouse continues to reflect the past of Htiwanda. Finding 3: The proposed Landmark was connected with someone renowned, important, or local peraonaliiy. Facts: The Hoppe family was an important and long-lived pert of the community of etiwanda. For almost 100 years, the family contributed to the social and economic hl story of Lhe area. H. Neighborhood and Geographic Setting. Finding 1: The proposed Landmark materially benefits the historic character of the neighborhood. Facto: The Hoppe House stands as a lasting reminder to the archltectuzal styles of the agricultural coomunities of Southern CallfornSa, circa 1915, and to the development of the Etiwanda community. It is an elegant yet functional element of the area's built environment. Finding 2: The proposed Landmark in its location represents an established and familiar visual feature of the neighborhood, community or ri ty. Facts: For the past 81 years, the Hoppe House has stood as a testament to the early history of the community. CORRESPONDENCE: This item hew Deen advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property has been posted, and notices were sent to the adjacent property owners within 300 feet of the project. QJ RPC STAFF REPORT LD 93-03 - SMITR January 12, 1993 Page 5 RECOMMENDATION: That the Commi scion recommend to the City Council that the Hoppe House be designated as a local Landmark by resolution and that through minute action, recommend that the City Council approve the Smith's request fos a Mills Act property agreement and contraM for the property. Respectfully submitted, ~~ Larry J. Henderson, AICP Principal Planner WH:AMH/jfe Attachments: Exhibit "HPC-1" - Mille Act Contract (draft) Exhibit "SPC-2^ - Site Map Exhibit "HPC-3" - State Survey Porm Resolution of Approval ~~~ RECORDING AEQVESTED BY and when RECORDED MAIL TO: City Clerk, City of Rancho Cucamonga R.0• sox 807 Fancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 ~~ HISROAIC YROPEIR7 pRES61AATIOP 11C.ID;~M' THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 17th day of Febrve ry 1993, by and 6e tween the CITY OF FANCHO CDCAMONGA, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as the ^City") and Wayne and Vanessa Smith (hereinafter referred to as the ^Owner"). p I T M 8 H 8 8 T 9: A. Recitals. (1) California Government Code 3e ction 50280, et seq. au[horize cities to enter into contracts with the Owns re of qualified Bietorical trope rty to provide for the vas, me intenance and restoration of such Hiatslcal Property eo as to retain its charecteristice as props zty of historical ai gnificance: _1_ ext-HST -+Pc.-I 87 (ii) Owner possesses fee title in and to that certain real property, together with associated structures and improvements thereon, commonly known as the Hoppe House and generally located at the street address 6155 East Avenue, poncho Cucamonga, CA 91739 (hereinafter such property shall be referred to as the "Historic property"). A legal de acription of the Historic Property is attached hereto, marked as Exhibit "A" end is incorporated herein by this reference; (iii) On February 17, 1993, the City Coun ail of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted its Resolution No. • thereby declaring and designating the Historic Property as a historic landmark pursuant to the terms and provisions of Chapter 2.24 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code; and, (iv) City and Owner, for their mutual benefit, now desire to enter into this agreeacnt both tc protect and preserve the charade riatice of historical significance of the Hist:•~~ic Property and to qualify the Historic Property for an assessment of valuation pursuant to the Provisions of Chapter 3, of Part 2, of Division 1 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code. B. At¢ee<+nt NOW, THEREFORE, Clty and Owner, in oonaide ration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, do hereby agree ae follows: 1. Effective Dnie and Term of Agreement. This Agreement shell be effective and commence on February 17, 1993, and shall remain in effect for a term of ten (1R) years thereafter. Each year upon tt;e anniversary of the effective date, such initial tors will automatically be extended as provided in paragraph 2, below. 2. Renewal. Each year on the anniversary of the effective date of this Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the "renewal date"), a year she it automatically by added to the initial term of this Agreement unless notice of '2' W nonrenewal is mailed as provided herein. If either Owner or City desires in any year not to renew the Agreement, Owner or City shall serve written notice of nonrenewal of the Agreenent on the other party in advance of the annual renewal date of the Agreement. Unless such notice is se rued by Owner to City at least ninety (9D) days prior to the annual renewal date, or served by City to Owner at least sixty (60) days prior to the annual renewal date, one (1) year shall automatically be added to the term of the Agreement as provided herein. owner may make a written protest of the notice. City may, at any time prior to the annual renewal date of the Agreement, withdraw its notice to Owner of nonrenewal. If either City or Owner serves notice to the other of nonrenewal in any year, the Agreement shall remain in effect for the balance of the term then remaining, either from its original execution or from the last renewal of the Agreement, whichever may apply. 3. Standards for Historical property. During the term of this Agreement, the l3letoric Property shnll be subject to the following conditions, regal remante, and restrictions: a. Owner shall preserve and maintain the oharacteriatlce of historical significance of the Hietorie properly. Attached hereto, marked as Exhibit "B", and incorporated herein by this reference, is a list of those minimum standards and conditions for maintenance, use, and preservation of the Historic property, which shall apply to such property throughout the term of this Agreement. b. Owner shall, where necessary, restore and rehabilitate the property according to Lhe rules and regulaiione of the Office of Historic preservation of the Btate Department of Parke and Recreation and in accordance with the attached schedule of potential home improvements, drafted by the appli cent and approved by the City Council, attached hereto ae Exhibit "C". c. owner shall allow reasonable periodic examinaiiona, by prior appointment, of the tote ti or and exterior of the Hietorie Property by -3- OA representatives of the County Assessor, State pepartment of Parks and Recreation, State Hoard of Equalization, and the City, as may be ne ee ssary to determine Owner's compliance with the terms and provisions of this Agreement. 4. Provision of Information of Corporation. Owner hereby agrees to furnish City with any and all information requested by the City which may be ne ceseary or advisable to determine compliance with the terms and provisions of this Agreement. 5. Cancellation. City, following a duly noticed public hearing as set forth in California Government Code Sections 50280, et seq., may cancel this Agreement if it de termines that Owner breached any of the conditions of this Agteemert or has allowed the property to deteriorate to the point that it no longer meets the standards for a qualified historic property. City very a loo cancel this Agreement if ii determines that the Owner hoe failed to restore or rehabilitate the property in the manner specified in subparagraph 3 (b) of this Agreement. In the event of cancellation, Owner may be subject to payment of those cancellation fees set forth in California Government Code Sections 50280, et seq. 6. E~mforcement of Agreement. In lieu of and/or Sn addition to any provisions to cancel the Agreement as referenced herein, City may ape cifically enEOrce, or enjoin the breach of, the to xms of this Agreement. In the event of a default, under the provisions of this Agreement Dy owner, City shall give written notice to Owner by registered or certified mail addressed to the address stated in this Agreement, and 1f each a violation Se not corrected to the reasonable satisfaction of the City within thirty (30) days thereafter, or if nut corrected within such a reasonable time as may be required to cure the breach or default if said breach or default cannot be cured within thirty (30) days (provided that acts to cure the breach or default may be commenced within thirty (30) days en8 must the reef ter be diligently pursued to completion by Owner), then City may, without further notice, declare a default under the terms of this Agreement and may bring any action necessary to epe cifically _q_ M enforce the obligations of Owner growing out of the tennis of this Agreement, apply to any court, state or federal, £or injunctive relief against any violation by owner or apply for such other relief as may be appropriate. City does not waive any claim of default by owner if City does not enforce or cancel this Agreement. All other remedies at law or in equity which aze not othezwise provided for in this Agreement or in City's ra gulaticns governing historic props rtiea are available to the City to pursue in the event that thew is a breach of this Agreement. No waiver by City of any breach or default under this Agreement shall be deemed to be a waiver of any other subsequent breach thereof or default hereSnunde r. 7. Binding Effect of Agreement. The Owner hereby subjects the Historic property described in Exhibit ^A" hereto to the covenants, reae zvations, and restrictions ae set forth in this Agreement. City xnd Owner hereby declare their specific intent that the covenants, reservations, and restrictions as set forth herein eha 11 be deemed covenants rvnning with the land and shall pa as to and be binding upon the Owner's successors and assigns in title or interest to the Historic Property. Each and every contract, deed or other instrumenk hereinafter executed, covering or conveying the Historic property, oz any portion thereof, shall conclusively be held to have been executed, delivered, and accepted 6ubjed to the covenants, reservations, and reatrictiona expressed in this Agreement regardleae of whether such covenants, reae rva tione, and reetrSctlane are set forth in each contract, deed or other instrvment. City and owner hereby declare their understanding and intent that the burden of the covenants, re servatione, and reatrictiona set forth herein touch and concern the land in that Owner's legal interest in the Historic Property is rendered le se valuable thereby. City end Owner hereby further declare their ands tetanding and intent that the benefit of such coveranta, re aervatione, and reatri ctione touch and concern the land by enhancing and ma inteining the historic characteriatine and sign Sficance of the -5- 91 Historic Property for the benefit of the public and Owner. s• Notice. Any notice required to be given by the terms of this Agreement shall be provided at the address of the reaps ctive parties as specified below or at any other address as may be later specified by the parties hereto. To City: City of Fancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive P. O. Box 807 Fd ncho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Attention: City planner To owner: Wayne and Vanessa smith 6155 East Avenue poncho Cucamonga, CA 91739 9. General Provisions. a. None of the terms, provisions, or conditions of this Agreement shall to deemed to create a partne rehip between the parties hereto and any of their heirs, successors or assigns, nos shall ouch terms, provision e, or conditions cause them to be considered joint ventures or members of arty joint enterprise. b. owner agrees to and shall hold City and iie elected officials, officers, agents, and employees harmless from liability for daalage or claims for damage for pe zaonal injuries, including death, and claims for props r. ty damage which may arise from the direct or indirect use or operations of Owner or those of his contractor, subcontractor, agent, employee or other person acting on hie behalf which re la tee to the use, operation, and maintenance of the Historic Property. Owner hereby agrees to and shall defend the City and its elected officials, off ice re, agents, and employees with re ape et to any and ell actions for damages ceased by, or alleged to have been caused by, reason of Owner's activities in connection with the Historic -6- (lff Property. This hold harmless provision applies to all damages and claims for damages suffered, or alleged to have been suffered, by reason of the operations referred to in this Agreement regardless of whether or not the City prepared, supplied or approved the plane, specifications or other documents for the Historic Property. c. All of the agreements, rights, covenants, reservations, and restrictions contained in this Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties herein, their heirs, successors, legal representatives, assigns and all pe reons acquiring any part or portion of the Historic Property, whether by operation of law or in any manner whatacevez. d. In the event legal proceedings era brought by any party or parties to enforce or restrain a violation of any of the covemnts, reservations, or restrictions contained he rnin, or to determine the rights and duties of any party hereunder, the prevailing party in such proceeding may recover all reasonable attorney's fees to be fixed by the court, in addition to court coats and other relief ordered by the court. e. In the event that any of the provisions of this Agreement are held to be unenforceable or invalid by any court of competent juzis diction, or by subsequent preemptive legie lation, the validity and enfarceabili ty of the remaining provi atone, or portions thereof, shall not be effected thereby. f. This Agreement shall be construed and governed in accordance with the laws o£ the Slate of California. 10. Recordation. No later than twenty (20) days after the parties execute end enter info this Agreement, the City shall cause this Agreement to be recorded in the office of the County Recorder of the County of San Bernardino. _~_ 11. Amendments. This Agreement may be amended, in Whole or in part, only by a written recorded instrument executed by the parties hereto. IlP WITI7BSS W9SRSOP, City and Ocmer have executed this Agreement on the day and year first written above. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Dated: Dated: L. Stout, Mayor Owner By: Owner -S- n xscAT. DEHCiurrxota for 6155 East Avenue Pancho Cucamonga, California 91739 THE WEST 790 FEET OF THE SOUTH 100 PEST OP TEIE NORTH 400 FEET OF I,dL 4, BLOCK "F" OP ETIWANDA COLONY LANDS ®IeIT •11' TB6 SHCRRTARS OF II7lBRIOR•S 10.9aBILITATIOR STARDAMIS 2. 6Ve ry reasonable effort shall be made to provide a compatible use for a property that requires minimal alteration of the building, structure, or site, and its environments or to the use of a props zty for its original intended purpose. II. The distinguishing original qualities or character of a building, st zuctute, or site, and its environment shall not ce destroyed. The removal or alteration of any historical material or distinctive architectural features should be avoided when possible. III. All buildings, structures, and sites shall be recognized as products of their aan time. Alterations which have no historical basis and which se eh to create an earlier appearance shall be dlecouzaged. SV. Changes which may have taken place in the course of time are evidence of the history and development of a building, structure, or site, and its environment. V. Distinctive stylistic features or examples of ekil led craftsmanship, which characterize a building, structure, or site, shall be treated with sensitivity. VI. ceteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced, wherever poasible. In the event replacement is necessary, the new material should match the material being replaced in composition, design, color, texture, and other visual qualities. Repair or replacement of missing architectural features should be ba eed on accurate duplications of feature e, substantiated by hiatorica 1, physical, or pictorial evidence, rather than on conjectural deai gna or the availability of different architectural elements Ezam other buildings or structures. VII. The surface cleaning of atruMUres aha 11 be undertaken with the gentlest means passible. SandblaetSng and other cleaning methods that will damage the historic building materials shall not be undertaken. VIII. Eve zy reasonable effort shell be made to protect and preserve archaeological resources affected by, or adjacent to, any acquisition, protection, stabilization, preservation, rehabilitation, re atoration, or reconstrvction project. IX. Contemporary design for alteration and additions to existing properties aha 11 not be discouraged when such site rations and adds ti one do not destroy significant historic, architecture 1, or cultural materiel and such design ie compatible with the size, scale, color, material, and character of the property, neighborhood, or environment. X. Wherever poasible new additions or alterations to atrvctures shall be done in ouch a manner that if each additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, Lhe essential form and iota gtiiy of the structure would be unimpaired. ~IBIT 'B' .7V PAOPBIH'y INIlQ4BB11A(:H Property Maintenance. All buildings, structures, yards and other improvements shall be maintained in a manner which does not detract from the appearance of the inumdiate neighborhood. The follwing conditions are prohibited: Dilapidated, deteriorating, or unrepaired structures, such as: fences, roofs, doors, walla, and windows; 2• Scrap lumber, junk, trash or debris; 3• Abandoned, discarded or unused objects or equipment, each ae automobiles, automobile parts, furniture, stoves, refrigerators, cane, containers, or similar items; 4• Stagnant water or excava tione, including pools or spas; 5. Any device, decoration, design, atrvcture or vegetation which is unsightly by reason of its height, condition or its inappropriate location. QOIDIT •H-~• ~7l M/Tffi7?IAL aa~ 1!@ROV@ffil1'1'3 for 6155 Fast Avenue Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739 The following is a list of renovation proje cta the applicant plane to complete. Future projects proposed by the applicant or by the legal inheritors of this contract will be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Camni ssion's staff. 1• 1992 Exterior paint and restoration work. 2• 1993 Re-roof (House, Garage, Shed); Install new curtains. 3. 1994 Interior print and wallpaper; Lila flooring. 4• 1995 Upgrade front and rear landacapingi Insulate walls and ceiling of the residence. 5• 1996 Re-wire electrical system in house. 6. 1997 Retrofit for earthquake safety; re-porcelain 2 tuba. 7• 1998 Install two wood burning etooea. 8• 1999 Inata 11 new forced air conditioning and heat. 9• 2000 Re-finish hardwood floors; Replace garage door. 70. 2001 Exterior paint house, garage, and shed. '~-~ '"~'cs~ rrrLE: ~~ ~x,oe.t N EXFIIBfC: -pZ3CALE: na ~PL'~ bun or GNrwMa - Tn. Rawwa Agw,cy Sar. Na, OHfARTNENT OF aARxs AND RECREATION NABS_NAER_lac_~SNL NO.__NR Sfatua~~ UTM: A C HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY e p IDENTIFICATION 1, Common name: 2. NlRprir name: AOppf Rpase 3. Street or rural xldrats: 6155 East Avenue Cites, Rancho Cucamonga Zip ot9w County wan worna~d;n 4. Parpl pumper: 225-191-16 5. Prerem Owner: Addraw: 6155 East Avenue City Aancho cucamonga Lp n1Tig Own+rdrip u: PldNic Private v 6. Praaant lha: Residence Orginal ur: wreidenro DESCRIPTION A. ArdritacturM >'yla: vernacular Bungalow 7b. BrieRY dursiM the prapnt pnyaru/ appMarraa of ma uu a avuctun aaM daacribe anY major alaratiora hom iu wipinal condition: This rectangular, two-storied structure of wood-framed construction is supported by a raised field-stone wall foundation of which a full basement is also constructed. The medium-pitched, cross-gabled roof allows for a double, west-facing porch which is supported by unadorned piers atop an extended field-atone wall. The inter- secting gable roof covers a one-bay extension on the north and south aides of the home. Along The southern aide, a lower-story bay window protrudes allowing for extra light into the dining room area and a%terior architectural variety, The roof is covered now with grey composition. The roof shingle line extend to the first floor ceiling height and the broad pediment molding exhibits slightly flared return treatments at both save intersections. An interior fireplace of brick construciion extends its chimney along the internal joining of the cross- gabled dormer wing. Porches on Doth the ground and upper levers accentuated the front (west) facade of the home. The molding treatment and the broad, over- hanging eaves of the roof are mirrored in the design of the lower-story's covered porch. Prom the upper story, a five.-panelled door provides access to the open porch, the Eloor of which serves as the porch's roof. A 3-foot high wooden / Ana.N..i1Tom EnvNJape INn •+. \ 18. Constnktion drts: ISQQ.t~.tFA~ ~udfA \ EnimsoM,~.--Factual 1912 / 9, q~i~ unknown 10. Builder unknown 11. Approx. proparN do lira fNtl Frontapa.~,~ DapM_ or approx. acnaW 1/2 acre 12. Data(al 01 anNmad pllotograpRla) fo~42 d f Z-qz EJII-lr61f ~{P~-3 DPR S231Rw. 11/!6) y/yl 13. Contlkion: Exalkmt _Gootl x Reir_ Deterioratetl _ No longer in ezi rtenn 11. Altarotiom: =ear (east) staizwa on exterior added second to d ~ d t' bri c-a-brat trip to fron facade (west) 1S $urroun6ngs: (Check more Man one if neaaaryl Oqn lord X Bcattaretl buildups X Deme1Y bur k-up Residential x Intluetrial _Commeroial_piner: _ 18. Threat/ to tire: None known X private eewlopnent_ Zoninq_ VpWalism Public Worka project _ OMer: 17. la Me rtruaure: On its original sita7 ~_ Moved7 _ llnknownT lA Related features:.. Gwreaae .,,,f-b,,; td;na SIGNIFICANCE 19. Briefly Hate historinl and/ar architectural importanw (include dates, events, aM param associated wiM Me siie.l The Hoppe family has contributed to the development of this region since their 1898 arrival at Grapeland from Santa MOniCe. According to Robert Nickcox'S Historv of Etiwanda, the Hopp e's moved to Etiwanda from Grapeland in 1900 and acquired property at the southeast corner of Summit and East Avenues. After purchasing shares in the Etiwanda Water Company, the Hoppe's planted grape vines and apricots and established themselves in the young and growing Etiwanda community. After purchasing more land at the northeast corner of Summit and East Avenues, the family began planting lemon and orange trees and in 1912, began building the home at 6155 East Avenue, The Hoppe's had first lived in a smaller four-room house that must have been crowded with Mr. and Mrs. Hoppe and their five children. As the Hoppe family offspring grew, some stayed in the Etiwanda community, George Hoppe planted one of the first commercial Christmas Tree Farm's on family land south of the original grove, according to Robert Hi ckcox. Flora Noppe O'Rane lived in the Hoppe home until it was purchased by the Smith's this year. Thus, the almost 100- year legacy of the Hoppe family in Etiwanda ie commemorated in their well-preserved home. (l'On't.) 20. Main Memo of the hirtoric mourn: Ilf mpg IMn ones if rlncked, number in ortler of impprtanu.l ArMitaRUn ~ ArttB Laisun Ewnomic/IMurtrid _Exploration/Sattlamant GovNnmam Milinry Religion SodM/Etluntion 21. Sources (List books, tloramanu, eurvaye, panlenN innryiPN and Meir dnesl. Historv of Etiwanda, Hickcox 1981. Interviews w.i th Marsha Banks and Vanessa Smith. 22. Dau form pepared 24 December 1992 By (name) Anth ea Har ties Organiution Citv of Rancho Cucamonga AOdran: .10500 Civic Center Drive City Rancho Cucamonga 2iP 91730 phi; (909 ) 989-1861 LOG[nrul PtestT map laraw end bbl sin antl wrrourMirp rtreatf, roads, aM Prominent IarMmarksl: /~ NORTH ~I 101 MASTER FILE HISTORIC RESOURCES DATA ENCODING SHEET NOTE: TM mrmben in PeraeNava itMieete arMV va numMr of eharaevn Iletun, numWn, punctuation marks, sP+cesl that may M emery or tM nunMr of liras tM[ mry M cheeky. 1. bar. No. ~ 9'19 - - 10. Registtation Status (11: City Zip 141 Form No. (131 Prop. No. 1031 _7) lisvd -date (611__41 may become eligible USGS ouy Map No. f41 -21 devrmined alipbla - X51 NigiWe local listirp Year 121 _61 ineligible for above 3l aooe... dlni Fi. x n.._y.__.__. 2. UTM Zone 121 A 8 C D Fisting 181 NOMin9 171 11. Property Giwn Regimatlon Stain ss 111: _tl Part of tlfstritt ..X 21 individuN poperty _31 bom of show 2 Property Name: Gammon Name 1301: 12 NR Gas Gtegory (1): eopoe House Hinoric Nama (401: ~ 1 distriR - N4 m proprtin (63) _21 siw xoooe House Y31 Wiltlinq Parwl No, (0.17) 225-191-16 ./1 sttuaun ~51 object 4. Address: 13. Other Registredan (691 6155 Fast Avenue umber I Stmt Nama 14-281 _11Hiaonc Am. Blp. Surwy _el GI. Nistonpl Landmark 21 Historic Am Eng Rec 71 Coun PC f Hi I Ngrcrt rose Stmt (0-201 _ . . , _ o st ty nnntt _31 Naoantl Hirt Landmark_8) Local Utting Rancho Cucamonga _/) Stab Historic park _91 County/Regonal park GNRown 13-201 _51 other of Sao Vicinity of Zip coda 151 CiN/TOwn l/1 11. Proprty AtviWVt: County 3-letur designator 131 .nen _ 11 unknown -22) leke/riwr/rovrvoir X 2I sirp. family prop. .-231 ship 5. Tyw of ownership 1171: -31 mutt family prop, -.241 IighthWu _II ancillary blg. _251 amusement Wrk _ 11 unknown % 41 priveb -51 hobl/mobl _291 monumanUmunl/gravestone _ 21 f<derai _51 coon N _ 81 comm. dA 13 st _271 folk art _ 31 suv _ 81 dN _ 71 mmm. Wg, Dort 3 st _281 stmt fumituro 71 spedal disrnm _ 81 industrial blp .291 lurdscape arehitr. 8. Present Uv (1.81: _ 91 Pudic utility blq. 301 tran/vageution _101 tMatn X11 urbn oWn sPacs _11) enprnxin9 street X21 rural open span _ .11 unknown _41 pmav noncamm. _121 dvic auditprium 331 farm/ranch 21 commercial _ 51 DuWic _131 umnry entrhoc. MII _ -311 miliuN propM ~7 31 rniWntial _81 none _14) govammMt dt+ _351 CCCANPA structure 7. Year of Initial Construction: _151 eduuuonM !Mg. .361 edsnie minariN Property _181 nligiaut blg. ethnic group ISd01 Indivitlual Progrty 141 1B7 2 -171 R/R depot _181 thin X71 highvrry/toil District I81 - _191 britlga _.381 women's property 8 A -30) anN/aquyuet -+101 amarerv . rchitactlsl (6251: tnYn .311 dam _391 otMr 8uilderlsll0451: 15. Archilactrsral Plain ,.nknpwn ~ and SPaNfiaBans: Vat X No B. Vaa of Surwy 121: 1987, 1992 DPR 8901Rer. 12/831 102 HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 7b. The supporting walls of the porch unit are o£ field stone construction, laid in the same manner as those Sn the foundation walls. Four unadorned piers with slightly Elated bases and capitals support the porch roof. The current owners have added a circa 1890 decorative wooden lattice scroll to the porch that lies under the cornice molding and ir. between the piers and a eimi Lar treatment to the pedimental triangle between the eaves of the Eront gable. Beveled three inches, lap siding covers the house ~s exterior. The window and door surrounds are all simply worked as are the surrounds of the latticed attic vents tucked just under the front and rear gabled roof ridge. Other decorative treatments include two broad cornice bands wrapped around the west, north, end south elevations. This cornice treatment re iurne and stops when it arrives at the rear (east) elevation. Wood-framed steps provide access to the rear o£ the home. The fenestration patte rn of the home responds to interior spatial needs rather than io any exterior de man de for syaanetry. Moat of the windy+e are of a standard double-hung, one-over-one paned variety, except for the two front (west) windows and the center portion of the south bay window cluster; these three lights have a fixed paned upper panel in a diamond pattern. Very few additions have jeopardized the structure~e architectural integrity since its constructicn in 1912. The home wa6 used ae a boarding house after the Hoppe family grew up and moved out of the home. it was for this use that a rear staircase, landing, and upstairs entrance was added. The stairs have since rotted away and have been removed, leaving the landing and its supporting members remaining. Two out-buildings mimic, in conatructiott and Mail, the house. The single-storied garage, lying to the east of the structure, has a modern, metal, retracting door and is covered with 3-inch wood siding. t9. Architecturally, the home presents a simple, dl gnified presence and ie one of the larger and finer residences of citrus ranchers in the Etiwanda area. Both on the interior and exterior, there Se careful attention paid to detail and quality of craftsmanship. The brood over-hanging eaves complemented with decorative cornice and pediment molding lend to the structure a clean, de Pined appearance. 1" HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION LANDPdARK SURVEY Address: 6155 S.AS-r ~Ij/>G. APN 2?l lql - Ik? -- ~~ ,. `- _. -~. cZ -`a,i '~ -_ ~ c- ~:. , __ ~ tT'x~:1~0~h,~:~~.: mo,So.; _r View Looking NoR7Y1wBST. Dare of Photo r„19~ a J.~s~ ~~~ ''~^'' ~ v~.. View Looking tJnRTlk" .Date of Photo br(~12 RESOLUTION N0. 93-02 A RESOLUTION OF THE H2ITORIC PRESERVATION CONMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF HISTORIC LANDMARIC 93-03 TO DESIGNATE THE HOPPE HOUSE, LOCATED AT 6155 EAST AVENUE, AS A LANDMARX - APN: 225-191-i6. A. Recitals. (i) Wayne and Vanessa Smith have filed an application fora Landmark as described in the title of this Resolution. He_-einafter in this Resolution, the subject Landmark is referred to as "the application." (ii) On January 12, 1993, *_he Historic preservation Commission of the City of Honcho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. (iii) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of thin Resolution have occurred. H. Resolution. NOWT THEREFORE, it Ss hereby found, determined anfl resolved by the Historic preservation of the City of PMCho Cucamonga ae follnwa; 1. This Commission hereby apecifirally finds that all of the facia set forth in the Recitals, part "A", of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. The application applies to approximately one-half acre of land, basically a rectangular configuration, located at 6155 Eaei Avenue. 3. Haled upon aubatantial evidence presented to this Caam:lesion during the above-referenced public hearing on January /2, 7993, including written and oral staff reports, [oge thez with public Leetlmony, and pursuant to Section 2.24.090 of the %ncho Cucamonga Municipal Code, this Coamiisaion he:eby makes the following findings end facts: A. Historical and Cultural Significenoe: Finding 1: The proposed Landmark i9 particularly representative of an historic period, type, style, region, or way of life. Facto: The turn-of-the-century realities of the family-based, rural, agricultural lifestyle in tl,e Etiwande coommnity are exemplified in the Hoppe House. Near to their ecrea of lemon, orange, and apricot groves, the home was removed geographically from the core of the Etiwanda town, but connected in many ways through economic, social, cultural, educational, and religious ties. F~ur~arr "B„ 106 F1PC RESOLUTION N0. 93-02 LO 93-03 - SMITH January 12, 1993 Page 2 Finding 2: The proposed Landmark is an example of a type of building which was once common but is nw rare and the proposed Landmark is connected with a business or use which was once common but is nw rare. Facto: The number of grove houses, while never multitudinous, had decidedly shrunk as residential development has replaced agricultural production. Still relatively rural, the present-day setting of Aoppe House continue9 to reflect the Htiwanda of 50 and 100 rears ago. Finding 3: The proposed Lendmerk was connected with someone renamed, Lmportant, or local pe rsonnlity. Fncte: The Hoppe family, while never necessarily famous, were an important and long-lived thread in the cosmNnlty fabric of Etiwande. For almost 100 years, the family contributed to the social and economic history of the town. B. Neighborhood and Geographic Setting. Finding 1: The proposed 7andma rk materially benafita the historic character of [he neighborhood. Facia: The Hoppe House stands as a lasting reminder to the architectural styles of the agricultural communities of Southern California, circa 1915, end to the development of the Etiwanda community. It is nn elegant yet fwctional element of the areas built environment. Finding 2: The proposed Iandmazk in its location represents an established and Familiar visual feature of the neighborhood, community or city. Facts: For the past 81 years, the Hoppe House has stood as a testament to the early history of the community. 4. This commission hereby finds that the project hoe been reviewed and coneide red for compliance with the California Environmeniel pus lity Act of 1970. 5• Based upon the findi age and conclusions set forth in pa:agraphe 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Cammiaeion hereby resolves Ghat pursuant to Chapter 2.24 of the Honcho rucamonga Municipal Code, Ghat the Historic preservation Commission of the City of Poncho CLCamongs hereby recommanda approval of Landmark Application 93-03 on this 12th day of January 1993. 6. The Chairmen of this Commlaeion shall certify to the adoption of this Peaolution. 107 HPC RESOLUTION NO. 93-02 LO 93-03 - SMITH January 12, 1993 page 3 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF JANOARY 1993. Ma ha Meek Han airma AYES: COMMI SSIONEAS: ARNER~ eANA6: EILLING6~ HASRVITZ~ SCRMIDT: TESSIER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COOPER 108 RESOLUTION NO. 93 - oa ~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CVCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION 93-03, TREREBY DESIGNATING THE HOPPE NOVSE, LOCATED AT 6155 fiAST AVENUE, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, AS AN HISTORIC LANDMARK AND HARING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - ARN: 225-191-i6 WHEREAS, Vanessa and Wayne Smith have filed an application for landmark Deeignntion 93-03, ae described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Landmark Deaignacion is referred to ae the "application." WHEREAS, On January 12, 1993, Lhe Aiatoric prase rvation Commi egion of the City of Rancho Cucamanga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and, following the conclusion of said public hearing, adopted Resolution No. 93-02, thereby recommending to this City Council that said application be approved. WHEREAS, on February 17, 7993, the City Council of the City of Nancho Cucamonga conducted a meeting on the application and concluded said meeting on that date. WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby find, determine, and resolve as folloNa: SECTION 1: The application applies to property located at Assessor Parcel Number 225-191-16. SECTION 2: The Roppe family has contributed to development of this region since their arrival in Grape land from Santa Monica in 1898• The family moved to Etiwande in 1900, planted lemon and orange trees end constructed their tench home Sn 1912. The house stands today ae a commemoration to the legacy of the Etiaanda community and the Roppe femi ly's contributions to this area. The proposed landmeik meets the following criteria established in Chapter 2.29.090 Of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code: A. Historical and Cultural Significance: 1. The propoced Landmark Ss particularly zeprecentaiive of en historical period, type, style, region, or way of life. 2. The proposed landrark is en example of a type of building which sae once common but Se new rare. 3. The proposed landmark sae connected with someone renowned, important, or a loam personality. 109 CITY COONCIL RESOLOTION NO. LO 93-03 - SMITE February 77, 1993 Page 2 4. The proposed landmark ie connected with a business or use which was once common but ie now rare. H. Neighborhood and Geographic Setting: 1. The proposed landmark materially benefits the historic character of the neighborhood. 2. The proposed Landmark, in its location, represents an established and familiar visual feature of the neighborhood, community and City (Ord. 70 59, 1979). SECTION J: Devi gna tion of a Iandma rk ie exempt from CEQA (Article 19, Section 1530 HI. SECTION 4: eased on the aubetantial evidence received and reviewed by this Council and baeed on the findings cet forth above, HE IT F9ATHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mncho G1:camonga approves the designation of the Hoppe House as an Historic landmark. 110 urrY ur' RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: February 17, 1993 TO: Mayor and Members oP the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager 7 FROM: Suzanne Ota, community Services ~'~~- BY: Rathy Sorensen, CLP, Recreation Superin dent SU&7ECT: USE OF CARMELIAM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FOR SUMMER DAY CAMP PROGRAM RHCOMMRRDAT70N Approve application and permit for use oP school facilities between the City and the Alta Lona School District for use of the multi-purpose room at Carnelian Elementary School for the City s Summer Day Camp Program. BACRGROIIND Annually the City provides a aummar day camp program for the City~a youth. This is accomplished through contractual agreement with the Alta Loma School District. Rental fees are paid through participant fees and are included in the fiscal year budget. Respectfully aubmi , n ota ~C mm ity Services Manager SO/KS/kle 111 ~iiz yr rcriiv~nvuu~nmunun STAFF REPORT DATE: February 17, 1993 T0: Mayor and Nenbers of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Niiliam J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Jerry A. Dyer, Associate Engineer SUBJECT: APPROYAL OF MAP AHO ORDERING THE ANNEXATION TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT N0. 38 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6 FOR PARCEL M11P 14318, LOCATED AT THE SWTHNEST CORNER OF BASE LINE ROAD AND HELLMAN AVENUE, SUBMITTED DY PIONEER BANK RECOl~ENOATION It 7s recomaended that the Ciey Council adopt the attached Resolutions aDDroving Parcel Map 14318 and ordering the annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 38 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 6. Parcel MaD 14318, Located at the southNesL corner of Base Line Road and Hellman Avenue, in the Neighborhood Commercial District, rws approved 6y the Planning Coaaalsslon on August 12, 1992, for the division of 3.47 acres into 3 parcels. The Developer, Pioneer Bank, has met all of the requirements established as prerequisite to approval of Lhe final Mep. CoDY of the Consent and Naiver to Mnezation form signed by the Developer is on file 1n the City Clerk's Office. Respectfully subm~ed, N1111am J. O'Ne11~ Cfty Engineer NJO:JAD:Jh Attachment 1~ RESOLUTION N0. 93~o~L~ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP 14318 WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map 14318, submitted by Pioneer Bank, and consisting of 3 parcels, located on the southwest corner of Base Line Road and Hellman Avenue, being a division of 3.47 acres Into 3 parcels was approved by the Planning Camm15s1on of the City of Rancho Cucamonga an August 12, 1992. NHEREAS, Parcel Map 14318 is the final map of the d/v151on of land approved as shown on said Tentative Parcel Map; and NHEREAS, all of the requirements established as prerequisite to approval of the Final Map by the City Council of said City have now been met by Pioneer Bank, as developer. NON, THEREFORE, THE CITY CWNCIL OF THE C[TY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, HEREBY RESOLYES that said Parcel Map 14318 be and the same is hereby approved and the City Engineer is authorized to present same to County Recorder to be flied for record. 113 RESOLUTION N0. q~~ Q~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CItt COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNE%ATiON OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT N0. 38 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6 FOR PARCEL MIIP 14318 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has previously formed a special maintenance district pursuant to the terms of the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972", being Div151on 15, Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, said special maintenance district known and designated as Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B, Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 6 (hereinafter referred to as the "Maintenance District"1; and NHEREAS, the provtslons of Article 2 of Chapter ? of the "LanAscaping and Lighting Act of 1972" authorize the annexation of additional territory to the Maintenance Dl strict; and NHFREAS, at this time the Ctty Council is desirous to take proceedings to annex the property described on Exhibit "A" attached Hereto and Incorporated herein by this referenced to the Maintenance 0lstrtct; and NHEREAS, all of the owners of property within the territory proposed to be annexed to the Maintenance District have filed with the City Clerk their written consent to the Droposed annexation without notice and hearing or filing of an Engineer's "Report". NON, THFREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLONS: SECTION 1: That the above recitals are aii true and correct. SECTION 2: That this legislative body hereby orders the annexation of the prop`er~-as shown 1n Exhlblt "A" and 'he work program areas as described 1n Exhibit "B" attached hereto to the Maintenance District. SECTION 3: That all future proceedings oP ttie Maintenance 0lstrict, including tie levy of all assessments, shall be apDllcable to the territory annexed hereunder. 114 ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3 B STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. y AND 6 ~\ ~~ 1~~~ P ,~ N ,lei .r ~, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA yR~~ ,,,AP ~p3~B _ BASEL/NE ROgJJ EXHIBIT •B• PROJECT: PARCEL MAP 14318 (Being assessed under CUP 88-46~ 3.45 ac Parcel 1 0,53 acres Parcel 2 0.53 acres Parcel 3 2.41 acres Total Acreage ~:4T- STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT Assess No. of Lamps to be Annexcd Uistrict No. Units 5800E -- 950DL IS~Q00- 22;JD0• 27,500 1 6.94 -- 2 -- -_ __ 6 6.94 ~1 -- -- -- __ LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT Assess Street District No. Units Name 3B 3.47 Base Line 38 3.47 Heliman Community Turf Ground Cover Trees Equest,Trail Sg. ft_ Sq. ft. Ea. --- --- --- 29 JD:2/17/93 l;t'1'Y ON' RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: February 17, 1993 T0: Mdyor and Menbers of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Steve M. Gilliland, Public Works Inspector IL~~ SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS, RELEASE OF BONDS AND NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR TRACT 13273 - MILLIKEN AVENUE PEDESTRIAN UNDERCROSSING, LOCATED ON MILLIKEN AVENUE SWTH OF MOUNTAIN VIEW DRIVE RECOMMEM011Tip1: The required improvements for Tract 13273 - Milliken Avenue Pedestrian Undercrossing have been completed 1n an acceptable manner, and Tt is recommended that City Council accept said improvements, accept the Maintenance Guarantee Bond 1n the amount of (33,828, authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion and authorize the City Clerk to release the Faithful Perfornrence Bond 1n Lhe amount of (338,281. eACKGROUwD/AMALrsls Tract 13213 - Milliken Avenue Pedestrian Undercrossing - located on Milliken Avenue south of Mountain Yfew Drive DEVELOPER: Lewis Nomes P.O. Box 670 Upland, Ca 91786 Accept: Release: Maintenance Guarantee Bond f 33,828. Faithful Performance Bond f338,281. Respectfully submitted, ~G~lZcc..F William J. O'Neil City Engineer NJO:SMG:Iy Attachment 117 RESOLUTION N0. 9,~~ 03 J A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY Cg1NCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUDLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT 13273 - MILLIKEN AVENUE PEDESTRIAN UNDERCROSSIN6 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE NORK NHEREAS, the construction of public improvemerKs for Tract 13273 - M1111ken Avenue Pedestrian Undercrossing have been completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and NHEREAS, a Notice of Completion is required to be filed, certifying the work complete. NON, THEREFgIE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby resolves, that the work 1s hereby accepted and the City Engineer is authorized to sign and file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder of San Bernardino County. 118 urrr ~r~ xnrvcn~ uuuamvrvt;n STAFF REPORT DATE: February 17, 1993 T0: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Steve M. Gilliland, Public Works Inspector I SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS, RELEASE OF BONDS pND NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE EAST GREEMWAY CORRIDOR WHICH FXTENDS FROM MILLIKEN PARK, EAST TO TERRA VISTA PARKWAY RECOMIEM011TIOW: The required improvements for the East 6reemray Corridor have been completed Tn an acceptable manner, and 1t is recommmended that City Council accept said improvements, authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion and authorize the City Clerk to reiease the Faithful Performance Bond Tn the amount of =421,000. BACKGROUID/AMAL1!SIS The East Greenway Corridor extends from Milliken Park, east to Terra Vista Parkway DEVELOPER: Lewis Homes P.0. Box 670 Upland, CA 91786 Release: Faithful Performance Bond (421,000.00 Respectfully submltted;i ' ~~ ~~ Hi111am J. O'Neil City Engineer MJO:SMG:Iy Attachment 119 RESOLUTION H0. R3~ ~3~' A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE EAST GREENWAY CORRIDOR AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK WHEREAS, the construction of public improvements for the East Greenway Corridor have been Compl eteA to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion 15 required to be filed, certifyfny the work complete. YON, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby resolves, that the work is hereby accepted and the C1ty Engineer is authorized to sign and file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder of San BernarAino County. i;rrx yr ntuvcnv vai.amvivun STAFF REPORT DATE: February 17, 1993 T0: Mayor, and Mashers of the City Council Jack Las, AICP, City Manager , FROM: Nillias J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Steve M. Gilliland, Public Works Inspectar~~~_ SUBJECT: RELEASE OF M1IINTENANCE GUARANTEE BOND FOR TRACT 12820 LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF HIGNLANO AVENUE 8ET11EEN CARNELIAN STREET AND JASPER STREET. It 1s recossended that the City Council authorize the City Clerk to release the Maintenance Guarantee Bond. BACK61t001D/ANALYSIS The required one year saintenance period has ended and the street in~provesents resatn free fros defects 1n satertals and worksanshlp. DEVELOPER: Southland Developsent 3807 Sierra highway A29, Suite 210 Acton, CA 93510 Release: Maintenance Guarantee Bond (Street) 141,200.00 Respectfully subsltted, N1111as J. O'Nell~~~ City Engineer NJO:SMG;Iy ~1 uai x yr neuv~;nu uuuruvivivuH STAFF REPORT GATE: February 17, 1993 TO; Mayor, and Me+abers of the City Council Jack Lan, AICP, City Manager FROM: Nillian J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Steve M. GTlliland, Public Norks Inspector-,a: SUBJECT: RELEASE OF M1IINTENANCE GUARANTEE BOND FOR TRACT 13248, LDCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF HIGHLAND AYENUE BETNEEN ARCHIBALD AVENUE AND HERMOSA AVENUE RECDNEIDATION It is reconaiended that the City Council authorize the City Clerk to release the Maintenance Guarantee Bond. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS The repaired one year nalntenance period has ended and the street tnprovenents rennin free fran defects in naterlals and worknenshlp. DEVELDPER: H 6 S Capital Enterprises 1051 ParkvteN Drive, Suite 200 Covina, CA 91724 Release: Maintenance Guarantee Bond (Street) ;15,000 Respectfully subs d, N1111an J. O'Neil ~~ City Engineer NJD:SMG:sd CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: February 17, 1993 T0: Mayor, and Menbers of the City Council Jack Lan, AICP, City Manager FROM: Willtaa J. O'Neil, Ctty Engineer 8Y: Steve M. Gi1111and, Public Works Inspector~~~ SUBJECT: RELEASE OF MAINTENANCE GUARANTEE BOND FOR TRACT 13316 - LANDSCAPE, LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HERNOSA AVENUE AND MANIANITA DRIVE RECOMENDATION It is reconnended that the Ctty Council authorize the City Clerk to release the Maintenance Guarantee Bond. BACK6ROIIIO/ANALYSIS The required one year axintenance period has ended and the street inprovenents renain free fro~a defects 1n natertals and v~orkaunshlp. DEVELOPER: Bagyoun Development 15342 Ha~rthorne Boulevard, Suite 405 LaNndale, CA 90260 Release: Maintenance Guarantee Bond (Landscape) 59,500 Respectfu~ly >uiaai a,~A Vv Nillian J. O'Ne11 C1ty Engineer WJO:SMG:sd art x ~r tce+iv~nv i;u~r~mvivvri STAFF REPORT DATE: February 17, 1993 T0: Mayor, and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: N1111am J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Steve M. Gilliland, Public Norks Inspector`==~ti~ SUBJECT: RELEASE OF MAINTENANCE GUARANTEE BOND FOR TRACT 13367 ON THE FAST SIDE OF NELLMAN AVENUE AT HIGHLAND AVENUE It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Clerk to release the Maintenance Guarantee Bond. BACK6N011`10/ANALYSIS The required one year maintenance ppeeriod has ended and the street lmprovement5 remain free from defects in materials and wrkmanshlp. DEVELOPER: Homecoming Partners, Ltd. 3870 La Sierra Avenue #307 Riverside, CA 92505 Release: Maintenance Guarantee Bond (Street) ;29,882.00 Resoeetfuily submi• d, M G / ~"~ N111tam J. O'Neil City Engineer NJO:SMG:Iy errs Ur'tCANI;HU WCAMONGA STAFF REPORT OATS: February 17, 1993 T0: Mayor, and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Ni1H as J. O'Neil, C1ty Engineer BY: Steve M. G11111and, Public Norks Inspector SUBJECT: RELEASE OF MAINTENANCE GUARANTEE BOND FOR TRACT 13621, LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HILLSIDE ROAD AND NEAMOSA AVENUE RECDMMEMOATIOM It is recoawended that the City Council authorize the City Clerk to release the Maintenance Guarantee Bond. The required one year maintenance period has ended and the street inproveaients remain free fray defects 1n aaterlals and workmanship. DEVELOPER: Bahama Development 10722 Arrow Highway, Suite 810 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Release: Maintenance Guarantee Bond (Street) 539,000 RespeCtfutly subml d, / -~ Q C~C~ Milltam J. O'Net City Engineer NJO: SMG ad U1'1'Y VF KANI:riV UUUAMUNIiA STAFF REPORT DATE: February 17, 1993 T0: Mayor, and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Milliam J. O'Neil, rity Engineer BY: Steve M. Giililand, Public Norks Inspector~~. SUBJECT: RELEASE OF MAINTENANCE GUARANTEE BOND FOR TRACT 13644 ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HERMOSA AVENUE AND YISTA GROVE STREET. RECONMFINMITIOM It is recomsended that the City Council authorize the C1ty Clerk to release the Maintenance Guarantee Bond. BACI(GROUI~/NIALVSIS The required one year autlntenance period has ended and the street improvements reawtn free frawt defects in auterlais and Norkabnship. OEYELOPER: Noodridge Estates, Ltd. 1500 0ua11 Street /250 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Release: Maintenance Guarantee Bond (Street) 149,600.00 Respectfully submt~ C1ty Engineer MJO:SMG:Iy CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: February 17, 1993 T0: Mayor, and Members of the City Council Jack Laa, AICP, City Manager FROM: NTiliam J. O'Ne11, City Engineer BY: Steve M. G11111and, Public Norks Inspector ~~ SUBJECT; RELEASE OF MAINTENANCE GUARANTEE BOND FOR TRACT 13813 LOCATED ON THE NEST SIDE Of NELLMAN AVENUE, 900' SOUTN aF 19TH STREET RECOMIEIDATION St is recommended that Lhe CTty Council authorize the City Clerk to release the Maintenance Guarantee Bond. BACKGROUND/AMAI.TSIS The required one year maintenance period has ended and the street improvements remain free from defects /n materials and workmanship. DEVELOPER: Niiliam Perry Roofing 9111 Lomita Dr1ve Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701 Release: Maintenance Guarantee Bond (Street) ;7,600.00 Respectfully subml d, N1111am J. O'Nei G%~~ City Engineer NJO:SMG:iy CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: February 17, 1993 T0: Mayor, and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, Ctty Manager FROM: N1111am J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Steve M. Gilliland, Public Norks Inspector SUBJECT: RELEASE OF MAINTENANCE GUARANTEE BOND FOR TRACT 13873, LOCATED ON THE NORTHNEST CORNER OF ATNOOD STREET AND VICTgtIA PARK LANE It is recom~ended that the City Council authorize the City Clerk to reiease the Maintenance Guarantee Bond. BACKGROUND/ANALPSIS The required one year maintenance period has ended and the street improvements remain free from defects in materials and varkmanshlp. DEVELOPER: Atvrood-Victoria Joint Venture 15060 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Release: Maintenance Guarantee Bond (Street) 572,000 Respectfully submi Nflliam J. O'Neil ~~~ City Engineer NJO:SMG:sd crrY Vr' RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT GATE: February 17, 1993 1 T0: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Nilliam J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Michael D. Lang, Supv. Public Norks Inspector SUBJECT: ACCEPT THE HAVEN AVENUE REHABILITATION FROM FOURTN STREET TO CIVIC CENTER DRIVE, CONTRACT N0. 92-061, AS COMPLETE, RELEASE THE BONGS AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY ENGINEER TO FILE A "NOTICE OF COMPLETION". It is recomaended that City Council accept the Haven Avenue Rehabilitation from Fourth Street to C1v1c Center Orive, Contract No. 92- 061, as complete, authorize the CTty to file a "Notice of Completion", retain the Faithful Performance Bond to the amount of 5789,789.41 to be used as the Maintenance Bond, and authorize the release of the retention in the amount of S39,505.58 and the Labor and Materials Bond in the amount of (789,789.41, 35 days after the recordation of said notice if no claims have been received. Also, approve Lhe final contract amount of 5837,413.03. BACK6NWID/ANALYSIS The subject pro,lect has been completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The ftnai contract amount, based on project documentation, is (837,413.03 which includes 3 contract change orders for crack sealing, and tree removal, Respectfully submlE~ed, Niiiiam J. O'Ne~Y~~ City Engineer NJO:MOL:Iy Attachment RESOLUTION N0. 930.33 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR HAVEN AVENUE REHABILITATION FROM FOURTH STREET TO CIVIC CENTER DRIVE, CONTRACT N0. 92-061, AND RUTHORIZING THE FLING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE NORK. NHEREAS, the construction of public improvements for Haven Avenue Rehabilitation from Fourth Street to Civic Center Drive, Contract No. 92-061, have been completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and NHEREAS, a Notice of Complettan is required to be f71ed, certifying the cork complete. NON, THEREFORE, the City Council of the Ctty of Rancho Cucamonga hereby resolves, that the work 1s hereby accepted and the City Engineer is authorized to sign and file a Notice of Compietlon with the County Recorder of San Bernardino County. 1~ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: February 17, 1993 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager PROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner SVBJECT: ENVIADNRENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL VSE PERMIT 92-18 - SMITH'S - An appeal of the Planning Commieeion'e decision denying the development of a commercial shopping canter consisting of a 75,000 square foot 9rocsry store, two aetsllite buildings of 3,500 square feet each, end a drive-taro pad of 4,800 square feat on 10.6 acres of lend in the Community Commercial Dietr ict (SUba csa 2) of tae Foothill Boulevard Specif is Plan, located et tae northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vl neyatd Avenue - APN: 207-102-03, 5, 8r 15, 20, 21, and 49. Associated with t hie project ie TteO Removal Permit 92-17. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council review the recommender loos of the Council Subcommittee and if they are in concurrence with the proposed revisions, approve the application through ndopt ion of the attached Resolution of Approval wish Conditions. If, however, the Council doe• not believe the modif icatlone ore adequate, then approval of the attached Resolution of Denial would be epproptiate. eACROROUND On 7anuary 20, 1993, the City Council reviewed the appeal of Cho Planning Commiaeion'e denial of Contlitional Use Permit 92 -18. Because of the number end the complexity of the ieeuee involved, the City Counc ll appointed a subcommittee of Mayor Stout and Counellmember Willinme to meet with the applicant Ln order to attempt to resolve the ieeuee identified at the Planning Commission hearing of December 9, and December 15, 1992. ANALYSIS Following Se a list of the concerns of the subcommittee and a summery of tae manner in which the applicant addressed these ieeuee: 131 CITY COUNCIL STRPP REPORT CUP 92-18 - SNITH'S February 17, 1993 Page 2 1. Easterly Dock Subcouittea Concern: The loading dock along the east aide of the Du tiding ie inappropriate and should be eliminated. Applicant's Reepoase: The easterly dock hoe been eliminated with all loading taking place at the westerly dock. A 10-foot interior corridor hoe been added to the store to accommodate the movement of goods to the east Bide of the store. Additional parking hoe been provided along the east eitle of the build inq end a trellis with rock columns hoe Deen provided along the building's east elevation. 2. we eterly Dock Subcouittee Concern: The westerly loading dock should be gated in order [o obscure uneigrtt ly views from Poothill Boulevard and to prevent the appearance of an "attractive nuisance" to children end ekateboardere. Applleaat's Response: The westerly dock will De gated with en opaque, metal roll-up door paintetl to match the stucco color of the building. The roll-up gate will be kept closed et ell times, except when the dock ie being utilized for truck ingress and egress. 3. Central Tower Element Subcomittea Coacarn: The entire tower element eheuld 6e shifted forward to be in line with the rock columns along the front of the store in order to provide a stronger entry etatemenL and more undulation in trte building plane. Tha teeultent archway should be faced in rock completely or, in the alternative, with stucco. The archway shoo ld be accented with a material that compliments the native river rock. The erchwey crentedr es viewed from the eaat and west aides, should be arched rather than having the ceiling meet the column et a 90 degree angle. Applicent'• Raspoase: The entire tower element hoe been ahlftad forward and the face of the arch finished in stucco with pro-cast concrete provided at the bottom of the arch. The arch as viewed from the east and west elevations hoe not been shown in Lhe drawings Dut the applicant hoe agreed to do eo Ln their final plane. 4. Plentere and Rock Columns Subcouittu eoacern: Tha concrete base for the planters and columns Le not eubetantial and a stronger, wider base should be provided. 132 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CUP 92-38 - SMITH'S February 17, 1993 Page 3 Applicant's Response: A wider, more euDetantial concrete base hoe been provided for all columns and planters along the front and aide elevations of the store as well as within the activity center at the corner. 5. F t t C n r f F th' 11 B le e d d V' 8 rd A en e 9ubcogittee Coneerv: The fountain at the corner shoo ld not be flush with the ground plane for safety reasons. Deaiqn elements at the corner should be highly visible to auto traffic along Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue ae well. A vertical water element should be provided in order to provide more impact and to 6e visible to auto traffic, and the poeaibility of future public art should be considered. Applicant's Reapovae: The applicant redesigned the activity center concept by eliminating the reflecting pond and providing a water element which cascades down the aide of a short rack wall. A small grassy area hoe been provided to serve ee a diapley area for future public ariwotk. 6. Delivery Hours eubcouittae Concern: Delivery hours should be restricted in order to avoid peak parking times. Applicavt'a Reapovse: The applicant indicated that trucks usually deliver from early to mSd-morning (6-30 a.m.) which le not in conflict with peak parking hours. The applicant agreed to have the issue of delivery times reviewed by the City Planner after six months of operation. If problems are encountered durLng this nix month period, then further restrict lone may be placed on the hours of delivery at that time. 7. Foothill Boulevard TraEf is Subeorittee Covicerv: Double left hand turn lnnes should be provided from Foothill Bou levatd ea et Dou nd to Viieyazd Avenue. Applic evt'a Reapovae: The traffic study prepared for the project euggeetn this and this requirement hoe been incorporated ae a condlt ion of approval. 8. Access From Foothill Boulevard Subcorittea Covicern: The traffic study for the project indLcetee that a 40-foot wide drive approach from Foceh111 Boulevard is preferable to the 35 feet provided. Applicavt'• Raapovae: The drive approach has been Lncreaaed from 35 feet to 40 feet. 133 CITY C-VNCIL STAFF RBPORT COP 92-18 - SHITH'S Pebruary 17, 1993 Page 4 9. Pedestrian Connection Subcovitly Comnrn: Pedestrian connections should ba provided along the east aide of the building. Applicaat'a Raapoaaa: The applicant has provided pedestrian walkways along the east aide of the building which connect to tha sidewalks on Vineyard Avenue. This Stem hne been advertised ae a public hearing in [he inland Vallav Daily Bulletin newepeperr the property has been posted, and notlcee were vent to all property owners within Subarea 2 of the Induetrlal Area Specific Plan. Reaper ly euhm' d, Bred idler City Planner BB:SN/jfe ALLachmenie: Exhibit "A" - Ciiy Council SLaff Report datetl January 20, 1993 Reeo lut ion of Approval Aeeolution of Denial 1' CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: January 20, 1993 ' T0: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP. City Manager FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner SOBJECT: ENVI RONMSNT ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL UEE PERMIT 92-1& - SMITH'S - An appeal of the Planning Co®ission's decision denying the development of a co®ercinl shopping center conslating of a 75,000 square foot grocery store, two satellite buildings of 3,500 square feet each, and a drive-thru pad of 6,500 square feet on 10.6 acres of land in the Co®unity Co®ercial District (Subarea 2) of the Foothill Soulevntd Specific Plan, located at the northwest comer of Foothill sou levard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-102-03, 5, 8, 15, 20, 21, and d9. Associated with this project is Tree Removal Permit 92-17. Tha Planning Commission recommends that the City Council concur with the findings made by the Cotrmiaeion and adopt the attached Aeaoluti on of Denial. Bowever, if after receiving input on the proposed project, the Council determines to uphold the appal, staff should be directed to prepare a Resolution of Approval to De brought back at your next meeting. H11CE6RDUlID Following the Planning Commiaelon's public hearing on December 9, 1992, the Planning Coamieslon denied the above-referenced Conditional Uae Permit on December 15, 1992. At the December 9 and December 15, 1992 meetings, several concerns with Che site plan, circulation, and project design were voiced by members of the Co®iaaion. A more detailed diacusaion of the Commiaeion'e concezna can be reviewed Sn the attached minutes from the December 9 and December 15, 1992 public hearings. The Co®iaeion'e primary mncerne can generally be aummarired as follows: Site Plan/Circulation The orientation of Che loading dock doors, which are located on the east and west aides of the store and which face Poothi ll Boulevard, were a public circulation and aeathatlc concern for the Commission. The internal circa lotion plan hoe potential for coat llcte between truck, automobile, and pedestrian traffic within the perking lot. 1~ CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CUP 32-18 - SMITN•S January 20, 1993 Page 2 Truck traffic along San Bernardino Road and truck ingress/e gresa from and to this street is undesirable to existing residents on both aides of the street. heaygn The amount and location of the project's parking within the activity center was not found to be consistent with the Poothill Boulevard Specific Plan. Following adoption of the Resolution of Genial For the Conditional Vae permit on De cembez 75, 1992, the applicant filed a timely appeal to allow the City Council to consider the npplication as proposed. amaLTSI6 A. Site plan/Ci rculatimn The Coamleaion felt that the design of the grocery store buildi nq with the dock loading arena fncinq the front of the center (Foothill Boulevard) was inconaiatent with other shopping centers which have been approved and coneiruMed within the City. The Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan requires that auto related facilities (i.e., working boys and etorege erase) be screened or oriented away from public views. It was the Commieaion's opinion that the docks warp not adequately screened with the trellis element the applicant was proposing and that any design that indicated docks in the front of the store was unacceptable. The Covent action indicated Shat these se rvlce related areas are typicn lly and more appropriately provided along the rear elevations of grocery stores and/or chopping centers to conceal delivery activity from public vies, particularly in an area which ie considered to he a major gateway into the western act coon Cf the City. The Coamdsaion Ee It there could be potential vehicular conf licta between car and truck traffic due tc the locetlon of the easterly dock area in such close proximity to the entry from Vineyard Avenue. The mitigations incorporated Into the project's design were not found acceptable. The Commisalon also felt such a confusing traffic pattern on the site could be potentially dange roue to pct destrlane es well. B. cee19n The Cwmiasion also felt the parking lot would be a dominant feature along FooLRill Bwleverd which could De inconeietent with the goals and design guide linen of the activity center concept act outlined £n the Foothill Boulevard Specific plan. At the public hearing on December 9, 1992, the Canuni salon received four letters from adjacent property owns ra to the north of the ~' CITY COUBCIL STAFF REPORT CUP 92-1B - SMITH'S January 20, 1993 Page 3 project siie end on the south aide of San Bernardino Aond. The letteze have been attached for Couneil review: however, the owns re were generally concerned Lhe[ Ueir percale would De difficult to develop if they were not included with Lhe Smith's Pood and Drug proposal. They also felt ae though a more aeatheticnlly pleasing project could be developed if the entire block were developed ae a whole. Additionally, a resident at the north •Sde of San Bernardino Road objected to large truck traffic on his street. OP'1'IDmB The City Council my consider three poeeible options regarding the proposed project: Uphold the findings of tM PLanaing Cc®SUiae and deny the project rithout prejudice. Direct the applicant to work wish statf end the PLtnning Commission to redesign the site pLn Sn order to sddreaa the concerns of adjacent property owners, nslhnts, and the Comiselon. Uphold the sppeal and approve Conditional Use Permit 92-18 as currently propomd. This item has bean adva rtised e• a public hesrinq in the Inland Valley Dally Bulletin newspaper, the property has Deen posed, and notices wen Bent to all property owners within Subarea 2 of the industrial Azee Bpe cific Plan. Rae lly tad, Br 1 r Ci Planne BH:HN:mlg Attachmnte: Exhibit "A^ - letter of Appeal Exhibit "B" - Planning Com;iseion Staff Aaport Deed Daosmber 9, 7992 Exhibit "C" - wwlutlon of Dental 92-151 Exhibit "D" - Minutes from hcembar 9, 1992 Planning Commission (Mating Exhibit "e" - Minuta• from clamber 15. 1992 Planning Coamsisaion Meeting Exhibit "F" - Laitare from Adjacent Property Owners Waolutlon of Denial 137 BEST, BEST & KRIEGER uwrlb wrv[bIOC a00 NOOTI. NAKN. WIT[ ItY Olal Ma.af90 IOfi Ofile[ a0a efw ONTAIIIO. CALIIOa NIA {I){I BALM VwlNef T[L[MON[ ONI as-aMf um azaazef i¢montw out 1ff-un DBCesbeY 23, 1992 MIicHO~MIwAOt OIf1 eu-tu l 71ECEIYEp ..~naFRiwplo gcuKCnworocn DEC 2 31992 Dabza Adass City Clerk City o! Ranchc Cucaaonga 10500 Civic cantor Drive Rancho Cucaeonga, California 91729 7 8 9 10 ll l2 i z ~ i 5 6 ~ an ~ k~~ Re: Appeal of Denial of Planning Coofesion'^ Daniel of Conditional IIse Persit 92-18 - 811th's . Dear Fla. Adass: Na have bean asked by our client, Srith's Food and Drug Cantors, Inc., to file with you, pursuant to Section 17.02.080 of the Dawiopsant Code o! the City of Rancho Cucaeonga, an appeal of the Planning Cosslssion'• decision on Deeesber 15, 1992 to deny s>tith's application for a conditional uN pareit. Ssith's asks that the City council approve the conditional use persit end the related aitigated Negative Declaration. A check in the asount of $126.00 is attached, as required by the City's !ea schedule. The basis for the appeal is 9sith's belie[ that the project as approved by the Design Review Coeeission and presented to the Planning Cosiaaion is consistent with the land vsa davalopsant standards of the City siW that the tindings for the issuance of a conditional use persit can and should Da ^ade in thin case. Attar reviewing the record and attending the hearing, we beli+va that the findings of Lott and conclusions of law in the resolution of denial adopted by the Planning Coesission ate not supported by signlticant evidence in light of the whole record. Na request that this natter be set for hearing at the City's earliest convaninnca. Vary truly yours, 1~,,~. ~. ~,~ Nynne S. Furth of Bast, Best i Krieger NSF/jr wrz7oi~ ~XNI~rt "All 1~ -CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT _ ~ ~~ DATE: DaCe:nbs[ 9, 1992 To: Chairman end Nembers of the Planning Commiaeion FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Beverly Niuen, Auaciate Plannsr SVBJE T: $gyjgQlN$gTjy ASSESSMENT AND CONDiTZONAL V96 PEAMZT 92-18 - SNITli•s - Thm dwslopment of • co®ercial ahoppinq center conaiatinq of a 75,000 equate foct groeery store, ew ute111te 6uildinga of 3,500 square feet uch, and a drive-tAzu pad of 6, eDD square feet on 10.6 acrma of land in the Co®unity Commercial Dieerict (Subarea T) of tM lootbill Boulward Specific Plan, located K the northMeet corner o[ foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-1OT-03, 5, B, 15, 20, T1, and a9. Associated with thl• project Le Tree Removal Permit 9T-17. A. Action Reaueeted by Ammliaant: Approval of • Cand it ional Vee Permit for the dwmlopment of a 75,000 aquarm foot groeery store and conceptual •ite plan approval o[ tom ub111U Dulldinga of 3,500 equarm [mmt mach (Pala B end C) end conceptual approval of a 4,800 square foot pad (Pad A) [or driven-thru purpous and iuuanq of • mitigated Negative Declaration. Surroundinm Land Osw and Eonina: North - Vacant and uiRlnq apartment buildings; Coamunity Commercial (Subarea 2, Foothill eoulward Sgcilic Plan). south - Vacant; Community Commercial (Subaru T, Foothill Boulward Specific Plan). but - Thomas Nlnery Plaza) Specialty Comoercial (Subaru 2, -oothill Boulevard Specific Plan). Nest - Cucamonga Creek Channel; !load Control. 0. General Plan DeLLonationr. Project Sib - CoaeMlrcial North - Comercial South - Caawrcial Eut - Commercial Meet - flood Control / P !1 ~ ~~ 'r 110.11 1JD PLANNING CONNISS I~ ,TAFP REPORT COP 92-13 - SMITH'_ December 9, 1992 Page 2 D. Slie CharacterLtics: The project •iG is approxlxu[aly 30.6 acre in •SU and elopes approximately 4 percent from north to south. Tha •its ie made up of several parcel •, all of which era currently ownal by Smith'^ food tad Druq. A house built by the Thames Eamlly in 1910 et ill aita on tM property. M uistinq restaurant building la located on the •ite a well as a vacant roller rink facility. Thus structures aze proposed for demolition wLth construction of the project. B. Parkinc CalcuLtionr Number of NumWr of Type of Vae Square Tootace Parking B1LSQ Spaces Spwes $l~ylilQ Provided Grocery Store 7{,896 1/250 300 Pad A (drivrthru) 4,800 1/75 64 Put rood Pad B 3,500 1/250 14 General Retail Pad C 3,500 1/250 ~ Oemral Retail TOTAL 392 475 A. General: TM appl SCUt is requesting to dwelop • 76,896 square tooc supermarket and a fast food drivrthru pad of {,800 square feet and two general retell pads of 3,500 square fact uch. TM review requatal for CM three lreee[andinq pads Ls eanceptul only and specific design rwlew o! tM architectural •levationa and •ite plan detail rill M required Sn the future when tMy ors proposal for development. TM proposal s1N plan •Lo includes dweiopsmnt o[ tM Activity linter concept at eM corner, including • wNr element and special paving eonalaNnt with the foothill Boulevard 9pacific Plan, and a palutrian Connection to the tutors Regional Multi-PUrpou Tratl locatal along Cucamonga Cruk Channel which borders tM •LU to eM west, TM project •!w provides • vehicular connection co tM vacant parcel to CM north at the corner of San Bernardino Road and -oothill Boulevard a part o[ • conceptual master plan. ' ~~ $ „~ a 140 PLANNING CONMTSSII STAFF REPORT CUP 92-18 - SNITB'a December 9. 1992 Page 3 B. Baekaround: A Pre-Application Revive ru conducted on the project on April 3, 1992, by the full Planning Coatmieeion. At chat meeting, tM Cemmiesion idwtif ied the following Uaues and suggested that they W addroeed in any tutus tubeitttlss 1. The challesge for LM applicant is to fit the 75,000 equue EooL building onto the site. 2. TM out-parcel to tM north should M masiu planned. 3. Thrw of tM Coaaalwioaera ware opposed to roll-up doors facing Foothill Boulevard and one of the Camissionera felt they might M suceuafully ineorparatW into the prejeet 1! uathetles and lxatlon issue ww coMidered. 4. Natal coo[ L not dedrabU. 5. TM uchlterture of the project should not rmflect that o! tM Thames NSMry shopping cents. 6. rnglnwrltq and Xiatoric Preservation concerts wem Mt dimcusssd. TM applicant mhauld eonmult with tM Flre Dimtrict to detmrmiM if tM awondaty drivway otf Vineyud Avenue could M turf blocked aM rhstMr • tsjoelty of the draw aisles could M reduced Co 2{ lest. The Xiatoric Prewrvaeion Co~imalon rill eonmidmr thm projwt since [M original Cueaeonga Poat Office wm located on LM site. 7. TM applicant should revive tM AMivity Centu concept. 8uildingm of es appropriaN aeaL should M added and cited ai tM eorMr. C. Design Awiw CerittNS TM Design Rmviw Cosalttw (Ne1cMr, Tolaeoy, Coleman) re.larad tM peojeet on OetoMr 6, 1992, and retosmendad tM [ollovlnq emvimloM~ 3. TM applleabt indieatmd that !M rock maeerial utlllaad on tM mton ram mlallar to that of tM Naytarer'• Chapml and Tallesin Nemt. TM Caasittmm felt this wes utseeeptabU, bmewes CM aces ram nosed !or river rock (Lm., mmooth, roundmd eobbleelJ however, tM Ccamittw ram willing to revive mpwitle dmtailm, pheeogeapM, and wurlal samples o[ how ahm material could work and whmeMr or not it would tit into LM contort of eM •iu. Traditional river rock wes auggestmd es an albrestlw which would W eaepatlbla with river reek approved !or tM noreMamt and eoutheset corMr o! eM inUresctlon !t thm othmr typm of KoM lm deternlned not to 6m approprlau. u $ ~ w 141 PLANNING COlOfISb II ,TATT AppORT CUP 92-18 - 9MITB'a Becember 9, 1992 Page a 2. The Co®ittN pr•f•YY•d tM ucond option foY the diiv-thrui hmwver, they required Ghat the drive-Lhru lane W ecresvd from Toothill Boulevard. M illuetretiva crop-action .Mould W promiad to the CommittH for further rwiw. 3. A master plan which lncorporaLa aceeu to tM parwll to the north should M provided. 4. Landscaping should b• provided in front of and adj seen[ to the Smlth'• builainq. 5. No cart storage should W allowed in front of the grocery atom building. 11 letter from Bmlth'^ agreelnq to this condition should W submitted prior to achedullnq toz Planning Co•miuion. The Committee •uggeated wing the triangular apace betwNn the atom and the loading arse for cart atonge. 6. Tha mass of tM Cower should W modified by lncrasinq its height and width. 7. Tha eise of tM Cre111• coluene on the front elwat ion should W carefully studied and pouiDly increued in d•peh to W aquas in shag. In addition, tM aisa of tM tall is smmbars should W apaeified. 8. TN pedeatrlan connletlon t0 the front of tM atom should line up at 90 degrsea wish the front entrane•, rather than angled a currently shown. 9. Bpeolel paving (aggr•qete Einiah or lnterlockinq pavers( should b• prwSdsd in front of the entire •ntryaay acrou aM driveway. 10. Large canopy tree. (not tM prunua ceraaiGa) should G prwidad fos shading o[ tM parking lot, additional trace should W added to CM parking lot and may M planted adiawnt to chm light standard., with eh• height of the 11ghC Dainq lower (l.e., maximum 15 levy than the wantual canopy halght of the tree. 11. The rKalnlnq walla along Vineyard Avenue and Poothlll Boulward should G treated with the same typo of cork that rill W provided on the Dulldinq front. 13. Reduign the 9mith•e entryway to provide • second set of glue door ether than a forced air barrier or eliminate CM dividing wall between the entrance and exit to provide • more invleinq entree... ~~ b,~(~ 142 PLANNING WlMI38Ir 'TAFF REPORT COP 92-18 - SNITN': December 9, 1992 Page 5 13. TM Foothill BouLvard Activity Canter/landscape conppt should continue Liam she corner to the channel along Foothill Boulevard and from the corner to the northerly driveway along Vineyard Awnua. Terraced rock walla should be provided to minimize 2:1 •lopss. 16. The veneer of the two 6uildinga at the corner of Poothlll BouUvard and vineyard Awnw should De constructed of tM rock material. 15. If tM two building pads at the corner era not developed at the ease time ve the grocery store, then the streetscape should M developed up eo the Lwl of pad and CM pads landscaped for erosion control. 16. Increased information on how tM [ut-food pad will work should W submitted, including • stacking study. 17. TM Co®ittee exprvesed concern that eM "aqueduct" element wu awkward, and combined with eke grade dltferential, would negatively affect Smlth'• view corridor. 18. TM bus atop shelter should C• redveigned to eliminate tM steeply pitched root elaarni. 19. Provide a rendering of the truck loading area to show how trucks would W servened. The applicant submittal avlssd plane and tM Committee (NCNiel, Ns1cMr, Colmn) reviewed the rev Led proposal on November 3, 1992, and indicated that soar of LMir concerns could became conditions of approval, while soma iveuse needed to be reviewed further by the Committee. Addit Tonally, certain •ite planning aapecU regarding tM Corner Pada B Md C were dLCUUed and may M incorpoated ve conditions of approval at a conceptual Lvel only. TM approval of tM specific architecture !or Pads A, 8, snd C we deLrred to • Tear date. The Committee recommended she plane G revised to addrves the following items at their November 17, 1992, meetings 1. TM poured in-place rock trutment proposed was not acceptaDL to the Committee. Additional •ltermtives, such as netiw river rock should M prevented for Cadaittee review and approval prior to scheduling CM proSect !or PLnninq Commiscion. 2. TM Might of tM tn11L Ln front of eM 9milh'• store should W lowered to convey a human scale. The ^ive of tM wood msml»n o[ tM tre11L •hou ld be incrveved. TM archiieat 11 2 ~~1i lYJ PLANNING CONMISS I( TaFF REPORT CUP 9T-1B - SMITN's December 9, 1992 Pages 6 lndiuisd that the •i z. of the membsr• wets 4 Lnchse x 4 inches, 4 incMS x 8 inches, and 4 inch. x 12 incho. The Cammittas fall the smallest member size •houltl be 0 inches x e inches with the other elements increased proportionately. The trslli• should not jwst plainly tszminaU at tM building face, but should somehow appear to be structurally supported. Tilm with a rafisz taetment antl pouihle texture around the edge might W Lneorporatsd. 3. TM rise and shapes o[ the tre11L columns should W Lncreaud and/or modified. a battered rides az a cruciform shape was sugqutad by the Coamittae. alw, the trellis structure should G pushed back swards she stow front with something more substantial than vines planiW in front. 4. The pyramidal shaped trellis element over [he Smith'^ entry door should M revised and provided with a solid rile roof element. 5. The roof of Che bus sMlter ie Kill too stamp and should W modilSed to rKUCt the shape of the lazger pyramidal element aver tM 9mith'• stop. TM bus shelter should haw soma Gyps of solid overhead etruMUSa rhieh will pcoteee bus paswngers from the rain. 6. Tna owrnud aqueduct elmaent connecting Pads a and C and tM bus shalbr should G •1 Leinated. 7. TRe Goa wa1L ad)aceni to Pads 3 and C should be tapered back at the mds rather than tetminKing abruptly. e. The landscaping/pedotrian wlkray area between Pads a and C and the parking lot should W increased to 10-1T !Nt in width minimum. 9. Saar landecaplnq at the corner of Vineyard Avenue and loothlli moul.vard ie appropziate7 however, a indicated, It lnterrupee the flow of pedotrian movement on the •ite. The corner should W doigned in an open manner and should inviu pedutriane onto eha cite. TM reLlact ing pool and fountain -re aecsptahL and may even M sealed down] horaver, the LreeKandinq call parallel to foothill Soulward between the too ut• of Kairwaye should W deleted. 30. TM veal. of the Kairway •lonq Vineyard avenw should M bolder, •lmilar to Coat which le provided along foothill Boulevard. 11. Tha metal pig handrail^ are not duinbla and should be dalKed or nduigned. ~, ~,~~( 144 PLANNING COt4fI86I0 TAFF REPORT CUP 92-18 - BXITN'a Gcambrr 9, 1992 Page 7 12. Thm egress lane onto Foothill Boulevard •hou ld be modif iad to axGnd the length of the landscape plantar area avrn with the end of stir first row of parking. The Committee reeommendad that the following items De included as conditions of approval for eha project: 1. Thr Grminq along Foothill Boulevard adjacent to Lhe drivr- thzu lane should G • minimum of 3 faa[ in Gight in order to adequately acrean care. 2. spacial paving (aggragata finish or interlocking pavara) should be provided in front of the ant ire entryway acroa• the driveway. 3. Tha retaining wa1L along Vineyard Avenue and Foothill Boulevard should ba treated with the acme type o[ rock that will G Drovided on the building front. 6. Tha Foothill Boulevard Activity Gntrr/landscape concept should continue from tG corner to the channel along Foothill Boulevard and from the corner to the northerly driveway along Vineyard Avenue. Terraced rock walla should G provided to minimize 2:1 slopes. 5. Tha veneer of the two buildings at the corner of Poothill Baulavard and Vineyard Avenue should be constructed or accented with the approved rock material for the Smith's atorafront. 6. If the two buildings at the corner are not drveLopW at tG acme time as the grocery atone, then the etzNbcape should G dwelopad up to the Uvel of the pads and landscaped for erosion Control. The applicant suhmitted rwiaad plena which were reviewed Dy tG Connittrs (MCNirl, Mrlchrr, Coleman) at tG msetlnq of November 17, 1992. The following Ltems lrom the previous meeting of Novrmbrr 7, 1992, wn tncorporated Into the reviud pro}rcts No. 1, 2, 7, t, 6, 7, B, and 12. Thr Coanttter racomman~ sooroval aublect to tM Eolla.inc. end oreviau• comesnb Of the Co®ittrr. Gina incorooratad a conditions of aooroval: 1. A to110, flat Du• shelur roof la permUa161r. V1Ma may G Lncosporated adjacent Co tG evpportinq columns in order to soften the structurr (addnura previous comment No. 5). 2. TG eonNpt o[ utlllzinq palm trees within tM Act LVlty tinter wu approvadj however, tG applicant should work with eta[! in order to deurmine tM moK appropriate eprcias during tG pLn check proen• (addrealu prwlou^ comment No. 9). {I ~~~{I 145 PLANNING COMRISSIC ~TAFP REPORT CUP 92-18 - SMITR'~ December 9, 1992 Pag. B 3. Ths metal pipe handrails are acceptable on a limited bssis when needed adjacent to atnizways. Color of the railings should 61snd in with the surrounding hardseapa and not W trentsd with an obvious contrasting color (addresses previous eonmant No. I1). 4. Tha pedestrian entrants to the East food pad should W Greatsd with a textured paving similar to what is propowd adjacent to the Smith's store sntranes (scored concrete with a broom tLnieh). 5. Conditions No. 1-6 from the previous Design Rwlw CommittN meeting will apply. 6. The grwn color of tM roof tiler window mulllom, and tinted windows anould W di/cusssd by the full Co~lssion. D. Tsehnical Reviw CoamittN: the Tech Leal Reviw Co®SttN 'reviewed the project on October 7, 1992, and approved it suhjsct to condi!Lons contained within the Resolution o! Approval. ENVIRONMENTAL A88638IeNT: Part I o[ tree Initial Study has Wen completed by tM applicant. Staff hu camplsLSd Part 2 of the Lnvironmental CMCkllst and found Coat tree project could nave •ignitieant effect on the environment in wvsral aces: A. Cultural Resources Study: Ths site has 6sen Sdentif led a part of • larger area that reprewnts an important physletl link to major hLtocieal periods in tW Rancho Cucamonga aru and as wch, Lhasa are many potentially significant impacb as well u a variety of Sdentlf Led and unldmtifisd cultural resource. The site was traversed by local native Americana prior to tW arrival of the Spanish eplorsre. TM dL was an Sntegral part of CW TurbicLo Tapia Rancho de Cucamonga wnicn Lncludsd the Thomas Ninezy and was tW location o[ the first post office in tree area, wnich was CommLSioned by Preidet Lincoln in 1861. Further, CM site still contains one o! eW fw structures built by the Thoma/ family for family smad»re and workers. This ^Sng1e family structure L/ located at BO10 Vineyard Avenue. It was built in 1910 and L/ of a craltaman architectural style. In addition, CW Thomu Rouw, looted at she corner of PootAill Boulward and Lan Bernardino Road, which hu Wen dsmollsWd, was built Sn 1926. Therdore, • Cultural Re/ource Study has Wen required, subject to Historic Preorvation Cansnluion rwiw and approval. TM /lady he Wan cn®1/alonsd and a coneulGnt hu been selected) howswr, at tW time of this puD11c haring, the study has not bean cgnplsud. A Condition o[ Approval regarding the study hu bem placed Sn tW Resolution o[ Approvals LI p, i, H lYV PLANNING COMMISSIO TAPF REPORT CUP 92-18 - SMITH'> December 9, 1992 Page 9 S. Ceolocic Review: The •ita i• located within the Clty'• deaignat« Spacial Study Zone for the inferred Red Hill Fault and ae each, the provinione cE the Alquiet Priolo Act npply. The preliminary geotechnical Snveetlgatian concluded that the proposed retell stores could M aebjeet to •ign if icant groundshakinq which ceu ld r«ult from earthquakes on any of several ntarby active faults. However, based on the consultani'• investigation and data review, there is no evid«ee indicating that tM Aed Nill Fault pruents a ^igni[icant ground rupture hazard to [he proposed dewlopomnt. Reeonmendations Contained in the report have b«n incorpornNd within the conditions of Approval in the attaohed R«olution of Approval. The q«technicel investigation is currently under independent revi« by an outside consultant cho«n by tM Clty. Arbarist Report: TM arborUt ceport ident lfied 23 mature tr«s of varying epeei« on the site. The arborist recommended that the two large palm tr«e (Naahingtonia robusta and Nashingtonla filihta) W relocated on the •1G. several other tr«e (Pious canariensi e, Cedrue deodara, PLtanus acerifolia( may •leo G relocated with probable succ«a. The arborist h« ncomeended that the remaining tr«s on-eiL W removed. TM removed tree mould W sabjeet to tM tree replacement crlGria in the TrN Pr«ervation Ordinance. Pertinent conditions have b«n included Ln the attached ReaOlutlon of Approval. D. Noi« Studv: The •Lb may M impacted by road nol« frao Foothill Soulwar0 and Vineyard Avenue « indlcsud in the Noi« Element of tM Geneul Plan. A Note Study will be required to determine the noise source and level, and propose a mitigation rend monitoring progrw to ensure the reduction of inbrlor nol« level especially for Pade A, R, and C. M apptopsiab condition hu been included in tM attached R«olut ion of Approval. Staft conelud« that there will D9.f. be • significant effect on the environment Sn this u« Decauu of the mitigation meuuru which have been included in CM project d«lgn or ae condlt Iona of Approval within the atttehed Mwlution. Therefore, Lf star rwlewinq the proposed miGlgttlon wasur« specified within the Reeolut ion, the Comola^ion concurs with etaff'• findings, then i«uance of a mitigated Negative DecLration would G in order. PACTS FCR tINDING9: In order for CM Plano Lnq Coamiulon to approve iM project, the following [acts for findings must be made: A. The proposed u« Ls !n accord with the General Plan, the objective of tM Dwalopment Code and the loothill sou levard Specific Plan, and tM purpo«s of tM district In which the ^iu i• located. B. TM proposed ue, together with the eondte lone applluDle thereeo, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properti« or improvements in the vicinity. 147 11 2 ~/1N PLANNING CONHISSIf TAe^F REPORT CUP 92-18 - SMI TH'a December 9, 1992 Page 30 C. The proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions o! the Development Code and Industrial Araa Specific Plan. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has bean advert iced ae a pubic hearing in the Inland Va11ev Oaily Bulletin newapapae, the project has been pasted, and notica• were cent to all property owners within Subarea 2 of the Foothill Boulava[d Speci[ic Plan. ItEC014QtNDATION: Sttff recosmenda that the Co®iadon neslve all public tutiawny on the project. If, attar reoeiv ing all teat imony, the Co®leaion eoncun with Lhe findings suggested, then ieeuanu of a mlt igated Negative DecLration sad appzoval of Conditional Uo Permit 92-18 through adopt Lon of the attached Resolution o! Approval would be in order. In addition, the CommLsion shell rwiew LM proposed colors and roof ells materiel, which will De presented at the public hearing, and make a tecoavoendation regarding their aceapta611ity. Respect submltGd, Brad r city Planner Be: BN:mlq Attachmentu Exhibit 'A^ - Exist inq Paresl• 8xhlblt "B" - Sits Plan Exhibit 'C^ - Grading Plan Exhibit 'D^ - Building Elsvst ions Sxhlbit 'E" - Tree Plan Exhibit 'F^ - Activity Cenisr 6xhLDit 'G^ - Perspective SkstcM• 6xhiblt 'H" - Landscape Plan Resolution of Approval 1" ~~ R'~p ~' I ~~~, ~.,~ _ , ~' crlY of ~uvc#o..cuc,vvcoNCA PLANNING DMSION ITEM: TI'Il..E: EXlS'fIUC~ Yl~P1,GL5 ~ EXHIBIT: pt SCALE: 149 u ~-~D" ~_ f ` <j7 _ i CI'[l' OF RANCFiC3.,CUCAMONGA PLANNING DMS[ON 4 ITEM: C U~ a2 -10 rrrLE: r EXHIBfC: ~J SCALE: 150 N ~}, ~~I ~ .,.. ~\ ... '_? 17EM: Z CITY OF RANCHO. CUCAMONGA PL,ANIVING DMSION TiTf"E' ~~~~~~`~' cwt N EXHIBIT: C SCALE: „~,~,, 151 yW O t_ ~_ 4 F .x+. ~~ ?~,~~n ~~~~ O~ U ~~ r~ J CC z a 152 t I ~: 4 ~ ~ S µ~. C F cu U > ~~ z z J ~ ~' ~~.~~IA° 153 N_ 4 ., y;~ N ~~ U > ~~ z z J~ ~ ii ~~~p 154 :~ I F fir ~ ~~ ~Q • CG J 155 y ~i ~~ ~~: >U Z Z Z ._~ , CITY OF RANCHO.,CUCAMONGA PLANNING DMS[ON ['[EM: CUP A2 -IB rmE: TErt $.A1.1 N EXHIBIT: E SCALE: 1~ ti ~,I~u L i N Ji f l l I n I I I I I I I I! I I n ug~~~u U ,~ n ~~ ~ .~ J z r~^' < ~ :J ~ ~ 157 ;max, y - i~ ~~ i a ~~ <I ~i 7, 16 { ~)~~' il°?. n ~ , ~J.~° ~ y ~ G D LLi ~~~ ~Ey U~ .. ~ ~ _~ vy~ Z ~y_., ~ ;,~ : e 158 i ,, %~~ !, i I ~'~ '!,I i \~ ~I ~~ j I~ ?, E i ~,~~ fie` ,~ ,~ I ~: i~ ~~ ~~ J~ r. ~~ yvy,, ~ 7_ t`^" ~ J5 E n ~ ,~~~ 159 a j9i tl' ~ + Q -~' .~i m ~i >r Y 4 t S i 8 y~ i ~ ~ Wy~ ~• 8 x' W .~~ 0 { ~ ~ 4 ; . e le ~ ', ~',/ ~ :<: ' ~ ., ~ , i~ tl ~~ lyll S i ~ i C F J > n - ~J ~ Z z ~~ < r J "'~ s 160 i { it 'I ii 'i it A'' • ! }+ii ; `` z! i . ~ ,. _ ~t { s W ! ~a e ' ~' i t1 i ~ / ' HP;ii;:i ('s!!!fj~l!~r}{Ili!{ ga':hl~ii y }7 ~.. y ~ J ^ 3 1 ii /'Ir~~Ilr~1 /~Ir~rr/ ~~Q ~j ~srar orirr ~r rrr rrr ~` _ T §~^ ~i ± ~ Lei '' _ - ";; i~l ~ JAI`- 1 ~``(.•I !i ii 11 ii i 1 I ,{ii{ ~I ~ i '1,? ,!~ Y a P~ i 3. ;~ Pf a ~ 3 or we»nor. s~iK~oo• I --~-~- - :/ - ~ ---- '__'__aw,w~m.__-_J ~ `~ ~ ~~a i e Y a :w ds 1'~ '' ~ , I : ',r I~ ~' ~ !, ~'~ a ~ '!! I ~e a ',Ili ,,~ A l it ~i µ~I C F- 5x }{ 3~0 U,~s ~~ Z C; 161 _e ___ S _T -a ~ 3 ____ ~- - -_ _ _. ~'--- 'I .~~ J ~1 i ~i I 6g C _ ~ ~~! :; __ . ~;~ ~ n ~J _- - ~ ~! ~~ t ; ~~J o ~ r i o \~~. ~j f= ~~ - r-_-I _ ( '!~ ~' a ! ii Ih 4 U G_ }~ ~ Z [F^_ Z Jd ~~ ~ , ~~~ 162 RESOLUTION N0. 92-151 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CVCAMONGA, CALIFOAN IA, DENYING, WITHOUT PAES UDICE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 92-18 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A COMiD:RCIAL SHOPPING CENTER CONSISTING OF A '/5,000 SQUARE FOOT GROCERY STORE, TWO SATELLITE BUILDINGS OF 3,500 SgOARE FEET EACH, AND A DRIVE-TNRU PAD OF 4,800 SQUARE FEET ON 10.6 ACRES OF LAND IN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (SUBAREA 2) OF THE FOOTHILL BWLEVAAD SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF FOOTN ZLL BOULEVARD AND VINEYARD AVENUE, AND HARING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 207-102-03r 5, 8, 15, 20, 21, AND a9. A. Rac itals. (1) Smit h'e Food 6 Drug ha• filed an applicst ion for the issuance of Conditional Use Permit No. 92-18 ae described in the title of thin Resolution. Hereinafter in thi• Resolution, the subject Conditional Uss Permit request is referred to ee ^the application." (ii) On the 9th day of December 1992, the Planning Commieeion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly not icetl public hearing on the applieat ion and concluded said hearing on that dais. (iii) At the conclusion of the above-noted public hearing, the Planning commieeion directed staff to prepare a Resolution of Denial Eor approval by ohs Commies ion on Dsesmber 15, 1992. (iv) All legal prerequisites prior to [he adoption of this Aeso lution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREPORE, it i• hereby found, detezmined, and resolvetl by the Planning Commieslon of CM CLty of Poncho Cucamonga a• follows: 1. This Commission hereby epsciflcally finds that all of the facto set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Reno lutien era true antl correct. 2. Bued upon substantial evidence presented to this Commieslon during the abovrreferencad public hearing on December 9, end coot inued to December 15, 1992, including written and orsl staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby spec if trolly finds es follows: Ia) The npplicat ion applies to property locaUd ee the Wort hweet corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue with a •trost frontage of 770 test along Foothill Boulevard and a lot depth of 780 Eeee. Tha propoasd site i• compoud of several parcels and i• presently improved with a vacated roller rink and resteu cant, a fray stand inq vacated ree[nurant and aesoc toted parking lot with landscaping, and a one-story, wood-framed resldmcaj end ~(H 11911' "G „ 1~ PLANNING COMMISSION OLOTION NO. 92-151 CUP 93-18 OsNIAL - Sr._:H'S Dacembe[ lsr 1992 Page 2 (b) The properties to the north of the aubjact site ors partially vacant and developed with two apartment bu tidings, the property to the south consists of vacant property south of Foothill Bou lavsrd, the property to the east ie Commercial east of Vineyard Avenue, and the property to the went is the Cucamonga Channel; and (c) The application contemplates the development of a 75,000 square foot grocery et:°ra, two satellite buildings (B b C) comprised of 3,500 equ are feet each, and n drive-Chru pad consisting of 6,800 squ era foot; and (d) The application, a• proposed, would be detrimental to the public health, safety, and we if era and does not comply with each of the applicebl• provisions of the Development Coae and the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plsn for the fallowing reasons: (1) Tha arehitectu re and related design elenwnts within the proposed project, as ref lacted Ln this application, ere not cone istent witn tM gosU, policies, and doign quidelinu of tM Foothill BouLvtrd specific Plan wnicn stereo the following: 1) In Sect ion 4.5.1, that vehicular traffic through adjacent tesidentlal atreet• shall ba minimized; 2) In Section 8.2.2, that Activity Canter perking lot• daelnsting ehs strset aeons are speeitieelly prohibited sad auto-related feeilitis• (i. •., working bays, storage, etc.) shall bs screened or oriented away from public views, buildings shall be sited antl du igned to minimize pedestrian/whicls conflicts and avoid locating driveways and service areas whlcn SnGrfere with ehs flow of Foothill Boulevard pedestrian movements; 3) In Section 8.2.5, tnat in Activity Canter locations the parking areas shell be looted to the rear of buildings; and 4) In Section 9.4.7, that perking lots beewean the front property line sad major structures are strongly discouraged. (2) Ths design o! the smith's store, a• proposed, prow idu loading dock Eacilit ie• an the out and west Bides of the stores which face Footnill Boulevard and are, therefore, inconsistent with the design of other major supermetket• in Aancho Cucamonga which treat onto major thoroughfares. The location and orientation o[ loading facilitis• axe typically provLded along the tear elevations of grocery stores and/or •nopping canters to eoneul dsllwry activity frao public view, pare lcu larly in an area whLCh i• considered to 6e • major gateway into eM wuGrn section of tM city. (3) The locac ion o[ the loading dace crate potentially dangerous vehicular conf litre between truck and car traffic within the parking lot. In add Ltlon, each a potentially dangerous and contusLnq tra It lc patutn within the perking lot could be hazardous to pedestrians sneering and sx iting the store. (4) Truck traffic along San Bernardino Aoad and truck ingro•/agree from and to this saner which 1s proposed by the project s1U du ign, is undesirable to ezUCinq neidencu along bosh sides of the street. 164 PLANNING COMMISSION 'OLVTION NO. 92-151 CVP 92-13 DENIAL - 3n.TH'S December 15, 1992 Page 3 3. Based upon the eubstant iel evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing anc upon ens specific findings of fette set forth in peragraphe 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes ae fa llowe: (a) Thet Cha proposed use ie not in accord with the General Plan, [he oDjeci ivee of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site ie located. (b) That tM ptopoeed uw, together with the conditicne applicable thereto, will be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially iniurioue to properties or improvemantr in the vicinity. (e) That the proposed ute tloea not comply with each of the appiicab la provie ions cf the Deve lopnieni Code and Foothill Boulevard Specif lc Plan. 4. Based upon the findings and concluelone eai forth in peragraphe 1, 2, end 3 above, [hie Conmiuion hereby dories, without prejudice, the apolicatio n. 5. The Secretary to th la Commin Lon shell certify to the adoption of Chis Resolution. APPROVED AND Af10PTE0 THIS 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 1992. PLANNING COM)(~SSION OP TXE CITY OF RANCHO COCAMONGA U n ) \ . n T. McNlel, Chairman ATTEST: I, Brae But Lr, Secretary of tM Planning Commission of the City of Rancho cucamongn, do hereby certify that the [oregcing Ruolut ion was duly and regularly introduced, paced, and adopted Dy the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a ragulsr meeting of the Planning Commission Mid on tM 157h day of December 1992, by the following voU-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHIT IBA, MCNIEL, TOL STOY, VA LLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: MELCHER ABSENT: COMNISSIONERS: NONE 165 Mr. Buller agreed it woultl De appropriate to remove all portions of the wa}1 in 't hat arse beeauee of the condition of the number of lots in the area. _, Chairman. ReNiel questioned if the City owns Lot C Erom the adjoining Jh set. /~ Mr. Buller etatad the City doe• own the lantl and will qu It glaim it to the lots being created with the auDdivis ion. r,~ Chairman McNiel questioned the diapoeit ion of the area fiarked natural at the southern portion of Lot 19. Mr. Coleman noted that Engineering Condition 5 rYquiree the developer to make a good faith of fort to offer it to the owner,o'E Lo[ 44 to the west because of the difference in grade from the. remainder ~f Lot 19. r' Chairman McNiel observed Gnat the motiah had been med• and wcondsd to issue a Nsgat ive Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Tentative Tract 14116 with modification Co combine dti9eway of ewo of the lots at the end of Santa Clara Couzt. Notion earned py Cho following vote: o' AYES: COMMISSIONERS :~~' CNITIEA, MCNIELr MELCNBR, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERA: NONE AHSBNT: C0MNI55IOYERS: NONB ~cerried ~I~ 1 Chairman McNls1~.•hoted that the appeal process wes eve ilable to the residenb of the conmug~y. He meted tnat an alternat iva of working wish the developer would aLo.tfe available. . ..r. Planning commission rece •aed from 8:56 p.m. to 9:10 p.m. -'., • • • • • V I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL OSB PERMIT 92-18 - SMITH'S - The dwalopment of • commercial ^hoppinq center consisting of a 75,000 square foot grocery store, two utellite buildings of ],500 square feet aech, and a drivrehru pad of 4,800 square feet on 10.6 acres of land in the Communi[y Commercial District (Subarea 2) of the Poothill Boulward Specific Plan, located at the northwsse corner at Poothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-102-03, 4, E, 15, 20, 23, and 09. Stsff recommsnd• iuuancs of a mitigated Negat ivs Declaration. Beverly Nissen, Auociau Plenner, prountad Cha staff reporC. Brad Buller, City Planner, noted that the City hed received lsttar• from adjoining property owners exprening their concerns and those isttere were in front o[ tM Commiuioners. Commiuionsr Tolseoy eked i[ any lines of eight had been prepared to show the view of the [ruck loading and shopping cart arose from Foothill Boulevard. Planning Commies ion Mlnutsa -13- December 9, 1992 Exhibit "'p" 166 Ma. Nieeen stated there had been sketches of the areas but they were ae viewed from the site, not from Foothill Boulevard. Commies inner Tol etoy asked if there were any prow ie ions foz receae ing any vending machinea which may be placed in front of the store. Me. Nieeen responded that the applicant had agreed to race ea any vending machinea but a condition had not been added. Chairman McNiel opened the public nearing. Larry Rlanq, Smith's Pood 6 Oruq Center, 1618 Thomas Place, Fott Worth, Texas, stated their facilities era combination supermarket and drug stores. He stated they had surveyed the trade area and ea lected the airs as being the beet location. He indicated they Ded Burtheeetl six percale cf land which represented a eubatantial investment in the community. Ha atatad shay had been in the entitlement protss• for IB manehe and ha felt Chair project would clean up a blighted entrance info the City. He requested that the application Da approved because they were anx iou• to proceed but they were concerned regarding some of the conditions. He said their architect end engineer were present end would oak specif lc quartions about the conditions. Comm aeioner Xelcher observed the Commission had received Eovr lefts r• free property owners on San Bernardino Road indicating that Smith'• had Deen in uerow at one time but had since decided not to perches thou propert ire. Xe requested that Mt. Kleng give some input on the matter. Mr. Rlang stated that at one time those three properties had been under contract and Smith's had put up a sub etentisl amount at earnest money, but Smith'• decided to forEsit the earnest money because they did not feel they could get effective use from that much land In the development and moat the City's and Smith's roquirsmente. He •aid that' could not gat enough building area in the tot el project to justify the purchase of those ado it tonal propertiu. Ha said they had therefore decided to scale down the project. Prescott Muir, Prescott Muir Atchitecte, 1746 Berkeley Street, Ssnta Monica, thanked staff Eor working with them during the Design Review pzoeees. He felt considerable change had from made and Che project had been conaitlerably Lmproved by the prone. He remarked that when they originally submitted iha project tMy used • gmerlc store •iu of 75,000 square test, but the actual footp[int of the stare had 6sen reduced to 71,420 square Eeet with mezzanine apace producing • 79,551 equan Eoot ^ton. He stand that Smith'• does not anticipate locating vending maehine• in front of the store, but they would ba willing to ens lose any machinea if they should der ids to add sham in the future. Me stated plena for such erchiucturally Greeted ens losnree could be provided prior to pulling building permits. Hs showed their proposed grey concrete til• to be used in place of the originally proposed teal color. He proposed chat the blue-gnm paint finish 6e used on the window mullions and the glee ing tint •LO 6e blue-gash, but said tMy would consider changing i[ the CommL•ion felt that would ba inappraprlate. Na said they had wme concerns with condlt lone a outlined In CM proposed rewlut ton. Hs as id they would like to move iha project forward and did hoc want [M concerns to be an Planning Commie ion Mlnutee -14- December 9, 1992 1V/ impediment to the process. He requestetl that the Uniform Sign Program approval not bo required prior to issuance of building permits, but tat het prior to iaavance of a Cert if ieate of Occupancy. He observed that in their experience CalTrane is very Blow in project review and ha requested that Planning Div iaion Conditions No. 16 and 15 be changed to require CalTrane drainage acceptance and elope drainage acceptance prior to Cert if icats of occupancy rather Lhan prior to issuance of grading perm it a. He remarked that the cedar tree they ware ba ing tequ Lred to ra locate under Planning Condition No. 28 would cost between 530,000-540,000 and there woultl be a chance the tree would not survive. He observed that 540,000 would Duy a loL of new trees and he felt it would be more reasonable tc increase other landscaping in lieu of attempting to reloeaie the tree. He felt they should not be required to construct the 32 feet of pavement on the south tide of the Foothill eoulsvard median and asked that the condition be changed to indicate consttuetion would be that which ie rsqu ire4 by CalTrane. Ha noted that Engineering Condition No. 2d st nted the developer may request a rsimbureament agreement but there «as no guarantee the request woultl be honored. Mr. Muir reques[ed that Engineering Condition No. 4 be changed to orate that they would make a goo0 f sith •f tort to negotiate with property owners to gain rights of way but would expect the City to offer the rights of eminent domain tc proceed with condemnation if an sgzeamsnt could not ba reached. He novd they ware being asked to there in in-lieu feat and reimbursement fees in previous and yet-LO- ba-built improvamanter and hs did nos feel that surrounding properties were being asked to participate in deferment of costa where Smith's was making the improvements, such as in curb and gutter and right-ot-way improvements. He quasi toned why they would need to qo heyond cueamonga Cnek to underground utility poles and felt undergrounding should 6e limited to the project tide of the ezeek• Ha tali L[ should ba condltionstl upon the availabil ity of existing condo its to the bridge which could accommodate the bearing of the utilities a• M thought the cost of extending utilit is• through the existing bridga would be exuuive. Ha stated that where Smith's L being asked to pay for previous improvements, they would expect subsequent tlevelapers to share In the cost of improvament• being made in the public right of way. Ha requested eliminet ion of Engineering Cond ltlon No. 6 because he felt they thou ld not have co contr ibut• in-Liw fans tar improvsmanU where they will be reconstructing pravlou• improvements. Mr. Muir etatad their intent in making the improvameni• to Sen Bernardino Road was to aceonmwdata truck Lrsff ie so they could route delivery trucks to the cantor via San Barnard ino Road. Ha objected to Englneerlnq Condition No. 9 setting a J-ton limit on the read end felt the limit should be utablisMd based on Lhs actual truck loads they intend to impose on tM street. xe requeeud that approvals Erom Lha San Bernardino County Health, Cucamonga County Water District, end school dietrict• Da raga ired prior co Csrt it icate of Occupancy rather than prior to issuance of building permits. He stated they were not trying to avoiA compliance with Condit lone, but merely trying to expsdit• grading and construction. He aburvsd Lheic landscape architect and civil engineer were available to answer questions. Calvin Road, 736 Santa Victoria, Solana Reach, stated hs i• a part owner of the apartment building at 8863 San Bernardino Road. Hv ohurvsd that he had submitted • 1st Ur to the Commloion requuting that Smlth'• develop the entire area a• a •ingl• project. He felt the changed uw would make it Planning Commies ion Minutes -15- December 9, 1992 its difficult to refinance or ae11 the apartment building. He requested that the City work with Smitn'a to make the project work an the entire eorrer of land. Ma noted that Mr. %l ang had mentioned that it seemed impoeeible to meat the City's requirements end still include those parrs le. Me felt the development would be nicer looking without the aging apartment bu ildinge over locking the canter. Richard Aeichelt, 1A46 North Vallejo Way, Vpland, stated he is part owner of the apartment building at 8863 Snn Bernardino Road. He provided pictures of iha Oevalopment on the teat aide of Vineyard and the apartment buildings. He noted that hs had submitted a letter dated Oecember 2, 1992, and asked if that woo ltl be part of the record. Chaltman McNiel aaeurad him it would be part of the record. Hr. Reichalt •iaiad that in June 1990 they had bean Contacted by Smlt h'• agent regarding sale of their property. He said a price was eetabiished and they agreed to ae 11. He acid no further negotiations had taken place and Smitn'• nod never contacted them regarding any problems w!th pricing. He felt dwelopment by one owner would be a benefit to the Clty, Smith's, and tM taxpayers. Ne wid tMy ware introduced to the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan in 1990. Ns [nought the Foothill Boulevard Speclt is Plan intends Loaf • tingle party develop the entire corner under a master plan. xe •aid Sm1eR'• nod now constricted the pLn to alLd thomsslvu fns privilege of a prime dwQopment spot with the concurrence of the City Planning Commission which will leave s blighted area for the City with limited future development. He said the remnant pared wee Deing pictured Eor future development with two buildings and a perking lct but he felt SC would not be poeeiDle to develop with two 2,000 square foot build inq• and msM a profit. He to It the blighted area would remain unlee• it i• condemned, torn down, or burned. He oleo Eelt the increased traffic end limited perking on San Bernardino Raed would De a constraint for the apartment buildings. He did not feel Lhe remaining parcel• are economically developable parcel• tingly. He ea id 1f the three remnant parcel• were copse lidated, it would mean they would need to meet new development requirement• Lne lud ing possibly looking for Indian bonne and poet of Lice and paying for a etrest light, curbs, etc. Ne did not Eeel a small investor could afford those conditions. He observed thaC bnanL era leaving the apartment building and M felt that Smitn'• current plan would cause Alm uvere financial louu. He stated Cha Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan relit for s minimum parcel cf two acres, 200 feat wide and 175 feet deep. Hs Bald Che combimd frontage of tM two apartment nooses only equals 140 feet and would not meet the two-acre minimum. Ha felt the remaining parcels would be a small antra ezpenu [or Smitn'e to absorb antl would make a better project. Ne noted that ne had talked with the Planning Div ieion and they had emphasized tM fact that the City cannot force Smith's to purchase eneir property. Ha staUd that he admired Smith's for their ocig anal proposal, but he was now concerned about the residue left Eor Rsncno Cucamonga. Ne questioned Lf Smlth'• propowl follows the Foothill Boulevard Speci[Lc Plan. Ne remarked tnat pia tenants would have to view an unplanned rur view of CM dove lopment with a steep embankment and no block wall. He feared the children from the apartment house could fell down the embankment. Planning Commlu ion Hinutes 46- December 9, 1992 169 Maria Aeichelt, 1846 North Vallejo Way, Upland, part owner of the BB63 San Bernardino Road apartment building, statetl they had lost tenants who had been there for seven ye are because they feared trucks would be using San Bernardino Aoad and they did not wish to live there because they had chiltlren. She caked Lha! iha City do whatever coultl ba done to have her property purchased or condemned. Patricia Mejie, 409 South Daleaford Drive, La Puente, part owner of the apartment 6u tiding at 8851 San Bernardino Road, noted that the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plnn calla for a minimum of 2 acres, 700 Eeet wide and 175 feet deep, for Community Commercial tlave lopment. She noted that the plan also calla for internal circulation patterns to direct traffic away from surrounding rw idential ne ighborhoode. She felt their property would be negatively impacted by the Smith's driveway. She remarked her father hatl had a etreae attack because of the problems associated with the proposed Smith's development. She stated they had loaf tenants batauae of ens development. ed Combs, 617 North Cont rat Avenue, Dpland, owner cE eDDe Vineyard Avenue, Rsncho Cucamonga, noted he had provided a four-page letter. Ha felt the development of Smith's will ba s great suet to the Clty. He uitl he hatl been aDProachad in 1990 to Bell eha parcel and ha intormetl Smith'• that he had an approval project and had pulled building p+rmiU and paid auociaUd fees. Ha seLd ha rejected the offer and wa• informed by Smith's that unless they were able Lo tie up the Mejie and Reichelt property as well ae hie, they would walk from the project and choose another cite. He said Smith agreed to pucchaee hi• property at a Eair end reasonable price and he felt that the best thing to do for both himself and the City would be to Lntegrata hie parcel into the Smith's project. Ha then remarked that if the Smith's project were approved ae submittetl, he wanted to get hie previously approved, but now expired, project underway again, but he did not sea how it could work 6ecauae the diEtsrence in elevation from the accw• to Vineyard to hi• propsrty i• 16-18 teat. Chairman McNial queer icned why Mt. Combo had allowetl hie permits to expire. Mr. Combo rseponded Lhat he had mat with City Manager .Tack Lam, and even though the City had extended the permits as long a• legally possible, the parmit• expired earlier this year. He saitl he nad been under contract co 5mith'e si LM Lime, so ha could not sell, encumber, Lau, or refinance the propsrty. Ha uid that to of five days blare the •ecrow wa• to clover Mc. K Lang had indicated he did not know it they were going to buy the property. Raul Mej ia, 409 South Dalesfo[d Drlvs, La Puente, et ated ha is parC owner of the apartment building at 8851 son Bernardino Road, Rancho Cucamonga. He said he has been under a let of etreae and had been doing well until Smith's approached him to sell his property. He noted they had negoc tared and 5mith'• hatl agreed to hie pricing. Ha said [hat after opening escrow, hie tennntf moved or •toppetl paying not after huring about the Smith'• dwalopment. xa oaid he had a Hard time re-renting unie• baceu se he had to tall prospective ienant• that the building woo in escrow and would be torn down. He ea id his property i^ 6elnq dutroysd and ha cannot afford to kup rebuild lnq. He observed Chet Smiths had nwer contacted hLm to renegotitU the price, but instead just pu lied out of escrow. He hoped somsehinq could be worketl out ao PLnning Commie ion Minuts• -17- December 9, 1997 170 that SmitA'e would buy hie property because he feared hie parcel ie too small fot any other development. chairman McNiel quaetioned Mr. Mej ia'e vacancy rate. Mr. Mejia stated that currently nil four apartments era filled but two tenent• may move by the end of the month because of the situation. He said he had typically nod all four unite rented; but since the property had entered escrow he had experienced people moving in and out and not paying rent. Chairman NcNiel noted that part of the problem may be the general economy. Bill Nartag, 8837 son Bernardino Road, Rancho Cucamonga, ateted he liven on the northwest corner of San Bernardino Road and Vineyard Avenue, across the street. He felt that if the Smith'• project is approved without the three parole, the corner lot immediately across from him would be zoned [or a convenience marks! and ha did not want to live across the street from a small market. He objected to trucks using San Bernardino Road 26 hours a day. He eteted he did not want to pay for improvements to son Bernardino Roed. ' Chelrmen McNiel asked if Mr. Rlang o[ Mr. Muir would like to addree• the puDl is commsnL. Both Mr. Alanq and Nr. Fiu it responded negatively. Hearing no further testimony, Chairmen McNiel closed the publ Se hearing. He wkad if the smith's project meets the rsquirement• of the Foothill Bou LVerd specific Plan. Mr. eu ller stated that in staff's opln ion the project is in full compliance with the Foothill Boulevard specific Plan as related to master planning of the area. He said that come of the adjoining property owners had alluded that the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plen required the entire property from son Bernardino down to Poothlll Boulevard be developed ae one unit at one time and that was not trw. He noted that a good example ww the approval o[ Mr. Combs property, at which time Mr. Combs was asked to provide • master plan to shoe that the adjoining property could be developed harmoniously in the future. Be noted that the master plan from smith's did not preclude development of the property to the north. Chairman McNiel aekad the City Attorney to elaborate on the City's limitations or abilities to require smith's to include the three remnant parcels. Ralph Henson, Deputy City Attorney, stated the Clty looks at plane which ere wbmitbd to we if the plan meets the nwds, recommendations, and expectations for the area. Mf indicated there would be su Ef icient grounds for dmlal it CAe site plan i^ not epproprlab for Che proposed development. He w1d in this caw the City was being eked by adjoining property owner^ to look at adjsxent property which i• not before the Commlw tan. Ne stated tM City wu being asked to remedy a fatled buslneu deal by including a condition of approval which would force acquisition of addlt tonal property end the City cannot do that. Ns said the City must look at the ^ite plan and not consider Planning Commis •lon Minutes -1B- December 9, 1992 171 property valuations or negotiations which may have occurred and the City could not resolve Lssues between private part iea. Xe observed that a contlition of approval requiring purchase of the adjoining properi iee would not De valid becauu the CovmLeion must tletermine only if the presented site plan ie adequate. He acid if the site plan ae presented ie inappropriate because of the lack of those properties, then it would pe appropriate for ens Commission to tleny the project, Dut Che city mu et deal uitn the project as pzeeentetl to see if it ie valid. Chairman HcNiel eeked if the testimony presented was more of a civil matter. Mr. Henson stated that would pose ib ly be ices dependant upon the cant ractual agreements. Chairman McNiel seked that eiaff respond to Mr. Hartaq'• question about the possibility of being queued for impcovemente made to San Bernardino Soad. Dan James, Senior Civil Snginear, observed that if Hr. Haitsg develops in Che future, he would have to reimburse 9mith'a for public improvements along hie frontage. Chairmen McNiel euggeeted the Commission attempt to get etaff'a input on LRe questions raised by the applicant. Mr. Buller noted tMt a majority of quotion• raiud by the applicant are e matter of policy and sugguvd that tM Chairman review tRe rondiClon^ in question with the full commLdon. Chairman McNiel noted oM request was to Rave the uniform sign program approved prior to the iuuance of • wrtiticate of occupancy rather then prior to the ieeuanes o! building permits. He recalled that there had Dean problems on other projects in show instances where the adoption of rho uniform eign program had been delayed. Commi a loner Chitin agrNtl it would 6e inconf latent to delay adoption of the unttozm sign program. Mr. Buller felt that a sign program for Ghie center would not W difficult because tRere Le only one main building anO thrw future pad build log •. eRairman MCNL1 asked for ¢nginurinq Division's input regarding Plano lnq Condltione No. 14 and 15 requiring CalTrana approval for drainage acceptance and the slops dra lnags acceptance letter prior to iuuance o! grading permits. Mr. James noted Lhst the Building end Safety Division would not eign off on the plane without an approval from CalTrens. Mr. Buller ssid staff would not recommend any chengs to chose conditions. Chairman McNiel agreed there should be no change. Commlwioner Tolatoy agreed Lhae then could be • lot of pro6leu it eM City allowed grading to begin prior to CalTrens approval. P1ennlnq Commission Minute -19- December 9, 1991 172 Chairmen McNiel noted there had been a question raised regarding replanting the cedar tree. Mr. eullor acid the Commission had discretionary action to allow the applicant to improve the quantity or size of other vegetation on the property Ln 11eu of relocating that particular tree. Commialioner Chitioa asked the age and size of the tree. Commissioner Tolatoy felt it would be Dotter to enhance the remalndar of the landscape plan beuwe the tree may not survive if ii i• moved. Ma. Nissen etetad'the tree ie 60 feet tall end 30 feet wide with a 66-inch trunk circumtersn<a. Shs Crated the arboriet'e report statae the trp i• healthy with a 75 percent chance of survival. Nr. Buller suggested SmiCh'• may wish to look ai donat inq the tree if it was found acceptable to remove the Cree from the site. Commie ions Melchor noted that the applicant was not resisting relocating any of the other tzu• and he felt the chances of loss should M considered. Ha agreed with Cammiseioner Tolatoy. CRairwn McNiel agreed. He noted that the applicant had also objected to constructing 33 teat of pavement on the south •Lde of Poothill Bou Lvard and had rsquestetl that the condition be changed to require construction would be as required by CslTrsns. Mr. James noted that the construction requirement was listed es be inq subject to modification end approvsl by CalTrane. He said that, Daud on experience, Cleft telt 3Z feet would De the CalTrans requirement. Chairman McNiel noted the developer had a quoiion regarding Engineering Condition 2tl. Mr. Buller ^tated Cho dew leper's question had been whether the City would honor • reimbursement agnsment request. Mr. Jame etavd ¢nginwrinq could agree io that request. He said finginearinq has not denietl any such rsqussCS for permanent Lmprovemenb which have been lnstalletl. Chsirman McNiel remarked the developer also had concerns abouC Eng inuring Condition Na. 6. Mr. James stated Chat finginwrinq Condii ion No. 4 tleaL with the possible need to acqu lro rigor-of-way on the southwest corner for cM Vineyard Boulward transition inq. He noted that Stand azd Condition No. Lil provides for the developer io sour into an agreement with the City to compUU she improvements followlnq the Clty'• acqu is ltlon of tM land it tM tlweloper~• good Liih •ftori• to acquire the Lod Chou ld tell. Planning Commie ion Minutes -10- December 9, 1993 173 Chairman NcNiel observed Lhat Mr. Muir had quest toned the ra~~i[ement• an undergrounding. Mr. Buller notetl that the applicant had requested that Engineering Condition No. 5ai be changed to require undergrounding only if there ie existing conduit in the bridge becauu he was concerned with the potential expense of undergrounding across the channel if the conduit dose not exist. Commie inner Toletcy asked it abet would mean conduit under the ^ridge. Mr. Buller said it could also mean along the aide of the bridge. Ha said the Commission had not addressed each a aituat tan In the past. Shintu Bow, Deputy City Engineer, stated the applicant would W able to hang come conduit on ens side of eM bridge. Commie loner Melchor requested elazificat ion that there wa• no thought that the undergrounding would need to go under the channel. Mr. Bou conf Lrmed that was correct. Chairman McNiel asked if the CommLsioners wero in concurrence Thai the undergrounding condition should remain as written. It was the consensus of ehs Commissioners that it should remain. Chairman MCNlel stated the next area of concern Mal wi[h Condition No. 5b. Mr. Buller remarked that there had barn a request for clerif Lca[ion of the neighbor'• rupons lbil ity for reimbursement. Ne aid abet !f the other propertlu ecrou the etreeC develop, they would be responsible for reimbursing emlth'• for a portion of thou lmprovenunt• completed by Smith's. Chairman McNiel Eelt that Mr. Muir'e quution had btu if a re imhursament sgreement exists eo they could get sane of the money 6aek. Mr. But Lr noted that 5b refers to in-lieu fus. Ne aid the neighbor woe l0 be required to contribute eM other half et the time of development, end the work wov 10 ba done at chat time. Chairman McNiel noted there had been remarks about Engineerinq Condition No. 6. Nr. James stated that Smith's would be ob Llgated to re imbursa the project developer on the uK •ida of Vineyard avenue for any improvements made to the wet side !f the developer on the esee eLde submits a reimbursement agreement request. tL said et tM present time the developer on the cut •ida hu not submitted a reimburument agreement. Xe aid that Bmleh•• would not have to pay ens other developer for any of the Lmprovemenb that they have to remove and replace. Chairman McNUl thought there had bun quest ion^ regarding Snq inset ing Condition No. E. Planning Commiulon Minutes -33- December 9, 1994 174 Mz. .Tames stated the local storm drain ie being required to be constructed at Foothill 0oulevard from Vineyard westerly to Ghe channel. Ha said Chat normally the first party in installs the local storm drain. He said if the City were to~grant reimbursement to Smith's Erom future development along the south aide of Foothill Boulevard, then iC would also be necessary io require Smith's to reimburse Thoma• winery for the local storm drain work they constructetl in Vineyard Avenue. He said typically Lhere ie no reimbursement for local storm drain construction. Chairman XcNisl noted the applicant had objected to the 3-tan limitation on San Bernardino Aoad. Mr. Buller stated that the applicant had indicated they would cant to reconstruct San Bernardino Road to speeif lest ions which would handle heavier truth and would want the limitation based upon the specifications, rather than limiting io 3-tons. Commissioner Xeleher felt the applicant wee considering runnirq umis on Ghe street which would ba many tone over the suggested 3-ton limit. CommLalanat Val lease noted that the rtrwt is still residential and she felt it would ba inappropr SaU Cor larger [rucks io use Lhs stress. Mr. Bullet noted share would be truck acuu from Foothill Boulevard end from Vineyard Avenus, but that Smith's doirsd truck accos lrom tM north. Chairman McNiel notetl there are no deliveries at the back of tM building and the use would W to accsu tM docks on either •ide at the building. Xr. Buller felt the applicant prefsrretl access from San Bernardino Road for ease at ingrea• end egras• at a signalized intersection over a lees-traveled public saner to tM •its. Commissioner Xelcher ftlt the use <f San Bernardino Road would 6e to the apparent datr imsnt of other propertlu. Rs said hs understocd Smith's du ire for the opening Dut hs also would understand the nsighborhood'• opposition. Hs questioned why and wtun the 3-ton limit was introduced and when it became apparent io SmitM s. Mr. James stated that the 3-ton limit wu suggoGd by tics Clty'e Trattic Engineer. IIa said the applicant had bean advised of the Limit during Tschnieal Rw ieN. Commies Toner Tolstoy Eslt that ssmi• •hould not utilize San Bernardino Road. Nr. Coleman etatad a similar limitation had been placed on the NuWest •hoppinq canter at Foothill Bou lsVard and Hallman Avsnw regard inq accue down Hs lms. Commie loner Chlt lea and Valletta agreed that semL should not uu 5an Barnard ino Road. chairman MeN Lel quutlonad if than would Ds a need for any accsu eo San Barnard ino Road Lf truck accsu ware eliminated. Planntnq Commie ion Mlnutu -77- Bscsmber 9, 1997 175 Mr. Buller aimed that the Bite plan hatl been reviewed by Fire, sheriff, Planning, and Engineering Divisions and ii was felt thai access to the north along Snn Bernardino Road fie desired. Commissioner Toletoy felt the access to San Bernartlino Road fie essential but he did not think it fie essential far semis. Commissioner Valletta stated she had an issue to bring up later after the Commission had reviewed the conditions which may affect the Comm iesion•e feelings on iRS matter. Cna irman McNiel noted the applicant hatl requested that Building and Safety D ivieion Condit ion No. 1 raquirinq approvals from San Bernartlino County Hsnlih, Cucamonga County water District, and ens school districts be tied to cart ificate of occupancy tattler ihet issuance of building permits. Mr. eu list elated that staff recommended that the condition remain as written, chairman McN isl agreetl that if the condition ware cnangatl antl tM project wets later denied by Che school district, thara would ba a real prob lam. Ne f•li approvals shoo ld be obtained on the front end. ' CommLU loner Toletoy stated ha would like an additional requirement providing for recessing outdoor vending machines. Mt. Buller stated that staft uaultl support atlding [hat condition. CommLaioner Valletta aiatsd that the side loading dock areas era inconeiatent with whet nee been required in Lhe xaet of the City, she said other gzocary eicrea have all been requ irad to have loading Co the roar. SM atatad she had recently obsetvad a truck trying to position itself for unloading at the Rialto Smith's store. sM said it's backing view was obscured becauu of vehicular parking in the area, as would exist on the asst •ida of the building. she noted [hero fie no direct accea• •cra fight into the loading area and it is only 17 lest w1de. She oDwrwd that the trucks would Rave Lo mansuvar et a right anq la from the EronC of arts store, backing up on the blind side trying to gat into a 17-foot tree. she eaitl she understood the trucks era generally nDOUt B feet wide, leaving only T feet on rich aide, she Bald at the Rialto atom •ha had observed that a 48-toot truck took swan attempts to maneuver into tM dock area when lC wa• not swn et a right englo. SM aLo thought the vlaw Crom Foothill Boulevard would not ba aaihst ice lly pleasing and noted the interaace ion L one of the City•• major entrances. She commented that the Smlth'e store in Fontana ha• a tsar loading dock. she thought consideration should be given to reconf figuring the loading dock to the teat of Lne build lag even though •he noud that may require the purchua of additional property to aha north o[ the Bits. Commissioner Chit ies fait Lhe •ite fie currant ly blighted and •he felt is should have appropriate development. she said •ha did not mean Co discourage rata it building but she felt tM design of the center •hou ld meet or exceed chat exlet• in the City. she noted that during aha pre-application review •M had expruud aeriou^ conwrn• about the •SU plan regarding Duiltl inq Planning Commission Minutes -21- December 9, 199] 176 orientation, circulation, truck acres s, massing, and arenitectuzal elements. she did not f¢el tnoee Lesuea had been adequately atltlresead. She did not think the design of the activity center at the Foothill Boulevard and Vineyartl Avenue intersection mssis the intent of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. she felt the project should be radeaigned. she concurred with Commiuionsr Val latte'e comments regarding th¢ loading docks. she did net think there was any other location in the City where a front or aids loading dock is permitted antl the particularly opposed one at ouch an important intaraection. Shs Eelt the site hoe enormcue potential wnien was not being realized with the design of the project. Commieeioner ToleLOy stated toot was one of the reasons he had aeksd about the site line bscauee he also nod a problem with the aide loading areas. Commteeioner Valletta noted there hntl been a pre-epplicat ion workshop at which it was tteted that aids loading docks were an ieeue. Chei rmsn McNisl tinted there nod been objections from all the Commiaeionere and smith's had maintained Lnnt aide loading docks wars consletent with what they typically do and the eoncarne could be mit igatad. Ha noted that in the Do Lgn Review proeeu there had bun attempU to mit igats tM impact of tM aids loading docks through dseign. He said h¢ was taken aback by Commie ionsr Vallette'e witnessing the dit[Sculty of maneuvering a truck into each en area and he was lee eomfartnDle wish the design in light of the entrance off VSnsyard Avenue et that loeatton. He felt Lhste may be trat[ic problems along Vineyard Avsnus as a ruult of a truck trying to enter CM loading dock arse. Hs noted the Commission could condition the times of dny that trucks cculd ass Lhe dock arse, but hs felt that would M extremely diff ieult to police. Commissioner Chltiu felt chat limiting the hours o[ delivery woe Ld not addrau the ae¢thetlc conwrns. Chairmen McNisl stated they had attempted to mitigate the visunl impact et Design Review becaual that is whet the developer had raquuted. Commiulonsr Mslcher stabd M was also concerned shout Commiuioner Velletb'• coament• regarding truck maneuvering. Hs ateted he wee not personally opposed to front-[sting truck docks and he felt they had bssn properly adtlrused, but he queetianed if a truck maneuvering disgrem hnd bun prapand tot eM •Lb and, it so, 1[ eta[f was convinced that it works. Mr. Buller stated that one had bun prepared and •ta Ef felt Gnat it would work. Commie ionsr Mslchsr asked if the truck manwvering diagram wu hued upon using San Bernardino Road fox Lrucks in excee^ of 3 tons. Mr. Coleman •CateO the diagram depicted stress from both Vineyard Avenue and Focthill Boulevard. Hs recalled that smith's nod described the eastern loading •na a to be used by smaller trucks, such ae brad Lrucks, and the main dock are would De on the west side of the building. Planning Commia•ion Minute^ -24- December 9, 199] 177 Commissioner Valletta stated sae nad obaerved a 4H-foot truck Mr. Coleman thought that would be the normal size of a semi. Commieeioner Valletta indicated that at ores also use double semis for tleliveriee. Commissioner Cnitiee obaerved that in other projects throughout the City, wen in the industrial areas, measures era taken to orient trucks away from the automotive traffic areas. She did not think the project ie an appropriate tleeign, particularly at one of the major intersection eniriee into the City. Sne also felt it was a safety issue. Commiaaloner Valletta agreed it was a safety lwue. Chairman McNiel acknowledged that it was a matter of concern. He •aid they had attempted io massage the design based upon what had been presented Dy smitn•.. Commiwioner Chitiee felt fast the Ceelgn Rev isw Committer. ehculd nos des ign the project, but to try to nelp an applicant meet Cha needs of the community as beat na possible. She did not feel that it meant there the ant lze Commission had to accept the application. Commissioner Tol etoy asked if it would be proper to hoer from the applicant regarding the design of the Fontana store with it• roar dock. Xe reeallsd that st tM prsreppllcat ion review, the Commiwion nad requested rear loading and Smtth'• had replied Coat all of their stores have Irani loading. Commissioner Chieiea felt there were greater problems loan just the loading dock. Motion: Moved by Chit tea, co direct staff to prepare a reso luG ion of denial for fns neat ova ilab le meeting. Commies loner Ma lcher seconded tM motion for purpous of tliseuuion and indicated he might vote against the motion. Me wggwted the applicant Da consulted to we if the applicant would prefer ens Cammiu ion move [orward with each • motion or requut a continuance to allow lima to pow ibly addru• some of the eomment^ heard tonight. Xe obwrwd that tM applicant would have the right to appeal to GM City Council and ha suggested that the Commissioners consider what action the City Council might take. Chaitman McNiel reopened the public hearing to gain input from the applicant. Mr. klang •t atad the Fontana store has vastly different property dimensions, roof lgurat ion, size of total project, and ground elevation which permitted zwr loading. Xe •aid ha i• corking on atnsr pro}sct• in Northern Cal ifotnls which are not tight with no grad Lnq problems and in moat caws they can utilize rear loadlnq docks. He felt ens grads •lwaclom sn0 length of the parking eta 11• in front precluded rur load inq. He •aid because of the difficulty in wcuring large enough parcel, Smitn'^ nos nad to uw icon! Planning Commies ion Minutes -25- Uecamber 9, 1992 178 loading with imaginative screening trsatmenes to make the stores look good and work. He stated !here hod been a study on truck traffic patterns and Smith's engineers aafured him it would work. Ha said [hare had been 18 months of good faith effort on the part of Smith's end City staff to arrive nt a plan Lhat wa• accepteDla to everyone and Smith's was now in virtual agreement with what had been ptopOeed. He nosed Chnt the coat of carrying the project is almost 510,000 a week and he questioned how long Smii h'e could carry the project. He was concerned about general etatemenLe that ens plan does not meet someone's conception. He said ha was not comEcrtaDle saying they could negotiate further entl thnt hs would like to diacus• the loading dock question with the architect end engineer. He thought it may be better to take the project on through the administrative process to sea where the bottrxn line is. He said he heard the Commiselon'• concsrne entl he was now concerned about Smith's position and investment and where they would go from this point. Ha said their goal is to open a store in the community and provide 350 joDS and at least $250,000 sala• tsx. He noted their project would be cleaning up an admitted b1lghGd eras and he felt it would be one of the it most beeutitvl projects. He said ha new felt some of the Commiuionsrs had sxpreued concern that the site was not even a proper place for sham. Comas •sioner Valletta •taGd that her concsrne about CM •ite planning and loading areas in no way reprewnta sn attitude Ghat Smith'• i• not wanted in the City. She felt it will Ds a good project. She noted that the loading area had been an issue with all five Commisaionsra during the pre-application workshop. She noted tnat tw Commiasivnera had vrvad on the Design Review Committee and now before eha full CommLSion the loading are is still an issue. She hoped the applicant and City could work eogethsr to relocate the loading nreas. Mr. Klanq said that made him teal better. commie sonar To LStoy aiated there had never been any comments about the desirability of Smith'• in LM City, but the Coaeaiseionar• had expruud concerns about eafKy matters end aesthetics. Mr. Kiang stated he did not personally Ds !sees there should be truck tratf ie on San Bernardino Road. Ne said the loading docks on the side of the store era tied into their me[chandis ing plan inside the atom. Ne said Lost i• all vary carefully plsnned. Ns Geld that i[ the loading dock area is changed, it creates sewn operations problems. Ha auggeaud Mr. Muir talk about the loading area. Commissioner Tc lstoy recalled that at the pre-application review, the Commiaeioner• had Desn told that the at ore conf iquration could not be changed and there could not W any other location o[ the loaainq dock. Mz. Klanq rupondsd that Smith's had learned a lot since coming to California. Ha stated that in otMr areas of the country, they had Deen intlex ibis because the land i• pcetty flat, and cost ^avinq• •rs obvious. He said chat have devised dif tsrsnt plans •nd have acaL stores to batter tit on available propertlu. Planning Commiaaion Minuts• -26- C here ate grid erattlc paturna, upon coming to California they d down the size of some of the Lr December 9, 1992 179 Chairman McNiel tinted that during all of the meetings with the applie ant, diacaofort had been expreeeed regarding the front-end loading. Mt. Muir elated that the Fontana store eonf figuration fie completely different and not vieDle. H¢ said that Smiih'e had built numerous stores with the configuration proposed for Rancho Cucamonga, including ono in Yorba Linda and one in Miacion Vi¢jo. H¢ said they had not made the scope of coemat is motlif icatione on any other et ore and the proposed atom for Rancho Cucamonga could very well b¢ the moat expensiv¢ store in the chain, with their eatimate• being 51,500,000 over their typical deve lopment. coats in •ite and building cosmetic improvement e. He said that typically they have five to six deliveries per week by semis which are not generally larq¢r than 48 feet. Xe eeitl each deliveries are typicnlly in the ¢arly morning. He stated the sLte hoe a steep grade trene ition betw¢en the front and tna rear o[ Cho etor¢. Ne said if there were adequate stze¢t acceaa, rear-loading docks would raga Lre a high rataininq wall on the hack tide of the store and create a bigg¢r vieusl impact than what is current ly prapoe¢d. Ha •a id the proposed docks are buried on both aides of the stor¢ and they would be glad to provide crest-acct tonal e ire etutli¢a showing the relevant elevation of th¢ docks to Foothill Boulevard. He acid they had made a change to flair Lhs western dock. He said trellises were proposed along the dock wall and over the dock bays, ao that vino would soften the •ffecc acrou tN front of the bays. He aid [hers Se typically a 50-foot temp into the bay, w the trucks are back from the throat of the Day. He atatrtl the dock on the weeG tide is Elaired completely away from any vieusl lines from Foothill Boulevard. H¢ •sid Chat it would bs nscoury to have acc¢aa further north on Vineyard in order to have a direct attest Lnio rear-loading docks and Si would be eseentisl ly impoaeible to gain fns ramp down into the docks beuun of GM elwat LOn incaaew slonq Vineyard. X¢ said that the nature of the •ite and the limited acc¢se from Vineyard and Foothill would nacoeltate truck mensuwring in front of the store, particularly if access from San Bernardino Road wer¢ limited. He tell that fns configuration desired Dy iM Commie ion would preclude any grocery store on the vita. Commie loner Va11etU asked the width of iha loading are on the western aids. Mr. Muir crated it Le a double truck bey, so it would be 20-24 fact. Chairman McNiel eked it Mr. Muir would consider working an with the Commiuion or if M would prefer tM Commiuion proceed with fns motion as voiced. Mr. Muir asked whet could b¢ gained by referring the project beck to etaf f, Commie toner Me lchar stated LC would be necoory to return to staff becauu the Commieaian did not have a reeolut ion of denial for adoption. Mr. Muir asked if there would not be an opportunity Eor further design issues. Commie toner Chitin stead tM alternet five would he to qo beck end r¢design the project end she felt St would require major deaign changes. She Ee It the entire cite plan ^hou ld ba rwiewed. Flanninq Commi o ion Minute -27- Oecambar 9, 1992 1® Mc. Muiz felt that bringing the issue to a vote at the Commission level would not preclude that from happening. He was not sure what was to be gainetl by going Dack to staff if it was not an opportunity foc further design changes. Chairman NcNiel etatetl the Commission did not have a resolution of denial to adopt and the motion on the floor was to direct staff to prepare a reaolut ion of tlenial. Hr. Muiz asked if the Comm ias ion sou ltl not vote on [he project without that recommentlat ion. Chairman McNiel oiattd the[ use the motion on the floor. He eeid the resolution of denial would ba adopted at the next meeting. Mr. Muir caked if there wart any otntr avenues available. Chairman MCNtel •tattd the applicant could also consent to a coot inuanct iE the motion were to be pulled. Commie loner Valletta suggesbd that if ins applicant was willing to do a major redesign of the Bite plan, the moC ion may be pulled. ' Mr. Muir asked if he could dlteus• the matter with his client. Commissioner Chitin euggtsttd n short recto might bt taken co allow the applicant to discuss tot options. Mr. Cgnbs asked if tht public hearing wee still open. Chairman McNitl •tattd it had bttn opentd only to gain a cuponu from Che applicant to a sptc if is quuttan. Nt •aid Che hearing was not open to take any additional testimony. The Commission rectastd from 11:15 p.m. to 11:20 p.m. Mr. Muir stated ehs dock confiqura[ion had been cons idertd and they did not feel it could bs designed in any othtr way btceuse of eht conf iquration of tht dte, the slops, and the limited eeeeu. Ht uid thty wtrt not try Lnq to force the Lew with tM Commie ion, but they did not Eaa! it could bt raconf igurtd. Ht alga atstsd it was not • maCLtr of acqu icing the proptrty to tM north. Nt •aid thtLr circulation plan nod bon ravltwtd by ont of [hs most reputabL traffic tnq lours in Southern California, who indicettd it woul0 not cruet an unuft •Ltuation. Ht said Smith's also has had sxptrlence in ouch dock can[iqurat LOns end they could not create a liaDilLty for tht atom. Hs rtquuttd that i[ [he matter wart returned to staff for preparation of a resolution of denial, [hat a aptcial mte[inq Da htld on Dacsmbtr 15, 1992, in order not to delay their abil icy to in is late en appeal. Mz. Buller ^tatad that i[ [ht motion wart to pees, Lt could be prepared for a aptcial mtttinq and ha suggestsd Dtotmhar 15, 1992, as a porsibl• data. Commie lansr Chitin staGd sM would like to rtittratt Chet her opposition co tht prof tct was not to Smith's as a uatr, in fact ant would like to wtlcoma Planning Commie ion Minutt• -28- OsnmDtr 9, 1992 101 ahem to the community. She saitl her concern was the specific location of the project. She felt the concerns were greater than just the loatling dock, but also the entire configuration of the property, the ingress and egreee, the design of the eatell its 6uildinga, the orientation to adj scent propert lee and the corner, and the activity <en[er at Foothill eoulevartl and Vineyard Avenue. commieaioner Melchor statetl he wns not convinced it woultl be impoaeible to locate the docks in any other configuration. He stated there ie also a grad9 d if Eerence at the ehoopinq center at Milliken and Yighland and that loading dock is to the rear. He noted that through the use of landscaping and retaining walla it was possible to create a drive access all the way around the rear side of the shopping center and create a pleeeant appearance to Highland Avenue. Ha thought it could be usetl at thi• vita but it would probably moan that across to San Bernardino Road may have Co be abandoned. Conmiss LOner Chitiea noted that at Base Line and Haven and Lemon antl Haven there were similar •itua[ions with grade changes where appropriaU designs have been employed. BM notetl that the Plsnnin9 Co,mniuion First eau the project eight months ago et a pre-application review and all of those concerns were voiced at that time eo thai ens applicsnt had early input from the Commission. She seated that her motion stood. Commisaionet Melehet stated that hie second stood. Chairman MCNiel restated that the motion was to direct staff tc prepare a resolution of denial. Mot icn carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCN IEL, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: MELCHER ABSENT: COMMZSSIONEAS: NONE -carried IG we• the consensus of the Commiae ion tha< eM Comm iesicn would convene a special meeting ai 4:45 p.m. on December 15, 1992. .4 . . Motion: Moved by McNisl, seconded by Toletoy, Carried 4-1 (Melchor no (, continue bsyoed 11:00 p.m. ..... ~./ J. - A residential subdivision and design review Eor the dove lopma f 20 single family lots on 6.39 acres of land in the LOw-Medium Re ntial District (4-B dwelling units par acre(, located on the noun a of San earnerdino Road, east of Vineyard Avenue - APN: 208-091-08 elated File: Variance 91-11, Staff retommands iuuanN of a Negat Declstatton. K. VARIANCE 93-31 - NU ~rdr request to reduce the required mintmum rear lot depth from 90 to est for 1 lot within a propaesd 20-lot eubd iviaion in ohs Lau-Medium sidential District (4-B dwelling unite par .acre(, located on the no •!ds of San Esrnerd ino Road, east of Vineyard Avenue - APN: 205-091-08. Pa latad File: Tentative Tract 14405. Commle•ion Hinuus -29- December 9, 1992 182 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONCA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Heetinq December i5, 1992 ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McN ie 1, John Melchor, Peter Toletoy, Wendy Valletta ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal P1aMlr) Rick Gome r, Community Development OiteCior7 Dan James, senior civil Engineer; Beverly Niaeen, Associate Planner; Gail sanchaz, Planning Commiuion Socretary; Tarty Smith, Park Planning Dsva lopment Superintendent (tout only( TOVR OF SPORTS COMPLE% The five Planning Commieeionere touretl the eporta complex beginning at 3:00 p.m. on December 15, 1992. They ware accompanied by Community Davelopnient Director Rick Comsz, City Planner Brad eullar, and Psrk Planning Development Superintendent Tarry Smith. The Lour concluded et 4:15 p.m. end the Planning Commiuion raeasead until 4:45 p.m. NV C 8 N - Tha development aE a commercial chopping center consisting of a 75,000 aquas Eoot grocery more, two satellite Du tidings of 3,500 square feat each, antl a drive- thru pad cE 4,500 equars feet on 10.6 acrs• of land in the Community Commercisi District (SUbsrea 2( of the Foothill Boulevard Speci£lc Plan, located at the northwut corer of Foothill Boulevard and Vlneysrd Avenue - APN: 207-102 -03, 5, 8, 15, 20, 27, and 49. Staff recammanda issuance of a mit i9eiad Negative Declarer ion. Chairman McN ial called the Adjourned Meotinq of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commiuion to order et 6:45 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains Room at Rancho Cucamonga Civir Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman McN iel then led in the pledge of ailag lance. Brad eullar, City Planner, gave a recap of the history o! the project. Ma noted that the project had gone through a pre-application review antl several tleeign rw law mptinga. He meted that during the process the. applicant had been adviwd of the Lnues end concerns of the Planning Commiu ion and staff and the applicant had made some change •. Ne said that following cha lest Du ign Review Committee meeting the project had bean forwarded to eM full EXh',b~i- "E„ 1&3 Planning Commission with a recommendation for approval. He etaeed tha< at the end of the public hearing the Cajun ieaion directed staff to prepare a re eo lut ion of denial. NB said ihet if the Planning Commie ion allowed additional testimony, that it could only take testimony on ieauea raised at Lhe public nearing on December 9, 1992. He also indicated that staff had provided the resolution of denial ae requeaied by ens Commiaa ion ee well as the resolution of approval if the Commission ehculd feel that today's testimony indicatetl the applicant hetl made of torts to nddres• the issues which had bean raised. He turned the meat ing back to the Cnairman to determine iE the Commiaa ionere wished to open the hearing for public testimony. Chairman McNiel stated he had talked with the appiicant's architect following the December 9r 199], matting and the arenitect had asked what eMy could do to ealvsge the project. xe said he had told the architect eney could make n short presentation to address the issue of loading dock Placement and its effect on tizculet ion and Vineyard Avenue end the aoethsiic issues of front loading docks. Ha told they nad not discussed further architectural issues. He asked if the other Commiasionere would irks to open up the hearing to see if Lne matter warranted returning the project to design review or review by Lne full cammieeion. Commissioner ToLtoy stated tMt na would like to hear fray the applicant Lf any new informs! ion was svailab le. chairman McNiel opened tM public haring. Prescott Muir, Prescott Muir etchitetb, 1744 Rarkaley Street, Santa Monica, elated they nad looked at the passibility of moving the dock to the back o[ the building, but Smith'• Celt that would 6s unworkable beceua it would create a bltnd corner for the trucks to maneuver into the back and would require a renr yard setback variance becsua of the sxLting ru Ldenca. He said if the property were <onvsrted to comaarelal, as shown in the General Plan, a zero lot line would Da sufficient. Ne indiested they considered •liminetinq the access from Sen Bernard ino Road, creating a retaining wall, and lowering the grade to dock elevation to allow Lrutke room to maneuver, but that would alw need GM variances on the utbaek and parking. He •aid lnay [alt the proposed configuration ua the only pouible one without raga irinq a variance from the Co®SUion. He seated there wsra other appOLLYniL lea to musage the project. Ne wggesGd ens eastern dock sou ld ba •llminated by crating a corridor !n back of the building but that would mean losing the trellis element or approx Smetely 17 parking apace. Ns thought the project did not have exco^ parking available. hr. sailer caked i[ iM lost parking sparse could not be regained on ehs asst aide of the building in the area tram which the loading dock was being moved. Mr. Muir agreed it would 6e possib le to eliminate the asst dock, shift the building forward 6 test to maintain an interior corridor, maintain iM setback, and place double loading parking on the seat aide of the building. He old they would not nad any vsrianca. Commlu loner Tolstoy felt there may be a grading problem with such • ahilt. Planning Commies ion Minuta• -2- December 15, 1992 184 Mr. Nuir acid there ie a ] percent elope in the area. He said the back of the building would not change. Xe stated there ie a 14-foot grade elevation difference between Cne first finished floor of the apartments and the floor of the afore. He acid that waa why they had felt a rest dock could be hidden with an of festive greenbelt separation. Commlasionot Nelcner thought the larger footprint area of the building may moan more parking would be required. Mr. Muir agraM that may be true. Commissioner Melchor asked if the additional floor area would Da allocated for htndtrueko to service the oast Bide of tM atom. Mr. Mu Lr agreed ii vould not be ealeo apace and would not generate any additional parking dsmsnd. Commieaioner Melchor asked if the additional square foot ago could be factored out of the parking calculation roquitements. Mr. Bul Ut [nought a minor exception process could be used. Ho paid that would raga its a notice to the neighbors. Coamio ionsr Chitiea nosed [hat would still leave an eapoaed dock on ens welt •ido. Nr. Muir felt the western dock would not bo exposed. Xa stated they Could develop a •ito modal Lo snow Dow the dock wculd bo concoaletl. He noted it i• flared away from the mein view corridor. Commiuionor Valletta aekod for an explanation of how CM rur dock would uaa berminq. Mr. Nulr •howod wham the rest dock would be located and stated a 32-14 foot retaining wall would Da needed in addition to closing off the access to ssn Bernardino Road. Cammisaionsr CALL isa eked if a variance would be required Eor Che rear dock. Mr. Buller felt tM[e r»re findings that could be made to grant oho variance bereave of tM lot configuration and the grades. He felt that a minor exception might also bo available. Commissioner Chitiea asked if a public hearing would ba hold. Mr. Buller stated a public hearing wou ltl be nald only if a variance wets rsqu fired. Commissioner Valletta statetl Ghat at Che pre-applicaC ion review workshop dlnction had bean given to have all docks in the roar o[ the building. SM eked why tDe sppllcant had not pursued that avenw. Planning Commlss ion Minuto• -7- December 15, 1992 1° Mt. Muir stated they had planned aide docks eecaues of a combination of toy in9 to maintain Che min ir~um parking raga ized and trying to accommodate the gon la of the Foothill Boulevard Spec if is Plan in creating an aetiv ity center. Xs said that Smith's felt they would need one outlying drive-thru pad in older to make the project economically feaaible. He ea id shoe in order to accommodate the roar docks they would have to buy ehs atlj scant property and they had received direction chat an additional fact food drive-thru pad would not be palatable. He slated Smith's felt that the project would not be economically feaaib le to absorb the ca et of the additional property to accommodate rear docks. Me felt it could also require a 16-1s foot retaining wall. Mr. Buller said that staff would prefer utilizing only the ueettrn dock and expanding the Duilding footpcint rather than eliminating the access to San Bernardino Road and elimination o£ the rear parking area. Chairman McNiel asked if the weeterr. dock could not be moved north to De more nitltlen from view from Foothill Boulevard. Mr. Muir said that may be possible. Mr. Buller void Chet if the dock were movttl north, the grade may be more difficult for maneuvering tht trucks. Xt said that during the •ite plan review there had been camnant• about traffic flow and Lhere nod been tliscuseion that it would be cosier for users who witMd to travel north on Vineyard Avenue to sx it to San Bernartl iro Road becau ee there would Chen be a signalized intaretetion to enter Vineyard. Xe said ha would be concerned about any dedgne chat •limineted acceu Eras tM project to San Bernardino Aoad. Commi a io ner Tolntoy stated that then is Often a Line of cats going south on Vineyard Avenue atiemptin9 to cross Poathill Boulevard and Lnosa care would conflict with anyone attempt inq to make a left from the eastern drive o[ the center onto Vineyard Avenue. Chairman Me Niel fsLC the changes propowd wtrt very dramatic and would requite that the project go back through design review. Ns asked iE enough information had been presented to allow the applicant to procee• through design review. commlesioner Toletoy crated he would like to give the spplicant the opportunity to return to design review. Chairman McNlel closed the public hearing. commieeioner Chit ise felt the issues were major in terms of circulation including access to San Bernardino Roa4, moving the docks from exposure to Foothill Bou lavardr building articulation in front and rear, the need for additional building movement, relationship to ad jecane rssitlmcu, and appropriate tlesign^ for the •au lllte buildings. Sha as ld [hat if chase t hinge could 6e achieved, ii would be approprista to qo back through she des Lqn review procee. She wa• not sure the project would Eit without acquiring atldit TOnal property, Planning Commission Mlnute• -a- December 15, 1992 1° Commlssionet Mslchsr stated he understood that the pad buildings would be part of a aeparats application. He felt that if Smith's wsr¢ Wi: ling to examin¢ the ideas proposed and show th¢ povsible result, that would b¢ a mote rational approach than to deny the project. Coavpiu inner ToLtoy stated h¢ had nothing tc add. Comm vsiomr Vallette atadtl that when the project wav initinlly reviewed at she pre-application wotkahop, the main concern addreaaed was ih¢ dvslre o[ the majority oL the Commie ioner• to have [ear loading tloeks. Shs felt the Commiolon ha0 Dun eonsiveent in the original direction at Cha pra- applictiion review and in their denial of the proposal in expressing a tlesire for the rear docks. She thought it ie mainly a •aEety issue. She felt chore wre still uriou• internal circulation ptoDlsms. She thought there arv potentLlly hazardous pedutrian eroaing area in eM current proposal. She did not Eavor approving tM project a prHUbd and felt that major changes wre noded to the siG plan and circulation plan. Commie SOner Chitiea naked if Commiuloner Val LCCa wav utist led witR thv arcnitectural •lvment• of the building. Caeaaiu ioner val Utte aid she had soma concerns regarding the arch ltectuze but Aer uriou• concsrna wre with tN loading dock and CM ex Laing internal circa lotion. She Heal led making statements during the pn-application rwiew that existing Smith's merkeb have very little movement and relief on the front of the buildings. SM felt tM Du Lqn Review Committee had done eM Dest they could with what had bem presented by eM sppl Scant but lndlcnted •M did not ful it is up to the standard o! other project within the Cley. She stated there is not a commercial project loubd anywhere in tM City with front load inq. chairman McNiel felt thou iuuu could be naddrused at du iqn review. Ns suggutetl the project go back Lhrough the proses. He Eelt the major issue could W ruolvsd. Mr. Rut Lr asked what the Commission wu expecting the applicant eo change. Ne aid Commie ioner Ch1e La had ind ieabd there should Ds •igniEicant change in tM site plan ud arehibeeure and Commissioner Vallette Md indicau0 tMre should bs major change in the sib plan and some changes in architecture. CGmaL•ioner Va1Ltb felt there should be more emphu i• on movement of CM Duildinq. She asked if it would b betbr to workshop the item rethsr than only hav inq two Commioioner• at do iqn review. Commlsa Sane[ Chitin [elt that would be but. Mr. Buller agreed that all tLve CommL^lanes .now ld be part o[ CM process. Ne quest ionsd t[ it would De aceeptaDL i[ the applicant eliminated the eubrn dock and provided a plan ^howing •11 arras otE LM western dock without making other ehugu to the site plan. Planning Commie ion Minub• -5- December I5, 1991 101 Chairman McNiel felt that woultl not be acceptable Commies inner Valletta stated the City implemented a pre-application design review procee• to allow applicants to receive early direction from the ens ire Commission. She eaitl direction had been quite clear at the pr^.-application ucrkahop that there should be no front dock areas vie ibis from the street antl she did not feel the Ci[y should try to massage the plane submitted. Mr. Buller requested clarification if it was [he poeiiion of the Planning Conmieeion that there should ba absolutely no Eront dock doors no matter chat. He said i[ thni were the case, the applicant could then decide whether to pursue additional design reviw meetings. Chairman McNiel stated he felt that Commiesionere Chitiea and Valletta were firm in their opposition to front docks. Commissioner Toletoy et ated ha also has a problem with front loading. Ha said the Cammise ion had been told at the pcs-application review workshop that Smlth'e could not operate a store unless they had the loading as depicisd on the currant else plans, but afterwards the Commissioners learned there era Korea which ors back loaded. Coami a loner Valletta Katsd she dttl spas further checking and found the ra are stores in Glendora and Riverside in addition to the Fontana store with rear loading. Chairman McNiel felt that rear loading would be the appropriate direciion to pursue. He agreed a toll COmniesion workshop snow ld be held and eddit Tonal attention ahau ld be paid to building art LCUlatian. Mr. Buller teeommendsd reopening the public hearing Co el low Lhs applicant to atltlreae if they would De w111inq to consider a design tent would eliminate all Eront loading. Ha saggee[ed that iL the applicant ware willing, the Commission may wish to wt a workshop date in set ly annuary. Chairman McNiel reopened iN public hearing. Mr. Muir stated they felt they had already gone through the process. He said their understanding at the lest Design Mviw Committu mwting was that historically the reconsnsndat lone o[ the assign rwiw proceu carried considerabL weight at the Planning Canmiu ion and would not nquizs subpqusnt du iqn review procsuee. He felt to go back through the design rwiew procus would bs a •ia-month seep backward. He indicatetl that Smith'• and the it legal counsel could prefer a vote on the project at ehi• time, oven it it were a denial, to allow them to purwe the matter through an appeal. Me apologized (ot the misundezetanding that the Commissioner^ felt Smith's does not have rear-facing dock configurations. He said a majority of their stores do have rear-f ec ing dock conf iguracione, but they fe lc the site configuration demands aide-loading docks. Ray Lavange, 612J Paridott, Rancho Cucamonga, asked about the corridor. He said it i• a heavily congested ens and he fund theca may De a problem if Planning commies ion Minute -b- December 15, 1992 1° thsee ie only a little turn-in going south on Vineyard and people may back up into other intereactione. Chaizman McNiel again clo sad the publ ie nearing. Commissioner Melchet asked if it would be necessary to go through the denial proceea if th¢ applicant was willing to make the changes Nr. Muir had augge seed,. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing. Mr. Muir stated they would be willing to make the changes they Dad discussed but their carry coats are so expensive that time ie of the ssaence and they did not wish to initiate a long and ¢xtenaive d¢sign review process ra-¢xamining ¢very facet of rho project. He felt if they could limit the tlebate to strictly the dock configuration and they received enough feetlbeck that one of the two or three proposed schemes woultl meke the project acceptable, they woultl 6¢ willing to work with the Commission. Chairmen McNiel clos¢d the public hearing. N¢ felt that if tM docks era moved, it dramatically change th¢ footprint of the Du ilding antl creates a problem witD respect to architecture that would Deve to be addruaed. Motion: Moved 6y Chit Sea, seconded Dy Tolstoy, to adopt the roooluiion denying Conditional Uee Permit 92-18 without ptejutlic¢. Notion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CMITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, VALL£TTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: MELCHER ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Mr. Buller stated if there were an appsel, the matter coultl possibly be heard at the second City Ceuncll Meeting in January. ADJOURNMENT Not lon: Moved by Melchor, s¢conded by Chit Saar i0 adjourn. 5:35 p.m. - The Planning Commia•ion adjourned to a uorkahop at 5:00 p.m. on January 6, 1993, at tM ToLtoy ru idonco regarding Planning Commie ion 9cals antl priorlt Ses. Re~pectfu~l ly submitted, e~EUl er Secretary Plana inq Commission Minute -7- December 15, 199] 189 RICHARD G MARIE REICHELT 1846 N VALLEJO WAY UPLAND CA 91786 (909) 985-8330 December 2, 1992 City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Dr Rancho Cucamonga, Ca 91730 RE: Conditional Use Permit 92-18 - smith's Foothill Blvd & Carnelian/vineyrd Dear Planning Commission Members: We are writing as owners of our parcel of property that borders the Smith's project to the north on San Bernardino Rd. We wanted to express our concerns for a better quality development of that corner if all the parcels from Foothill to San Bernardino Rd were to be included in the project. We were originally contacted on June 19, 1990 by agents of Smith's who wrote that they were yg~y interested in acquiring our parcel of property for their project. We negotiated a price with Smith's and soon after opened escrow. By agreeing to sell, we believed at that time that we were acting in the best interest of ourselves, the city of Rancho Cucamonga's Foothill Specific Plan, the immediate neighborhood and of course 5mith's progressive development. It was our understanding that the Plan called for one developer for the entire development. We were made aware on April e, 1992 that Smith's site plan now did not include our property and they would not be acquiring our parcel. This was several months after they had notified the city of their intent to exclude our parcel. After a meeting this morning with staff from your planning dept we learned of Smith's new master plan which shows "some future developer" be left to develop our remanent parcel. we can show where it would not be economically feasible to build on or market it in the near future. Indeed it creates a hardship on us as present owners and severely limits our opportunities. We are concerned that the City's "gateway project" may be left with inadequate parking, inadequate traffic lanes and conditions and two apartment building structures nearing the end of their useful economic life. ~vC'! ~~~! QrU 1.711 There exists for all parties concerned, a window of opportunity if Smith's develops the complete parcel at a the small proportionate cost for them. It seems highly improbable that a quality development would ever be economically feasible in the foreseeable future on the small remanent parcels. We understand the city's ethics preclude "forcinq^ Smith's to purchase our property as they originally intended. however we trust with vour encouragement and more in depth review of the project, all parties concerned can be equally enjoined. Res ctfully, ~_f ~~GG Richard i Maria Reichelt R r~~ 11 uEC g~g92 'j11V~lliw~1 ~2i3i4~5pr 191 ~/ ~~~ 7890\ 1> .. - - --~ A 1~ r a ~~ ~-aN ~~ City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division P.O. Box 807, Rancho Cucamonga, C.A. 91729 Re: Conditional Use Permit 92-18 - Smith's Dear Planning Commission Members: In view of the fact that this commercial development comprises the major gateway to Rancho Cucamonga from the West, we feel that a better quality development for Smith's corner should be entertained from them than what is presently under consideration. The three parcels beginning at the Southwest corner of San Bernardino and Vinyard should be included and made part of Smith's plan. These parcels were in fact under contract by Smith up until September of this year. Not only that, but Smith's mitigating plan for the development of these parcels as required"by the City, are not economically feasible! Their plan for this area really does nothing more but assure the City that two already aging apartment buildings will blight the appearance of this attractive development Por years to come. What could be built on that small parcel that would generate the income necessary to provide a return on not only the cost of combining the three parcels, but pay for the expensive offsites the Engineering Dept. feels are necessary? Some of these are: Extending Smith's right turn lane North to San Bernardino Rd., relocating the traffic signal at that corner as well as installing the usual underground utilities, sidewalks, etc. How much better it would be if the Commission would decide to maintain the City's integrity to the Foothill Specific Plan that envisions one entity developing the entire corner. We therefore urc~± the Commission to suggest to Smith s that they submit a plan that includes the development of these parcels by them. then the concerns of your Engineering Dept. could be addressed as to the needed extension of that right turn lane and the signal relocation associated with that. sincerely, ..~ ~ r u~ -~.wCNO 0.... ..~. Calvin & Mar Reed, UEC 81992 y part owners of YN the apt, bldg. at 8863 s. B. Ra. -' :~3!iG~llil2ili2~3~4~5~5 736 Santa Victoria , Solana Beach, CA 92075 (619-792-8058) u ~~~~ 193 DecEmber 3, 1992 city of Rancho Cucamonga c/o Planning Department -Planning Commissioners Rancho Cucamonga, Cal'rfomia 91730 CITY U. rr4~VCM0 C . . cyr~ING pry, a.-.,~~ ULC ~ ,.,., ? ?,.~IIUIU11Zilf2i3~$ 6 3E: Develooment Q t9~1 orooertv ~ Foothill BNd.. Vin r Avenue ;~ ~ Bernardino F-]Q@d@, Primary pevelooer _ mtth' Food Dear Planning Commissioners: I am the property owner of 8008 Vineyard Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga (Southwest comer Vineyard & San Bemartlino Roads). Over 1 1/2 years ago Smith's Food comacted me about purchasing my property. Smtth's was going to purchase my property along with ~ ~ other D~ODertleS in the block for their own use. Urrtil just recemly did I become aware that Smith's was not going to close escrow on my parcel along with two atljaCBM properties to the west of mine. My property was scheduled to dose escrow on September 1, 1992. I apologize for the length of this letter... but a lot has happened the pest couple of years. In case some of you are not aware I had planned to develop my corner parcel prior to Smith's coming abng in early 1991. I recenred approval from your committee, the planning commission and the Cily Coundl. I paid all the necessary fees and secured the building, grading and engineanng permits for construction. I had paid almost 560,000 for these fees to the City. Then Smith's came along. (Note: I was a 1/3 owner of the parcel directly South of the comer - app. 2 saes). Smith's had signed ContraCta for ell the other parcels in the block with the exception of mine and one of the apartment complexes. I informed Smith's that I did not want to sell the comer because I was in the process of beginning construction. Smith's infomted me they would stop the whole project and look for another location... if they could not tie up All THE PARCELS IN THE BLOCK. Since we bAQ IQ CFI I the 2 saes to a primary developer for the whole block, I agreed to sell my comer to Smith's. Sometime in 1988.89 me and my partners submitted a development fa the 2 eae parcel; however, tt became very dear that the City warned a SINGLE developer for the entire block. In fact, it got very dttficuft to proceed with our proposed developmem (2 saes) and we abandoned the project. Later on I began to see the benefits and reasoning why the City of Rancho Cucamonga was looking for a single developer for the entire block. There were several properties in the block that had older twikfings wtth little useful economic I'rfe in them; some vacam properties and the tkx~d control district property at the west end of the block. tt did seem to make sense to have a single major developer that could redify and clean up the whole mess. .l ~~ ~ 194 In early 1991 Smith's had every parcel in the entire block under contract which would satisfy the Foothill Specific Plan. The roller rink, restaurant, apartment complexes and vacam land would all be under the control of a single major developer. The Foothill Speck Plan would be satisfied, the City would get a quality development and the blight would be totally removed from the sfte. Seems like everyone's nestle would be met! Unfortunately, everything did not work out as planned. Three parcels consisting of approximately 38,000 sq.ft. (less than 1 acre) are now being pulled out of Smith's develoomem. Smith's development consists of something in the range of 500,000 sq.ft. The three property owners are now being told by Smith's the reason for this is: (1) does not make economic sense, (2) City of Rancho Cucamonga led Smith's on about receiving Redevelopment Funds and was subsequently fumed down by the City; and (3) the City of Rancho Cucamonga would not allow Smith's to fully develop the property as originally planned. It seems (according to Smith's representative) that Smith's met all the standards with a larger development (first submittal), but the City cut down the number of leasable square feet. These are the reasons I have been given for not proceeding with the purchase of my parcel and the two apartment complexes. H Smith's plan is approved as currently submitted, it will be going against the guidelines of the Focthill Specific Plan and the blight in the neighbomood will remain. The two remaining apartment parcels will virtually be left `undevekrpable' because of their size and location. The owners were aware of the Foothill Specific Plan and knew someday in the future a single major developer would come abng, pay a fair price and remove the old buildings. My problem (comer lot) is a little bit more unique. We believerf you approve the plan and leave out the three smaller parcels at the north end of the project; (t) it will be going against your own plan for the site, (2) not remove the blight already on the site end (3) not allow smooth traffic and pedestrian flow for all the possible developments for the site. In addition, we believe we are the victim of circumstant~s between the City and Smith's Food King. Fret of all, Smith's agreed to purchase all of our properties at a price Smth's felt was fair and equitable, then Smith's told us they couldn't twy the property because rt was to expensive and the City would not let them develop R aS they were led to believe. Smith's though they could get redevelopment funds and/or build a larger development...and since neither one happened Smith's claimed they could not use our properties for economic reasons. Smith's knew about the City's Foothill Specific Plan and the wishes of the City. Evidently Smith's now believe, very confidently, that they can now proceed with tlteir development without having to honor their commitment and purchase the entire bk>ck as per the guidelines of the Foothill Specific Plan. The losers will be the City, fts citizens, the immediate neighborhood and of course the property owners who were led to believe in SmRh's and the City guidelines es approved in the Foothill Spedfic Plan. This whole block is the western gateway to the City of Rancho Cucamonga and 'rf this project is approved as submitted, ft doesn't seem to meet the standards (Foothill Plan) which took several years to study, review, revise numerous times and finally 195 z p ~_ ~ ~ receive the stamp of approval by all the citizens antl staff of Rancho Cucamonga. If Smith's plan is approved wfthout incorporating our three parcels we believe the following will occur: (1) Smith's will not Ue meeting the standards and guidelines of the Foothill Specific Plan (2) According to Smith's they now do not have to complete the purchase our property... because tt is too expensive and the City feels their projeG is acceptable in light of the Foothill Specific Plan. (3) The three property owners gave the City and Smith's the opportunity to proceed with the developmerrt for the site as THEY WISH... we allowed Smih's to die up the property` for over 1 1/2 years (4) Smith's telling three property owners the City is at fault because of their unreasonatNe restrictions (5) The blight left attar the Smith development will probably be there forever (6) Very ditfiwR to effectivety develop remaining parcels and incorporate them with the Smith development (7) All the other property owners were able to sell and dose escrow with Smith's because Of them. The City will get a major deveoper for the site. Remaining property owners are the real losers. They're left with trying to develop a commercial site that even Smihh's say is not economically viable. ff Smith's does not think rt's worth devebping, then who will, The blight will remain literally forever. Is that what the City wants9 Ret7ardlna Prior 9°°roval Qf Southwest Corner vinevarC ~{ ~r 9emardino Roatls I personally feel beVayed and irid{ed into entering into apurchase/option agreement with Smith's in early 1991. I ~ DQS waM to sell the property as I spent untold hours end a lot of money to be01n tlevebping the site. It was made very Gear to me that M I did not enter into a contract witlt SmRh's for the comer...they would look for other sites and would not buy the two acre parcel which I was in partnership with two other irnestors. I did receive a fair offer from Smith's and decitled to sell the comer. After attending numerous meetings with the City regarding the Foothill Specific Plan and realising the City's wishes and desires, I felt the only viable solution for the project bounded by Foothill, YneyaM, San Bernardino end the Flood Control District... would qe to find a singb major deveoper. Smith's seemed to be the pertect answer for everyone, inducting all tfle property owners. I knew 'rf Smith's was the single developer for the whole see everyone would t>a happy antl satisfied. 3 1~ 11 ~~~ {1 When I first pulled the building penntt for my comer sRe I had several serious buyers who would purchase the property and move their business onto the site. I had a couple of retail outlets looking for a long term lease (10+5+5 years) which would have been good for me. Prior to signing the final agreement with Smith's 1 met with City officials to make sure that my building permit could remain active until the tledsion with Smith's occurred. The City was extremely helpful and assisted me while at the same time allowing Smith's suffidem time to do their studies on the site. tt was in the best interests of the City, Smith's Food IGng and myseH to see that the Smtth project goes forward. In the early part of 1992 my building permit had expired and I was not able to proceed with construction t~ecause of my comrect with Smth's. 1 was assured by Smith's everything was going abng okay and escrow would dose as scheduled. September came and wem witrwut escrow dosing. To this date 1 have never received a letter from Smith's indicating their desires not to purchase my property. Just prior to September 1, 1992 I was Infomted by Smith's realty consuttent...they didnR know what Smtth's was gdng to do. No one woukd give me a reason or talk to me about my property. I called Smith's Food IGng several times for clarification. No one at Smith's would talk to me. They kept referring me to a consuftam in Texas, Mr. Larry pang. Mr. gang has always been very nice and would talk to me, but he didn't have the final say so. I am now left with my original parcel, lost two years Of marketing and at least three potential sales, all permits have expired, and I face another possible uphill battle to reinstate my original project with plans, reviews, additional expenses and public hearings! This is not what 1 had in mind when I agreed to COf1V8Ct with Smith's. As indicated early everyone, except the leftover three property owners, gets what they wartt...Smith's, City W Rancho Cucartwnga and the other property owners who were fortunate to have their property inducted in a speafic plan that called for the entire devebpmem to be under the control OF A SINGLE DEVELOPER! I am requesting that you adhere to your previous goals laid out in the Foothill Specific Plan, and whoever devektps the site include ~( nrooertles within S~ afbrementlonetl bountlaHes. tt makes for good sound planning. Smith's has already indicated they do not want the three properoes because h will not make any economic sense. Why is that? Together (City, Smith & Property Owners) we need to resolve the matter for all concerned. I look forward to your comments and will be at the public hearing on the 9th of this month to answer any questions you might have regarding this letter. Sincerery yours, Edward R. Combs, Owner 8008 Vineyard Avenue (714)•985.5994 residence y = ~ ~ r 1~ RESOLVTION NO. 93 ~ X37 A AEEOLUTSON OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MNCNO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPAOV ING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 92 -18, THE DEVELOPMENT OF A COMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTER CONSIBTING OF A 75,000 SQOARE FOOT GROCERY STORE, TWO SATELLITE BVILDINGS OF 3,500 SQVARE FEET EACN, AND A DANE-THRU PAD OF 4,800 SQVARE FEET ON 10.6 ACAES OF LAND IN THE COfOtUNI TY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (BUBAAEA 2) OF THE FOOTHILL BOOLEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED AT TH£ NOATFIWEST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND VINEYARD AVENUE, AND MAEING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 207-102 -03, 5, 8, 15, 20, 21, AND 49. A. Reci•ale. (i) Smith's Pood 6 Drug has filed en application for the issuance of Contl£t tonal Vee Permit No. 92-18 ae described in the title of this Reeolut ion. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit request ie referred to ae "the application." (ii) On the 9th day of December 1992, the Planning Commie9ion of the City of Renc ho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. on December 15, 1992, a subsequent public hearing wee conducted and following the conclusion of said public hearing, the Planning Coawies ion adapted Resolution No. 92-351 thereby recommending to this CLty Council that said application be denied. (iii) The dec ie ion repre eented by ea id Planning Commission Aeeolut ion was timely appealed to this Council. (iv) On January 20, 1993, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and continued said hearing Co February 17, 1993r for the purpose of allowing a subcommittee of the City Council the opportunity Co more closely review specific design issues. (v) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of thla Aeeolut lon have occurred. e. Reeolut ion. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found; tletermi ned, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga ae follows: 1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts eat forth in the Recitals, Part A, of thle Reaalut ion ere t[ue end correct. 2. Baesd upon substantial evidence presented to Chia Council during the above-referenced January 20, and February 17, 1993, public hearing, including written staff report e, the minutes of the above-referenced Planning Commission meeting, the contents of Planning Commission Reeolut ion No. 92-151, and the recommendation of the City Council Subcommittee, Chie CovnCil hereby specifically finds as follows: 1.70 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. CUP 92-13 APPROVAL - SM ITR'S February 17, 1993 Page 2 (a) Tne application applies to property located at the northwest corner of Fooihill Boulevard and Vlnsyazd Avenue with a street frontage of 770 feet along Foothill Boulevard and a loi tlepth of 730 feet on property zoned Community Commercial. The proposed site ie composed of several parcels and is presently improved with a vacated roller rink and restaurant, e free-standing vacated reeiauzant and associated parking lot with landscaping, and a one-story, wood-framed reeitlence; and (b) The properties to the north of the subject Bite are partially vacant and developed with two apartment buildings, the property to the south consists of vacant property eouih of Foothill Boulevard, the property to the east is Commercial east of Vineyard Avenue, and the property to the west ie the Cucamonga Channel; and (c) The application contemplates the development of a 75,000 square foot grocery store, two satellite builtlinge (e 6 C) comprised of 3,500 square feet each, and a drive-thru pad consisting of 4,800 square feet; and (d) Tne subject property Se designated community commercial by the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan; and (e) The project requires the demolition of the existing roller rink and restaurant builtlinge ae well ae the single family structure located et 8010 Vineyard Avenue, which was built by the Thomas Eamily for workers and family members. A Cultural Resource Study ie currently being conducted by a Society of Professional Archaeologiate (SOFA) csri if ied consultant; end (f) The pro}act site itself may also be •ignifieant sines it was traversed by local Native Americana prior to the arrival of the Spanish explorers; was an integral pact of Che Tiburc io Tapia Rancho de Cucamonga, wnicn includes the Thomas Winery built in 1339; was part of the ground transportation system of generet ions of Americana including the Butterfield stage coach, the Pacific Electric railway and Route 66; entl was the location of the first post office in the area. The Cultural Resource Study will determine Che eignif icance of these items ee well es recommend mitigation measures. (g) The project, ae redesigned nt the request of the City Council Subcommittee, will not be detrimental to the public healthy safety, of waif sre and dose comply with each of the applicable provieiona of ins Development Code and the Fooihill Boulevard Spec if is Plan. 3. Based upon the subetant ial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facie set forth in paragraphs 1 entl 2 aDOVe, Chie Council hereby finds and cane lodes ae follows: (a) That the proposed uea ie in accord with the ,General Plen, the ob]eciives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district In which the site Se located. i~ CITY COUNCIL RRSOLUTION NO. CUP 9Z-18 APPROVAL - SNITH'S Fabruery 17, 1993 Page 3 (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 tae vicinity. (c) Taai the proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of tae Development Code and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. 4. This Council hereby finds and certit tee that the projeei has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Aet of 1970 and, further, this Council hereby issues a mitigated Negative Declerat ion. 5. Based upon the fintlinga and concluatone set forth in paragrapae 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Council hereby approves tae application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions attached hereto end incorporated herein by this reference. inc Divieio 1) Upon completion of the Cultural Raseurese Study currently being conducted by a SOPA cart if led consultant, all mitigation measures and recomsmndaiione contsLned theroin, ae well ae add it ionel Bite plan considerations and environmental mitigations, shall be incorporated Into the project design. All outstanding Leeues end sny revisions and/or modif icetione required by the study shall be reviewed by tae Historic Preeervat ion Commission and forwarded to the Planning Commission for final approval prior to tae issuance of grading permits. 2) Prior to the demolition of any situ ctura on the project site, a complete demolition asbestos Survey and nDatement plan shall be required and shall be subject to review antl approval by the Building Official. 3) Large canopy trees within the parking lot shall be planted Eor shading aG a rata of one tree per three parking atelle. 4) A Vn Lform Sign Program shell be eubm ittsd en0 reviewed and approved by the Design Aeview Committee prior to the iseuenca of building permits. 5) All future buildlnq pads shall be sssded and irrigated Eor erosion control. Dstniled plena, including landscape and irriget lOn, shall be l+llll CITY COVNCIL AESOLVTION NO. CUP 92-18 APPROVAL - SMITH'S Pabruary 17, 1993 Page 4 submitted to the Planning Division prior to the issuance of building perm it e. 6) Onif orm hardscape and eire¢t furniture )Snclutling seating benches, trash receptacles, free-eianding potted plants, bike racks, light bollards, etc.) shall be utilized and be compatible with the architectural style of the center. Detailetl tlesign shall be submitted for Planning Division review and approval prior to the issuance of 6ullding permito. 7) Trash collection shall occur between the hours of 9 a. m. and 30 p.m. only. H) Graffiti shall be removed within 72 hours. 9) All operei ions antl businesses shall 6e contlu cted to comply with the following standards which shall be incarporeted Snto Che lease ngreemant of all tenants: e) Noise Level - All commercial activities shall not create any naive Chet would exceed nn exterior noise level of 60 d8 during the hours of 10 p.m. to 7 e.m. or 65 d8 during the hours of 7 e.m. to 30 p.m. b) Loading and Unloading - No person shall cau ee the loatling, unloatling, opening, closing, or other handling of boxes, Crates, conteinera, building mntariele, garbage cane, or other similar objects between the hours of 30 p. m. snd 7 a.m., in a manner which would cause a noise dLeturDence to a reeitlential aces, unlace oiherwi ee specified herein. 10) Provisions for the following design features in the trash enclosure to the eat letaction of the City Planner: e) Archleecturally Integrated Lnto the design of the shopping center/project. b) Separate pedestrian access that dose not require the opening of the main doors antl Lncludee salt-closing pedestrian doors. ~1 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. CUP 92-1R APPROVAL - SMITH'S February 17, 1993 Page 5 c) Large enough to accommodates !wo trash bins. d) Roll-up doors. e) Trash bins with counter-weighted lid e. f) Architecturally treated overhead shade trellis. g) Chain link screen on top to prevent trash from blowing out of the enclosure and designed to be hidden from view. il) The entire airs shall De kept free from trash and debris at all times, and in no event shall trash and d¢bzis remain for more than 24 hours. 12) All future pad development within the shopping center shell be designed to be compai ible wlth the established architectural program. 13) The lighting fixture design concept shall compliment the nrchltectural program. It shall include the plaza area lighting fixtures, building lighting fixtures (exterior), and pntki ng lot lighting fixtures. 14) Approval from caltrane shall De required for drainage acceptance (under sitlewalk drain) and work within their right-of-way prior to iaeunnce of grading permits, unless otherwise approved by the Director of Community Development. 15) A elope drainage acceptance letter shall be required prior to iesuence of grading permits. 16) Maximum/minimum heights of all walla and elopes shell be indicated on the f1ne1 greding plan. 17) The Maetar Plan is approved in concept only. Future development for Pade A, S, end C shall be subject to eeparete Development/Daelgn Review process for Planning Commlaeion approval. Modif lcatione to the (shopping center/Master Plan) shell be subject to Planning Commission approval. 1E) The berming along Foothill Boulevard adjacent to the drive-thru lane shall be a minimum of WG CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. CUP 92-18 APPROVA:. - SHITH'S February 17, 1993 Page 6 3 feet in height above the lane ir. order to ndequalely screen care. 19) Special pavement shall be provided across circulation ais le e, pedestrian walkways, and plazas. The pavement shall be of brick/tile pavers, exposed aggregate, integral color concrete, or a combination of them. Full samples shall be submitted for City Planner revleu and approval prior to issuance of building petmita. Special paving shall De provided in front of the entire entryway acroae the driveway. 20) The retaining wells along Vineyard Avenue and Foothill Boulevard shall be created with the same type of rock that will be provided on the grocery stare building front. 21) The Foothill Sou levntd Activity Center landscape concept shall continue from the corner to the channel along Poothill eoulsvard snd from the corner to the northerly driveway nlong Vineyard Avenue. Terraced rock walla shell be provided to minimize 2:1 elopes. 22) The three pad buildings (A, B, and C) shall incorporate the approved rock material for the Smith~e storefront into their design scheme. 23) If the two buildings at the corner are not davelopetl at the same time ae the grocery store, then the etreetecape setback area shall De fully developed up to the pads and the pads shall be landscaped for erosion control. 20) A flat bus shelter roof ie petmisaLble; however, the roof shell be solid in order to provide all weather protection. Vines may be incorporated ad}scent to the supporting columns in order to soften the structure. 25) The applicant shall work with staff during the plan check process in order to determine the moss appropriate species of palm trees et the intersection. 26) Ths use of metal pips handrails ie acceptable on a limited basis when needed ad}scent to stnirways; but mu et be architecturally integrated within the plaza hardscape design in terms of color entl stele. M CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. CUP 92-18 APPROVAL - SMITH'S February 17, 1993 Page 7 27) The pedestrian entrance to the fast food pad shall be treated with a specialty paving e imilar Lo what ie proposed adjacent to the Smith's store entrance (scored concrete with a bzocm finish). 28) Tree Removal Permit 92-17 ie approved subject to the following: a) The existing Waeh inatonia robusta, Washinatonia fil ifera, Pious canariensis, Ced rue deodara, and Platanue scar ifolia shall be relocated on the site and indicated on the final landscape plane which shall be reviewed end approved Dy Lhe City Planner prior to Lhe issuance of building perm it e. The Cadrue deodara may be relocated to an existing City park. Exact location shall De euDjeci io review and approval by the City Planner and City Engineer. b) Tha remaining trees shall be removed and replanted on a one-to-one basis with the largess grown nursery stock available. species and location shell be indicated on the final landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prier to the issuance of building permiie. 29) Recommendation of the ^Pteliminary Geotecani<al Inveatiget ion" prepared by Leighton end Associates, dated September 10, 1991, shall De incorporated into the project tlaaign with pert roans lnformat ion oared on the final grading plan which shall be reviewed and approved by tae Huiltling Off iclel prior to issuance of grading permits. Upon completion of the independent gaotechnicsl analysis currently being conducted, any eddli ional revisions and modif scat ions contalnetl therein shall be incorporated into the project design. 30) A final noise study/eccouetical report shell be prepared with any recommender lone and mitigation measures incorporated into the final project design. The final noise eivdy shall be reviewed and approved by the Clty Plannsr prior to issuance of building permits. M CITY COVNCIL AESOLVTION NO. CUP 9Z-3E APPROVAL - SMITH'S PeDruary 17, 1993 Page e 33) Six months after the data of occupancy, the applicant shall submit a written report the the City Planner verifying that truck delivery ie occurring at times which are not conflicting with peak parking demand iimee. If Eound to 6e necessary, additional restrictions regarding limiting of delivery hours may be placed on the project. Encineerins Divleion 1) ConeLruct the entire length of son Bernardino Aoed full width from Vineyard Avenue westerly (including the cal-de-sac bulb). Off-cite street trees and sidewalk may be deterred until development of the adjacent property. The developer may request a reimbursement egreemeni to recover the coat of off-site improvements from future development/redevelopment ae iG occurs on adjacent property. ]) Foothill Boulevard shall be covet rusted as follows, subject to srodif ieation by and approval of Cel[rane: a) Full improvements on the north side from Vineyartl Avenue to the Cucamonga Creak bridge with necessary transition ae determined by the City Engineer and a combined right turn lane and bus bey from the intersection to the westerly project driveway. b) A landscaped median tram the lnterasction with Vineyard Avenue to the center of the Cucamonga Creek bridge to the eettefaction of the City Engineer. If Coltrane dose not allow a single segment, in-lieu fees will be required in conformance with Condition No. 3. c) Thirty-two feet of pavement on Ghe south aide of the median. d) The developer may request a reimbutsement agreement for permanent improvements south of the centerline, including half of the landscaped median Coate, from !afore development ee it occurs on the south aide of the street. MG CITY COUNCIL AESOLVT ION NO. CVP 92-18 APPROVAL - SMITH'S February 37, 1993 Page 9 3) If Caltrana does not allow construction of the median ielantl within Poothill Boulevard, then an in-lieu fee for one-half the coat of the construction, including landscaping antl irrigation, shall be paid to the City prior to tseuance of building permit a. The fee for the median island shall be based on the distance between the center line of Vineyard Avenue and the center of the Cucamonga Creek bridge. 4( Acquire necessary additional right-of-way and construct pavement to widen the w¢at aide of Vineyard Avenue from Foothill Boulevard southerly to provide safe lane iraneitione for the telocat ion of the Vineyartl Avenue centerline to the eatiefaction of the City Engineer. The d¢veloper may request a reimbursement agreement to recover tae coat of o[f-cite permanent improvements from future development/redevelopment ae it occurs on adjacent property. 5( Overhead Utilities: a) Tha ex toting overhead utilit tee (telecommu nicaticn and electrical) shell be undergrounded ae follawe: i) Foataill Boulevard - on tae project side of [he street from the first pole on the west side of Cucamonga Creak to and Lncluding Lhe last pole easterly. ii( Vineyard Avenue - on the project Bide of the arrest from end including tae firs[ pole south of San Bernardino Road to and including the last pole southerly (all remaining lines antl removal of existing poise(. iii( On-e lte - from the fire[ pole on the north aide of San Bernardino Aoad to and including the last pole (on-site) north of Poothill Boulevard (nlong Lhe vacated portion of San Uiago Avenue(. The developer may request a reimbursement agreement to recover one-half the City adopted l+l/l) CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION N0. CUP 92-18 APPROVAL - SMITH'S February 17, 1993 Page 10 coat for undergrounding from future development/redevelopment as it occurs on the opposite aide of Poothill Boulevard. b) An in-lieu fee ae contribution to the future undergrounding (San Bernardino Aoad) and reimbursement far previously undergroundetl (Vineyard Avenu¢) overheatl utilities (teleconmmnication and electrical) on tF.e apposite olds of the etre¢t shall be paid to the City prior to the issuance of building permlte. The fea shall be one-half the City adopted unit amount times the fallowing lengths: i) San Bernardino Road - the length of the project frontage. ii) Vineyard Avenue - fYOm the north project boundary Lo the center of Poothill Boulevard. 6) An Sn-lieu fee ae reimbursement for street improvements completed on the west aide of Vineyard Avenue per reimbursement agreement in effect shall be paid to the City prior to Che issuance of building permits. 7) Nodif root ions and relocation, if necessary, of the traffic eignel at the intersections of Fcothi ll Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue and San Bernardino Rond end VLneyard Avenue, shall De iha reeponeibility of the develops[. The relocation and modification shall be to the satisfaction of the City Snginear. S) Construct the local storm drain pipe in Foothill Boulevard from the exist inq connection at the lntetesct ion of Vineyard Avenue to Cucamonga Creek to the eat ref act ion o£ the City Engineer. 9) "Nc larking; Stopping" signs shall be posted along the frontages of Foothill Boulevard end Vineyard Avenue and a "NO Trucks over 3 Ton" sign shall be posted on San Bernardino Road. 30) An in-lieu tea for one-fourth the coat of conetructing special pavers within the Poothill Boulevard/Vineyard Avenue lntereectlon shall be paid to the City prior to Che issuance of WI CITY COUNCIL RESOLVTION NO. COP 92-18 APPROVAL - SNITH'S February 17, 1993 Page 11 building permits. The fee amount shall be based on the square footage of the intersection. 11) Coneieteni with the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plen, the water element at the norihweet corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue shall be located outside the public right-of-way. @uildi 6 Saf t D' ' 1) Approvals from San Bernardino County Health, Cucanwnga County Weter Dia tract, and school districts an all be required prior to the issuance of building pezmite. In eddit ion, AQMU approval may be tequ iced if hazardous materials are used, hendled, or stored. 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. M CITY OP DEP/.~RTMENT OF °°~°°~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT a: vV!- q2~ SUBJECT: //,,~~ / APPLICANT: ~/t"(.I17 LOCATION; AIGdG r I A Lu Q1~ fi/tI /I Tlxrae herrla chedrad are Condltlona of Approval. APPLICANT BHAI.L CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION , (ne) 911061, FOR COWLAANCE eY1TH THE FOLLOVy1NG CONORIONS: A. Thee Limit ~_ '. Approval ahaA expire, antes extended W IM Plwihq CartaliMefon, M DuAdktq psmats are nd Issued or approved use hae not conrrwrlced wdllan 21 moMShomihs date d approval. z. OsveloPn«+rWDssgn Review etiaA W approved prbr b / i - 3. Appwal d TantsANe Traq No. k Waned auged b iM appoval d ~. TM dsvebperslwAotxtxrrrw,panbpNe hr, andwrrutnlslearcweebWOOnnwrx:e0. partic4ated in, or corietmettalad, a MNo-ROOe CrorrsrwlAy FaciCMa Ohhlct (OFD) Ia the Ralit:lb Cugrti0rlpa Fh PrMaWon Dlehkl q ikWlCe OOrWnIWOn aMror maYaenance of a the stalbn to asrw tM dawbprtlara. TM etalbn atwl W baM6, OeNptsa, ane Duct b a0 specaicatbris 01 tM Randn Crranprps Fhe Prgadbn DlatdCt, and ihaA Oeeorfls the OMIdG's proWdY ~ oaitpbtlon. The epuipment th01 ba NMGSd M Me Dbtrict in aromnfarra wish b nes4. b ally bue0hi0 of a MMbn, tM devebpar shah comply vrith 911 applicable Iawa and rapiastlons. Ths CFD shall b bmrd by the DNtIk,T and iha devebper by 1M time rernrdatbn of tlM final map occurs. Prbr Iro racordatbn of dIe Orlal map or iM 4warlce of Dulldh0 perrtels, wMdiaver Domes Ihe1, tM applicant enaA ooneM to, or paradpge ki, the eelabaaMleM of a McAo-Roos Commundy FadNlies Dkhkl br dIe corrtnlabn art rnWaanartca b rrcessary school IaCiBiee. iwwever, a arty ecltool dNDN ttas prevbwly eaubAsMd each a Commultay FadAlies Datrfct, tM appacaM Ahall, in iM aaematiw, roonsenl b IM arewxatlon of iM propel silo into the terribry M such ea4dnp Dipdp plot ro tM racordtlbn d the IhiL map or the itieUinq of WildinD pamtpa, whiefrw.x mrtiat INA. Fur1Mr, M IM dladad ecltool dNtriq naa rbt brrrwd a Msao-Raos Community Fat:ililiM Oiprlcl wkhlnlwaNe rtaMnstrom IM Dale of approval of ilr pojact and prbr to the recordl4bn d tlIe tktal map or iewance of buildfrlp WritY1S br acid projeu, IINt aondilbn etulM W delnMd nuA arW void. l~11~ JJ- J~- J~_ J~/- JJ~ x ~~iol 11 ,- ~.0 92-rg , Thb cotrdpbn snap be waNed'd the Cily roteNea notl0e that the appNCarrt and ell aHeded school dbbias have mend bto en agroetnen b privaley acmmtrtodate airy and ap sclpol nrtpaas as a reaN of this pupa. 6. Prior to recordatbn of the final map or prbr b issuance a bupalrtp pemtlts when ra map a JJ_ hrvolved, vrritlen certpieatiallmm itre sassed watsrdetrict tfnl adeQuate sewer and water IarAlNies are or wNl i>B availabb to serve the proposed project afnA be eubmided b the Departrnen or Community Devabpmera. Such beer must have been issued by ttrn water d'slricl wphin 90daysprbrb final mapapproval Intfre case a whdNbbnorprbrb issuance of pemds in itro case of aA ether reeidenbl projeaa. B. SIM owatopnwm 1. The site slnA be devsbped and makdained m aaprdance witlt the apgovs0 plate which J~- iradttde see putts. archNaclurol nbvatbrta, sxtarbr matarbb ant cobn, latMacapYtp. sign taopram. and gradktp on iNa b tfrs PbtWtp Olvbbn, Uts wrrdkbro rnrsaktad herein, Devebpmlen Code regubtbrar, and f~L~L Bluff . Spadib Pbt4arrd' 2. Prbr to arty use of the project sNe or buaafass aaivpy bake comnnad dtsreon, ap J-J- Condipotts of Approval shag DB ton4bted b the safWactlon a tM Cpy Plaratar. 3. OavperbydiMfaaAty alral notcamrra~unlp atchtsrtaasaN Umbtm8uildittpCOde and JJ_ StaN Flro Manhap's repubtlorw fvV• bean oomplbd wph. Wbrb ooatpaftcy, pbro shop b0 euWtrpted t0 Ute FNarClto Ctrramotlpa Faa Ptaatabn DbOila and dts BIIiI4ptQ and Solely Divbbn b avow COrtgAinp. Tha buAdktg thep Oa ptspaaad tar aonpYana poor b ocatPatwY ~ 4. . Revbed spa pons and building sbvetbro ianrporalNq Y Cortdtlone a Approval stop be JJ_ _ sttdtWted for City PlartrMr raVbW and approval ptbf b bfttatlde a bupdttg partrpn. 5. Apspe. pradirq,laMecape, arfpatlon, and anastlttproverrrrs plw shalbecootdkuted for J_J- combtency priorto beuartce a arrypamp~ (such as gradrtg,tne ramwsf, encnoaclnten, bulldaq . eto.), w prior b Ilttal map appot'al M Ins rasa a a aMam bt subdivisbn, or approved ass rtes cofttiasrtoed, whicMver wrttas fkq. _~ 6. Approval a dtis nquep atraN rear waive totftppafra vApt aN ttadbn a Vta oewbpmten J-/- Code, tl ottror apppGibb CNY Ordirtaress, and apppcabb CdtfanatpY Plafra or Spsalic Plans in aMedt at the tptta a Brrpdhtg Mmtp ieatartca. X 7. A dMaibd on•ette llgnNp wm enu a tWbwyd and ttpptovad br tM CNy Plaratsr and J-~- SherNfs Dapnttrtata (gpg-p611) ptbt b tM bttwrrca a wNdptg pemab. Such plan shall ineicats styN, ipumsfalion, IoeaNOn, Mips, and method a alpaldprg so u na ro adversely apes adjacent propenbs. a. h ro cenroNzad tram reaptacbe an provWed, ap basft pidr-up shall W for ktdnrldual units J~'_ wph aN rocegacbs shbbad Iran pubpc view. ~_ 9. TraM reeeplaeb(al aro rewired and snap meat CNy standards. TM htsl drolgn, bcatbrts. J-,' - and the number a tram racapucbs altall W argaa ro Cpy Msralsr ravbw and approval prior b issuance a buildirtp permits. 10. Ap prourW-mooned utNpy eppWenances such as lrartelomtsrs, AC dtMdarusn, etc.. shall I -~ - be bated out of pudic vrow attd adewataly xnsnad through the ass a a combination of COnCrole or masonry wawa, bsrmirfg, artaor brtdscapinp b iM satbtsaion of iM Cpy Planner. x -a~ot samdo~c 11. Slroet names shall be subrtined for Csy Penner review and approval in accodance with the adopted Street Namng Policy poor ro approval of the linal map. _~ t 2. Aq EuiOatg re+mbers ctrl Individual uses shall 6e bentaie0 in a clear ctrl concise manner, includ"rlp proper YWminatbn. 13. A detailed Wan indicating trail widors, museum sbpss, Whsiwl ooldabns, ferxinp, and weed rwrnrol, in aCCOrd811Ce with Clly Master TraA drewkgs, snap lfe SubR1I11eO br Cily Penner review and approval prbrto approvatard rooortlaaonoltha Final Trap Mapand prior to approval of street hrtprevemerfl andpradrq plane. DevebpsrshaNupgrede and construct aN trees, irtdudirq ferfesrp and Oreinape devices, in coniurtctbn wah street uryxovemerns. 74. The Covenants, bt owrrsrs rn eWdivieiorrs ehae havatheaptbn d kaepkgaaid anarukwlequt dfe rfeeaassy of appeaFrlp to boards d directors «Mrnownars' assodationa for amendmeres to the CCdRa. 15. The Covsnans. Contlabra, ctrl Reatridbna lCC8Ra1 aM Arlldes d Incorporetion d tM Homeowners' Asaoaation are aubjed b tln approval d the Plarnkq and Enpineerirq Diviabrrs efd the Cky Atlomey. TMy slurs a recomeO d«uvrrsraty wan dfe Flnal Map or Prbr to IM Nsuarce d Ouadirq pamMa, whbftwer armors Iesl. A rec«ded cap7r shall he provided to the Chy Erginser. ts. Allpadtwaya, open aroae,andtsndecapirtpateA W psrtnarteray rrlNrnaafed bythepropsrry owner. horrtsowrwrs' aseociahon, or direr means noaptabM ro tlrs Cay. Proot d thin lardappe mairnenarres stall be eutaratted br Cay Pnrater and Ctry ErtpMeer review and approval prbr to iawanoe d DuilOirtp psmb. t 7. Solo access easemerns shall be dedlcaled 1« tits pwpoea d aeeumirtp that each bt or dwalNrlg unit ahaN have Me delta b receive turYfgte across adpoen Ion or rises br use of a solar energy system. 7M eaeemarns may W mraaMMd b a DecYrMbn d Reabtdbna for the srlbdivnion wttidt atoll W recorded oorraarenltywNh tM recadalbn0llM 1ktW map or iaeUarlCe of pemNts, wMCMwr corns ritd. The eaaamsrae ahdl prondt tlw oastin0 of snadavs by vspetmbn, etntcnses, fdturea or arty odter ob~ed, escept br Niley wkas ctrl snrfaar opals, PursuLa b OsvelopmOnt Code Sedbn 17.08.0800.2. JJ_ JJ- ___/_ /_ JJ_ J-J- J-/_ J~_ 18. The propl rxrdalrw ^ deagrWed Hlel«fcel Larfdrttsrk. TM acts snap be devsbpsd and J~-. mairsainad in aocordana with tM Hlrgdlc Lattdtrtark Aaeralbn Permit No. . Any fumer rrtodsicatlorrt to the sMs indudNrp, but rid amNed b, esnrlor aaeratbrfa arfdror imerbr aaeratbrtawnbhaBeltM sded«dtMbuildktpaorltttucWrea,removUd erfdmaM trees, demaabn, robealbn, neonstna:tiond ttuilditlps oratnletuna, «cNrtpes to the sae, seas repots a rtwdilrralbn b tlfe Hiatatc I.arrdrtnrk Aaeration Pema eublM b Historic Preaervalbn Cortmiaabn revew ctrl approval. C. Building oetlpn t .. An aaemstive energy system is repuirod b provide domeatlc hot wtlsr br all dwelWrp ones are for neatirtp any aweminp pool «ape, unlns attar aMmatNe aterpy sytaema are demonstrated to be d eQuivalerncapacity and e8iciency. All swMmtNp pooh Mrotaaed at the time d irteial devebpmern stwl w supplenrrned wah solar Matktg. Detaaa shan oe included in the buidNtp Web an0 atoll W etlbm8ted for City Flamer revbw ctrl apgoval prior to the issuance d building pemaa. 2. All dwallirgs stall nave the from, side and ear eNvatbna upgraded wah arldtectural - treatmern, detailirq and tncrsaaeo dslinsatbn d audaa Iroatmern tlugxa t0 Ciry Penner review and approval poor to isauarta d Glildiftp parmaa. SC Z/al 1.! rt.l e GuP ~va~ °I2'14s 3 . Sbrrdard palb rover plans for use DY the Homeowners' ASSOeiatbn shag De submptes for sue; JJ Cpy Pbnner and Supdzp Clfbiel review and approval pMrto nsuarw;e a budOlrg pertnps. - __~~__ ~ . Ap rod appudenances, zrdtMirq a"roondMbners and aher roe moused ePrlpmern aMMr J-J- projaclbne, ahallbeshielded/romview andtfre sound lwlleredtrom adjacentpmpeniasand streets as required DY ttte Pbminq Dlviebn. Such acreerrkrg snap M anditeehrropy imegreted wph the errpdkq dealpn arq corntrtrpes to the amlefaclbn a tlw Cpy Planner. Detape shop be included b Duildzp pbrro. 0. Parklrp and VMleubr ACCaq (Indlgta dNYb On Oulpmg pbtls) 1. M parkbg bt landscape Isbrxfs elrap have a mirimrm aasWO drronsiond Bfeel arW ahaN JJ- corsab a 12-irz;n wok ae>xaro b the parking sloe (tz:ar6rrp ourD). X 2. Te~Mrres padsstdan pathways and brmrrw pavnrsro apes ekwWbn ebbs sw Oe J---~- povtdedthrgrglwtAthedavsbpmentboomeatlweNnpsltziblWpdppswphatxm epaceL pluaBlreasational uses. 3. AN padting spaces straA hs Oorrbb strped par Cay uarzfards aM aA drNaway ebbs, JJ- eranr7WS, and expo chap De atl•ped par Cpy atarldanoe. ~. Aa arils shell De provides wah Gra9a door opanw a OrNaways w Mss tlart t8 iM n ~-J- depth Irerrl Dick a sidswak. s. TMCOVSrranls, CendltlonsanO Rsstrlclbrr shMrMrldlMaltxapsararnttlbrW whidea ---~-J- on this site unties iMy w iM prkrclpal aaurw a lrwpodMbn brtlw owner and profibp parklrrp on Maarbr dreublbn ebbs otMr Man M dislgrW W vWa paddrq was. ___,~,_ s. Plw br arry security gMea alma W auMNaad for file CAy Plantar, Gry Errgzrsar, and JJ- Rartclb Cucamortpa Fka Praaetlon Dtprkl mbw and appovalprbrb tauarb.a Wprxnp pemib. E. l.andauplrq (br PtoMaY malrrbkrW YMwpa araaa, Mar bllaaton N.) ~_1. Adetapes bndacaD.e ail0kdpation pbn, irtckrdktptbpaplaraMtp end modal horns brgacap- -J___(- bo in itb caaa a ragdsrtaal davabpmara, altal ba prepared M a bamad landeeape arcNtaasnd wbmaadbr Cpy Plwbr mbwargapprovat prbrb tna bw.nwa tapldrq pamras ar prior flrtal map approval in tits eaaa d • abbm tit auDdtMbn. 2. ExblirtptroseraqukadbWttroaarvWMpbpattYWpraaaeswlM^aotrpnrcllonharrier J___/- b arx7otdanawahOb MurielpMCodaSaetbn 19.OE.110, aro aonobdonMagramnp pons. The bcatbnatlbNitNabha prasarvadbpba aM nawbcaNOrtabrlrartapbroad trees snap be afbwnonlM W Wb0 bn0ecapapbns. The appperp pW bpowap a Ms arbodst's rscomrrtendtlbns ropprdkq pmarvtdbn, tranaptantkp ayq tMrrnktp rMifbda. 3. Arnktknuma`trosapMgroaa apa,tzngdseddObtobwMpahaa. ahaaWprevlded .-/-J_ wilhintM prorap: %-a8-irzit DOx or brgar, %-3&lnch Ooz or brgar, % • 24 inM Oox or bryar. _ % • 15-gabn~ Ytl ! % - S gabs. a. A mnimum a ?`%ol lraes pbnled wi1Mn the go)aaCt aMA G fpaeknen alxa frees • J- _ 24irz3t boz or larger. ~_ s, wpfin parkirtp lrNa, troy shall w plarpad at a rob d one 15-papal tree br ovary tone - - parklnp ataps, suMCrern to shade so%a tM paMinp area at aobr rbon on August z1. sc xiei _~ 8. ~-~ C.~ Trees 6heA heplanted in areas o1 q,db view aeWcem to and abrtp suuCUres at a rate of one tree per 30 Anear feet o1 dtildNq, ~7. Aaprivatesbps barats Slset«basnvertieal hBiphtaro o15:1 crpresterslope,bul less than 2:, abpe, 6'W be, al rrinnum, impaled arrd tergaceped wah apprapdata pra,ro rover ror erosion oartol. stove pkralnp rew.ed oY tfes sexton al,dl k,carde a permanem ergatbn system ro ba Yntated M the devabper prbr b ocafparwy. _~8. Alprivate abpeanexaeaaa5leet, nut lesattlen8 feet nvertical heghtarodz:l «proeter sbpe shal De IanOaoaved end inlpeled t«amebr, rorera aro to aottentfteir appearance as toaows: one t5yaaon «larpersize tote per each 150 eq. tt. of abve area, l yalbn or larger sae atnrn pereach 100 aq. tt, d sbPe area, and appropriate prouro cwer.lnaddabn, slope banks n aacaaa a B test n venk:al frsipht aro d 2:1 «greater abps sfaU also atoa,de one Syalbn « IarpM sae tree per each 250 q. tt. a stave aru. Troea aro ahn,ne snail De plarttsd n atappsred Waters b gotten aro vary slope pltns. Sbpe DlnMinp rsquksd M dsa sectlon strati ircM,de a permanent inipalbn system a ne nataAed M tM dwebper prior b ~~ 9. For akgle famly rositlsn0al dwebpnrsM, aM eWpe pWaarp aro infptlbn shwa ne corakar awaymaksanW nafbatnyarotnnvrgoorohbn bynaasvrbperurAaacnrWvldualuMt a eoM armoau++ed byths nuyer. Priorto rebnepoauparwyfortltose unas, an atapedbn shoe be conducted M tfle Plurwq Diviabrr ro daemarw tlat they are n atlilacfory coroltion. ~_ to. For mW FlamAy rasldsnliW and ron•rssidemW dsvsbprtrenl, pmpedy ownere are respon• sihle for lfrs carewaw malnronanu d aA Iartdac+Ved areas on-alts, as w.a as mraquoaa pUnled areas wAhn iM pWAC dpfaq-wry. M lmdaaapad and efraA be keg tree ir«n weWS aro debds and rmkaanM n a naMty aro tlnvirp aorleflbn, aro ahaA rocekro repuler pnxtlrtp, IartAmrq, rnowYtp, aro trYnniq, My dantapad, dead dbeasM, or decaNaq pWa malenai enaA a replaced within 90 days from dte aaM d dantape. ,,. From yard uroxapinq ShaA t» required par dre Dsvebpnrnt Code and br . This requinmerq of W w n addlbn ro iM euqured snset trees and sbpe planting. ~_,z. TM Onal design a tM pedmefer pvkwaye~ wYa. Irtlecapap, and sidewaka anal be included n the ragiNraO giro aro ahM M ablad ro rsAy PYrarr revbw aro approval aroooordMWed brareblerwywAharry Pa~Y 4rrdacapYtpplenwhbh may bs nquead ~Y tIM E(IQYWrnlp OtM1011. 13. Special IartMCapa Nature talCh as tttourrdlrtp, aibvW rods. apacMr»n tea trees, mearlder- irp sidswab (wqh frodmnal charpal, aro seertsAiW IarWeuplnp, Y rglkad abnp ~_ t 4. LaroaaapNp and Mgalbn ayaema euqured ro be kataNed wl0an ttw ptthAC dpMq•tvay on the psrkrtalsr a IHa Prolaa sass snag w oorasaauay maedained M tfla devebper. _~ 15. AA waN6 sltaA W pmvldsdwahdeooratlve treatmen. h bCMW n pubac nWrrtenarlu arena, tM design shah Oe ocorditued wAh ihs Ertpirwerkp Divisbn. _~ 18. Tray makeenanw rxAeria ahaA G devsbpad and taAneAW br CNy Plerxler rwMw anc approval prbr b keuaflae a CuiWkq permMS. Tflna uaaM sllW efl0ourapa Mle nqure proMh charectedelbs of the eeleaed Iran specNS. _~ 17. Laroscapinq and knpalbn shall W deslprred b nonearw rosier ttwdrph pie prktcgles o Xenscaps as dairlW in Chager 19.16 d nw Fbrtctb Cucanorga kWnicgal Code. ia~2s0 smmlmmAa; JJ_ JJ_ J.-/- J_J- J_J- J~- J~- J~- JJ_ JJ- J_/_ -~-~- ac ~ aret 1.! G "" gz,tb F. Slpm _,~1 . Theaigrs Mtdiceted ontMsubminetlplarre arecortcelxualodyarq rotapartd tNs approval. JJ- Any Spry goposeA for ihi4 devebpmem shall congly with the Spn OrWnance aro shall regrliro separate applieatbn and approval oY the Planning Diviabn priorto xrataNation d any signs. ~,~ 2. AUnaonn Sign Program lorNis devebixnern shwa be submiheo for CNy Planner review and J_/- apprevalprior to tssuarxxf d twiMirq pennas. 3 . Directory monumem signjs) shall he provided for epertmed, Condominium, Or tkxenhortlas JJ- prbr to oauparxy arq Shah require seperele appNcatbn and approval by the Plenrarq Divgion prat ro iswanee d Iwildkq pemrits. G. EnvlmmwMal ~._ 1. The devebper shag provide each ProsPeCtWe txrysr wraten notice d the Founh Stroet Rock JJ- CNSherproject in a Standard fomrat 86 detefrrlirled by the CNY Planner, prbrro acoeging a cash deposit on arty property. ~_ 2. The devebper shah provde each proapedhro wyer wrlhen notice d the Cay Adopted -J-1- Spagal SWdles Zone for iM Red NW Fault, b ^ aarmrd torrrtaA as kletermklsd by tlts CMy Plarxrar, prbr b acrePtYtC a asn depoaN on arty property. ~_ 3. The devebper ahaa provide each proepetlive dryer wfNlen notce d ilN FOelltal Froewey JJ- projerx in a standard IontW aE ONerrfrkMd by iM Cay PWvtsr, prior ro acapatg a cash depoaA on arty propeAy. t. A final aCOUStiCel report Shalt 6e subrriNlM for CMy PlaraNr revew and approval prbr ro the J_/- tatuarlce of buildkq psnnss. The post report shah dYass ihs IsvN d Maerbr noise anenwtionto DebwlS CNEl, tltebuipktg mabnab and txxtalnxxbnteclwequssDmviOed, and M apprapAate, vsraytM sOeWatyyd tM mNipatbll meawrea. TM CuNdlnp purrs wNl be checked br txmlormartce with the rtstgaaon maaswes ooraainsd h tM Nnal report. H. txn.r AgarwdM 1. EmeryenCyaecorrdaryaooessahaNlxgwidedlnacoddancewMhRartcMCucartgrtgaFire --~-J- PrdeAbn Dlatrtp Standards. 2. Emergency aCCef6ahtllNprovided, maManutce hae andGsar,a rrwWtarmd ZBteetwide -r-/- at aN times QxMq aorrUUdbn In accordant weh Rancho cttcamonga Fira Protectbn Dislrk;t requuamsma. , 3. Prbr to bauarlce d bulldkq pemtea for carroustids oortstmpbn, evkNnCe shall be ~ J -: SubrrritlW to the Randto Cueamonpa Flre Prderabh DlslrktttW temporary walerappty for tiro pmtxtbn k avaNabla, peralklg mntplalbn d nqukad fire gdeglon system. ', a. TM appNcanl sf WI mntact IM U. S. Postal Sarvioe b dalamlale IM appoprtate type and ' _ . _. bCatbn of mail hoses. MuNi-family rnWenlfal develeplllelMa NWI provide a coed oveAMad structure for maN poxes wIM adequate NWMaq. TM htM bcatbn d tM maN boxes and the oeapn a the ovamead atlucWre ahaM bs subject to CMy Planner revew and approval prx7r to the issuance d Wildktp psmNla. 5, For pobcts using seplb tank tacNNies, wrHten ceAMbalbn of aooegabNNy, irlcktdirp an supportjvs idohnatbn, ahaN W oWained Irom pta San 8errlardkro CcuMy Dspadmern of Ertvirpnmemal Neaah and subrrtatad to ihs Suiktirq Ollicial prior b tM ipuanGe D> Septic Tank Psmkls, and prior b gsuance d buNdrq pemtils. x~vel yr Q 1 ~ ~ I ~ /Z'(qj , Sm,dmm-Uc APPLICANTS SHALL COITTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETV DIVISION, pt4) 989.1863, FOR COMPIJANCE WITT1 THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: I. SBe Davebpmem t. Theapplicam Shall oomplywahthe latest adopted Uneorm Building Cade, Uneonn Mechani~ J-J- cal Code, Unsorm PsrmGng Code, Natbnal Eledrb Code, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in shed al the time of issuance of rotative pemels. Please tooted the Building and Salary Divisbn for copies W the Code Adgabn Ordinance and applicable handouts. , 2. Prior to e&tartce d buatlirp pemtlls for a new resiceMial dweahp unNla) or major eddabn -»- to existirpunalsJ, iM appacam shad paydevebpnemlees at theastadisttadrate. Such lees may induce, but ace rot em8etl to: CNy Besutaicbbn Fae, Park Fee, Dralnape Fee. Systems Devebpmem Fee, Pemta arW PWn Checking Faeb, acrd Sdbol Fees. ~_, 3. Ptbr b isauance of budding partner for a new cortvrtsreUl of InOu&dal Oavakrpitam or J-/- ac0itiort to an ezistinp Oevabpment, the appgeanl soar pry oevebgrtem fees at the estabkaftec rate. Such lees may ktckrde, txA are not 14NiW b: Syetemc DevebpmeM Fee, Drainage Fee, SCtool Foes, Permit and Plan Checkup Fesa. __~ 4. Sheetadoresees shall De provioed by8le Building Ollkdal, a8eriracUparcel map recordation and poor to issuance d dtackg pemnls. J. E><IStlnq SInKfBrp t. Provice corrg8artee w6h the Unaorm BuilOktp Coos br Bte property Ikfe dearances JJ_ conaiderirp use, aroa, and firo-rosiatNMbs6 a exbtMp Iwiloklps. 2. Exiatirp buBMnge attetl be mace to oorrpy wah comet wibkp arA zoning requmbns !or J~- itM Iroelbed U99 Of the Wadkg ehxN W delrlelblled. 3. ExisOnp sewage ciePOeai 18dwies altaa bs romoveo, lino artoror ca(Kxc to oomph wah the I J~- Urteorm Plumbing Coca irtd Urteortn Buildktp Cods. 4. UndelglbUfld OrFeMe 11WMbs ero 10 be bCated and ettown On builokp p1an8 sttbrtkneo for I J-/- buildirp permit appkntlon. K. GrWlnq -~ 1. Gracing of iM slgsd progeny of WI bs in accordanwv wNh Ms Unlbrm Builcirp Cooe, City -J-~- Grodkq Standards, and acaped GrbinO pradbas. 71ts Iwl prooirp plan shall be in suhetarsial oortlommnw xHn the approval Ped'mq P4n• 2. A sobs capon spas be prepared try a quakfbd ertqutear Ikerrssd by the Slate of Caleomia to -~ J - parfortn such rrorit. 3. TTe dwelopnterA B boated wxhin tits soa erosion caarol Dourtdarbs: a Soil Disttabance i -/_ _ Permll k requMao. PNaxe ooraaq San Bertwrdno County DeparhMrool Aprkarllun x11714) 387-2111 for pehlat appacatbn. Doatmeaahon O1 each pemkl shag be submgted to the Cey prior b the isxuartoa of cargo WadlnG perms. _.~__ 4. A geobgical capon Shag be papered W a qua6lbd engineer or peologbt attd submitteo at - - Ihe time of applicatbn br grodirp plan cMck. _~_5. The final pratlirp plansshall be compbtedand approved pbrto issuartceol buibfrq permits -_ s< 1/9l .k i. I 2IDit~n-l~lV s. A$ a WsronFbt aUbdNlSlen, the fblbwing rBQUIrer11ef1L5 shah f>8 mat: a. Surety shall W posted and an agreomeM ezearted puaranleeing corrplotion of all on-see dreinage IaGleies necessary for dewatennp all parcels to the salislactbn of the Buibirq and Salary Division priorto linal map approval and prbrto Ne issuance of pradirq penrwts. b. Approprtale easemerm for safe disposal d dreinape water that are coMuclW omo or over adjacem parcels, are to W delinealW and recorded ro the salislagbn of the Buildirg and Safety Divisbn prior to issuarae d predalp and W Ndlnp pemM15. c. OnsNe drainage improvemeds, necessary for dewatenrg and proteging the subdivided Ixopenias, are to W instaNW prbr to issuarrs d Wildkq pertnNS for constnKtion upon any parcel that may l>e subject ro dralnape Lbws ereedrq, leaving, ar wtltlin a parcel relative to which a Wilding pemwt k requeetW. d. Final pradirp pWns for each parcel are ro W subrnNtW b Ina Buildktp and Salary Diviebn for approval prior to fceUance of W4dMq and pratlkq pemrits. (This may De on an increrremal a mrrposae basis.) e. All sblx banks in excess d 5 feel iI vertical hepM ehaM be ae Wed weh natNe presses or plarsW wen Around coverror aroaion oorard upon oonOletbn d preoNq or Wme other aMematNe rnatf100 d erosion comn)I x1181 ne WRIpletW b Ure ealhtaoliort dale Building Official. In addlbn a perrnanerN krlpalion system af1aA be provided. This reQukemem rtes not release the appliCenl/devebper Imm odrtQABfICe with file slope pWmirlq requiremaras d Sedan 17.08.0401 d the Devebpnlent Code. APPLICANT SHALL CANTACT THE ENGINEERING DNISION, pUl>~1862,FOR COMIPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDRIONS: 4 DWkatbn and VMkular Aegq 1. Rphtsof•way and easements shat W dedk:dW b tM CNy fd al Nserbr pudk streets, comnuney traNs, p1Ala pasaoe, pWkc Ivldedape eroas, slroat trees, and puONC drainage faGSlies az sfbwn on tfle plan6 arlaw tentmhro map. PMme attsamada for ran-puDlk lacileies (aoss•bt dratrtage, local leader trails, etc.l anal Oe reserved as dawn on HIe plans arlGOr tentative map. _~ 2. Dedkatbn shall be made d the lolowittp rlpMS•ol-way on Hie pefMtNter streets (IneasUfW Isom SIreN GMe/IMj: I 1 ~"~,,~~-~~5""~tt trial Iaat on V~jY~,,(~1~~ _ ezwp~cU~G yG~__~_r_rtdal leaf on ~ I ru ~~ VNJ'.4 r ~_ trial feet on ~j.v~ u-~11a rda ~ e~ fatal teat on J_/- J~_ J.J_ JJ- J-J_ JJ- J_J- 3. An irrevoable oHerol dedicatbn for •lod wills roadveyeassmara stlaNWmade ~,, -~-:-. for all pirvale stro915 or dnveS. 4. Non-vehkuWr access shah W dedtat W to the Clry for the Idlowirq streets: !, ~ - 5. Reciprocal access easements shdN be providW ertluritlp access ro all parcels W CCBRS !~ .~ or M deeds aM alwN W recordW cona,rremy wNh the map or prbr to InB issuance of Wibirtp penned, wMre m map is inwNW. sc z/vl i~ "I 6. Private arainage easements forcro55-bt drainageshall De provided and shall be delineated or rbled on the Neal map. 7, The Iklai map shaA clearty delineate a 10-toot minimum buibirg restriction area on the negMorttp bt adpininp the zero bt line wall and wham the folbwinq Wnguaga: 'lhYe hereby dedicate b the City of Rarkho Cucamonga the ngM b pohiD•'t the wnstruction of (resderaiel) buildings (or ofMr stnrcnrres) within ttbse areas designated on Me map as building restriction areas.' A maintenance apreemeM shall also be granted Irom each bt to the adlaceM bl through the CCBR's. Pg,m~o A2'lQ~ mss: J___)- _J~- ~u. All e><istirq easamerrts yinq w4tdniNUre rgMSOI-way shall be quNrJaimed or delineated on the final map. ~_, 9. Easemems for puliie sidewaks anNOr street trees plawd outside the publb rpMat-way shah W dedicated to Me Cly wherever they entaoach onto private pmparry. t o. Adtliional street ripMaf-way shall be dedicated abrg dpMtum lanes, to provde a rtYnimum 017 feet measured Irom the few d orbs. h wrb agacent edewak i6 used abnp the rl9rtt tum Ww, a perelbl street tree maaaenartw easement slwA be provided. _~_ 11. ThedevrNOpsrshall make a poodlaih ellort b eopulro the re9ulred o3-sie property interests necessary b wrtsin,a the reMrrked publb Irtprovements, and A irlehe atbud tai to do so, the tlavebper shaA, al lead 120 days prbr b SubrllNtal d IM Neal map br approval, solar into an apreemertt to wrtpbta ih0 ImgwertteMS pUretuM b (3wemmeM Code Seabn 66A62 at suchdmeaztiteCiyaapukeathe pn4parry hterade requiredbrthe YngovemeMS. suet, agreement shell provide br payment ty da davebperof aw wets hcvrted ey the CNy to at~frke the oK-see properly IMeregs rsplked in tbrtneclbnwihlM subtlhrielort. Sewriry for a portion d these cads e1W1 be h the lortn d a eYh depose h the amount pNen h an appraisal report abtakted by tM developer, d dwebpefs ood. The appreissr shah have been approved by the city prior b wnartsrtwmenl d the appraisal. M. StntNt Imprwernema 1. AN pudic improventetlls liaerbr etrsafa, drahape IaCWINS, wmmuniry tratls, paseos, landscaped areas. ete.j ettown on the plaru artdbr tentative reap atwx Oe wrtatn,aed tc CNy Startifards. IrNefbr etrealvtyrovamerts ttfwA kckds, but are not NRYted b, orb anc putter, AC pavement. drive approaetee, sdewaks, street NpfKa, and attest trees. A minhaim d 26loot wfds pavement wihin a t0 -loot wide dedicated rgMol-way shall bt wrtstruaed ItN dl haA-eedlon dteaU. 9. Construe ifN Io1lorvMtp peMttMer attest ImprovsmeMa hcbdinp, tort not NmNed to: SmrEET NA/~ Ctma Q blrt7ER A.C. PVkfn 9mE WALK DRIVE APPR 377iEET IICFiIS StiBE! 7f~W COew. 711NL IUD ISLAND ot}{ER * t ~~1 ~~` G X ~ X JJ- -/J- JJ_ JJ- J-/_ J_1- J_- SC 4/91 ~.~ Notes: (a) Median island ebludes IarfdscaPirq and irripatlon on meter. (b) Pavemem recOrlBlnJdbn and overlays wNl be determkted dudrg plan check. Icy M so marked, side- wak shaA be arvNinea: oar STD. 304. (d) M eo marked, an in•Heu of coristrudbn fee shell for this Nem. C S or rIV -W •• •r nikt ,~ I~vFe fbofY ~. ~- 4. Inprovement plans and construction: a. Street Irttgovement plero irrdudinp street trees aM street NgMS, prepared by a regis- tered CMI Engineer, shah be submAtad b and appoved by MIB CAy ErWxber. SecurNy sheA 6e posted and an apraa-!em executed b tlb salbfadtbn d the City Err~neer an0 the Clly Money pUararaMWtp wrriPleddn of the Wblk andror private street Nnprove- martts, pdorto lmal map approval orthe issuance d bulldkp dandle, whkMver oars 1X91. r~.o ai=« J_/ b. Prior b arty work belrq pedombd b pubNC npMOfivay, lase shaA he paid and a corotnrdron penNt shell tre otaakrsd from Mrs CAy Ergalsere Dllice In addAbn b any aMr psmds required. c. Pavemerx atrlpktp, madc(rp, traMk, street name Nprlap, artd aeeroorkbcx cortdua stall be kuteeed b ih0 6tlietapbrr o11M City Errprresr. d. Sipnalcontluaweh pull boxeaahaNbe kmtahdon arH newmnstrtxdbnwreaormtrudion d mapr , secondary w mNsdor attests which Yseraed wkh other mayor. semrMary or coNedor 6lreele for Muro traflk sprmb- PuA boxes eMll bs plead on tklM aides w Mte street at 3leeloulside o18CR, ECR wutyomnbcrbrs approved bytMCNy Ertpineer. Noss: (1) AIt puA boxes shall De No. 8 urdaas otharwiea apedlbd by the CAy Engineer. (2) Corxiup shah be 3~krch paNeni:ed eteN wNh puAraps. e. Wheal rnak rarrpa shah ba krataNad on U lour domrrs d kasnaatora per City Standards w a9 Okedad by the CNy Errpirfaar. f. ExbMrq City roalie~rsgltkkq mrWnrdbn ehaN ntrrin Open b irelfk at aA tirttes wNh adequate detours dudnpcorlatntdlon. AWeN dwtlre pemrA may be required. AcaSh deposM atmA a provbsd b cover Mte oat a graAnp and pwirfp, wfectf atoll be rMUnded upon corrpMtlon of Mts cwmnrWon b tM eatletadbn d the CAy ErgkteM. p. Corcmttraled drairtapa ibwa shall not sou sidswaW. UMer Mdawak drelru atoll be instaAed ro CAy Standards, except br skgb only Iota. h. Nanditep axsss reap dea+pn shad be m spadlled by the CNY ErgNtser. i. Slrestromes ehaN ba approved by the City Flamer prbrbsubndMallorflrat plan ctleck __5. Street irtgrovamers plans per CAy SurWardatw aN pdvals streets stfaA bs govitled Ior review and approval by tfle CMy Engineer. Prior b any work beNq parlomtad on the pri- vate streets, tees shah bs paid and wratnrGbn permNs shell be obtained from the CNy ErpineeYS Ollica b addMbn to any otter pemfN6 nquind. 6. Sheet trees, a mlrkrtum d 15yalbn e¢s w larger, ahaN w inaaAed per CNy Standards in atxonfarrs wAh tto City's street tree program. JJ- JJ- JJ- J-J- J-J- J~- JJ_ J-l- J _/~ _ I I --• - 5C R/91 X 1_Q 7, IMersedbn pne of Sae deslgrns shall be reviewed by the City Engineer forcornonnance with adopted pocky. a. On coNedor or larger streets, lines o15igM shall be pbned for all project imersectbns, incYndirq driveways. Wads, signs, and sbpes snail be boated onside me lines of sigh. landscapkg and other obsWdions within the lines of sight shall be approved by the City Engineer. b. Local residemial street irneraectior6 snap have their rUticeafNlay improved, usually oY moving IhB 2+/-cbsest street trees on each side awaylrem the street and placed in a street tree easemern. -_~ a. A permitstroll be obtained trem GALTRANS for arty work wtlhpt the lolbwlrq rigM-ol-way: tTd~{Se ~~ bpd. 9. Ad pudb IrtprovemeMa on the Meowing etreets shed be operetbnaly complete prior to the issuance of W Nrarg pemvts: N. Publb aaelmarunca Areas t. A separate set M landscape and irtgatbn plsn5 per Eripineenrg Ptiblb Works Standards stroll t>e subndted to the City Ergkseer for review and approval prior to pool map approval or bauancs of buidkg penNls, wtrbtnevaf occurs Post. Tlis Meowing IandBtaPe parkways. medians, paseos, easemems, trails, or otMr areas aro repaired to be annexed kao the Landscape Maimenlarce Dietrld: EMI V ~~~ ~ Jam, i J-!, I I i JJ- j JJ.- I J-!_ J___/- 2. A sgned consBM and waiverlone topin artd/orlorm tM appropriate Landsape and Lighting DistricLS shall be tiled wdh the Coy Engineer prlorb l4ral rtup approvator lewance of building perrnas wtwchever ocgrrs first. Formetbn Caste shad be borne by the devebper. 3. All reprlretlpublic larldacapirg and lrrlpatbn sypam6 atoll he oaelrabuay maNaained bythe devebper until acoepetl by the City. _,~_ 4. Parkway landeWPing M the fdbwinp strsegs) afutp cdMorm to ate roeuNa of the respedive tleautdicatbn Master Plan: O. Dralrtaga and hood COmtol 1. The Prepct for portbns IMreol) hJ boated waMn a Food Hued Zorls; iherolore, fbod protedbn maaeurea atop bs previdetl a6 certNied Dy a regetered CNN Engineer and approved by the Clry Erlgklesr. 2. It shad De the davebpere reapbnaibildy to have the amore FIRM Zone _ desgnatbn removed loan the props area. The devabpar'a enprlear shall pepare ad necessary reports, parro, and Maolo9iNhydreulb calarletbro. A GoMNbnal Lehsr 01 Map Rsvisbn (CIOMR) abed bs oDtairte0 horn FEMA prbr b final map approval or issuance of buibalg pammYS, whichever occurs Ihst. A Leaer of Map Raviebn ILOMR) shall be issued by FEMA prbr b occupancy or impmvemeM acoepance, whlGtlever onus first. JJ_ J~- J~- I -/-/- _[-_ 3. A final dreinape study shall be aubmated to and approved by tM CNy Engineer prior to Iinal ~ ._ - map approval or tie nauance of butldirq Ixrtnits, whbhaver occurs final. All drainage facilaies shall Ds installed as required by tM CNy Engineer. sc ~ oya l ~~a ~ 4. A pertNt hom the Coumy Food Control Dlstna N required for work wAhin NsrgMOf-way. 5. Trees tuB prodbiletl wNhin 5 feet 01 the outside diarteter of arty puhlic storm drain pipe measured hom the outer edge of a mature tree trunk 6. Pudic atone drain easemema shall 6e graded to convey ovedbws In the evem of a dockage in a sump catch oasis on me pods street. P. UIIIflNa _~ t. Provide separate Wilily services to each parcel includirp sanitary sewerage system, water, gas, eNdnc parer, teNpfara, and tatNe N (all uraenyourtm b accordance wsh the Utday Standards. Easements shall be provided as required, _,~ 2. The devebper shall 6e resporwide ror iha rebcatlon of exbtkq utllNles as necessary. ~_ 3. Water and sewer pNre shah De designed araf oonslnx;ted b meat me rsquiromeMS of the Cutanartpa Coumy Water Dfatdd (CCWD), Bartle Cucamonga Faro Protedbn Dlstnct. era tits ErrvironmeMal Heaah DepMmsm d the County or San Ber11ar9rto. A bder d compNarae from the CC WD is rorallrod pdor to final map approval or beuarwe d pemtss, whichever ocwre foal O. General Requtrarwma and Approvab _~ 1. The aeparalo parcels toMairtsd wNttln ay pro{ed boundarbs ehaN be Npalyoomdned into one parcel prbr to issuarae d bufldkq permits. 2. M ememant for a pka use Odvsway afwn W provided prbr b IMW map approval or Nauartca of buadrq pemils, wfHd»wr omaa flral for: 3. Poor ro approval d the final m~ a dsposN shah be poateo wflh t1N CNy aoverktp the ertwnated coq W apporlbNnp tM aseessnrnts under AetsttrMra Distrbt among 1rN newly seated parceb. 4, EtnvargLSan Sevairitl Area Regbnal MainWN, Seconduy Regbnal, and Master Plan Drainage Fees shwa he paid prat ro taut map appoval or prbr to buadrtp pamsl'ssuance A ro map is ktvoNad. 5. Pemtita shaA be adained from tM bNOwing agendas br vvodc wNhin tlNN dphlal-way: 6. A ap1Nd OOMBra en0 walwr form t0 (OYt anNOr tofrri tM law ErsorosmeM ConarwnNy FadtllNe Dietrlq shah be ANd wah the CNy Erlpirtaar poor ro Anal map approval or tfN issuarae d buildirtp pamsts, whicMVSr oaun ikst. FomtWbn Doors snaN De bona q the Devebpar. 7. Prbr to flnaNzatbn of any 0avebpnNM phase, suMidenl irttProvamers pkrro attaN be cdm• pkted beyond the phase bourk]aMe to assuro 8eoartdary aCCSaE ant drainage potadion ro tM salisfaclbn of the CNy Ertginssr. Phase bourMertea ehaN rwrreapoM ro bt Noes dawn on the approved tentative map. ,,., >.~~o a2-iw t SatlmmAa: ~-~- ~J- -/_/_ i J~_ ~-/- ~~_ J~_ ~J_ J-/- J__J_ JJ- J~- x •z/al RESOLUTION NO. ~~.0, ~] A RESOLUTION OF THE Cr TY COUNCIL OF' THE CZ TY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORN TA, DENYING CONDITSONAL USE PERMIT N0. 92-7H, THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CONMERCI AL SHOPPi NG CENTER CONSIS^. ING OF A 75,000 SQVARE FOOT GROCERY STORE, TWO SATELLITE BU ILDSNGS OF 3,500 SQUARE FEET EACH, AND A DRIVE-THRU PAD OF 4,800 SQUARE FEET ON 10.6 ACRES OF LAND IN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (SUBAREA 2) OF THE FOOTHILL HO[iLEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD A[ID VINEYARD AVENUE, AND MAR TNG FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 207-102-03, 5, H, 15, 20, 21, AND 49. A. Recitals. ;i) Smith's Foods Drug has filed an application for the issuance of Conditional Vse permit No. 92-1H as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application." !ii) Dn the 9th day of December 1992, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. 'Jn December 15, 1992, a subsequent public hearing was conducted and following the conclusion of said public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 92-151 thereby recommending to this City Council uiiat said application be denied. ;iiil The decision represented by said Planning Commission Resolution was timely appealed to this Council. (iv) On January 20, 1993, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and continued said hearing to February 17, 1993, fer the purpose of allowing a subcommittee of the City Council the opportunity to more closely review specific design issues. (v) A1.1 legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Re so to ti on have occurred. B. Re so.tution• NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, de to rmi ne d, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as Poll ows: 1. This Council hereby specifically £Snds that all of the fa cis set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-zefe renced Tanua ry 20, and February 17, 1993, public hearing, including writ ter, eta FE reports, the minutes of the above-referenced Planning Commission meeting, and the contents of Planning Commission Resolution No. 92-151, this ..^_ouncil hereby spe ci Eice lly finds as follows: ~1 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. CUP 92-1H BENIAL - SMITH'S February 17, 1993 Page 2 (a) The application applies to property located at the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue with a street f.ronrage o£ 770 feet along Foothill Boulevard and a lot depth of 780 feet on property zoned Community Commercial. The Proposed site is composed of several pazce is and is presently improved with a vacated roller rink and restaurant, a free-standing vacated restaurant and associated parking lot with landscaping, and a one-story, wood-Framed residence; and (b) The properties to the north of the subject site are partially vacant and developed with two apartment buildin qs, the property to the south consists o`. vacant property soutl: of Foothill Boulevard, ttie Drape rty to the east is Commercial east of Vineyard Avenue, and the property to the west is the Cucamonga Channel; and (c) The application contemplates the development of a 75,000 square foot grocery store, two satellite buildings (e 6 C) comprised of 3,500 square f_et each, and a drive -thru pad consisting of 4,800 square feet; and (d) The application, as proposed, would be detrimental to the public health, safety, and we lfa za and floes not comply with each of the app licahle provisions of the Development Code and the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan for the following reasons: (1) The architecture and related design elements within the proposed project, as reflected in this application, are not consistent with the goals, policies, and design guidelines of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan which states T.he following: 1) In Section 4.5.1, that vehicv lar traffic through adjacent residential streets shall be minimized; 21 Ir. Section 8~2.2, that Activity Center parking lore dominating the street scene are specifically prohibited and auto-related facilities (i.e •, working bays, storage, etc.) shall be screened or oriented away from public views, buildings shall be sited and designed to mi nlmize pedestrian/vehicle conflicts and avoid locating driveways and service areas which interfere with the flow of Foothill eoulevard pedestrian movements; 3) In Section 8.2.5, that in Activity Center locations, the parking areas shall to located to the rear of building; and q) In Section 9.4.3, Ghat parking lots between Ghe front property line and major structures are strongly di sc ~~ra gad; and (2) The des iqn of the SrtSth's store, ae proposed, provides loading dock facilities on the wesC side of the store which faces Foothill boulevard and is, therefore, inconsistent with the design of other major supermarkets in Han rho Cucamonga which front onto major thoroughfares. The location and orisn Cation of loading facilities are typically provided along the rear elevations oY grocery stores and/or shopping can Ce rs to conceal delivery activity from public view, particularly in an area which is considered to be a major gateway into the weske rn section of the City; and (3) Truck traffic along San Bernardino Road and truck ingress/egress from and to this street, which ie proposed by the project Bite desi. gn, is unde sl.table to existing ze aidences along both aides of the street. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO• CUP 92-18 DENIAL - SM1TR's February 17, 1993 Page 3 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-zefe ren ced public hearing, including written and oral staff reports, this Council hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) That the proposed use is not ir. accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and (b) That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or ma tozially injurious to properties or impro~2me nts in the vicinity; and (c) That the proposed use dcea net comply with each of the applicable provisions to the Development Code and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. 5• The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby denies the application. 6. This Council hereby provides notice to Sm1 th's Food and Drug that the time within which judicial review of the decision represented by this Resolution moat be sought is governed by the provisions of California Code of Civil Proce dare section 1094.6. 7. The City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Ss hereby directed to; (a) certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and (b) forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail, return-receipt requested, to Smith's Food and Druq at the address identified in City records. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONOA STAFF REPORT DATE: February 17, 1993 - T0: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer SUBJECT: APPROVAL TO AMEND THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIOn 12.08 BY ADDING SECTION 12.08.025 TO PROVIDE EJSEMPTIONS TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION FOR SPECIFIC TYPES OF BUILDING PERMITS RECOMMEMUATION It is recommended that the City Counc ll approve the exemptions to streets and highways dedication requirements for additions and alterations as proposed in this report and adopt the attached Ordinance to tie Included in the City's Municipal Code regarding the same. BACKGROUND/AMILLYSIS The requirement to Aedlcate missing rights-of-way and construct public improvements for construction, additions or alteration improvements on private property is governed by the provisions of the City Municipal Code Section 12.08. The Code further gives exceptions to the requirements of construction of Public Improvements. Staff is proposing that similar exceptions to the requirement to dedicate missing rights-of-way he applied. However, these exceptions would aDD1Y Drlmarily to a slnnle family residence. Only when an alteration to a structure is required to bring the structure up to government code would a commercial/industrial building be exempt from right-of-way dedication. Staff is reconmending that the proposed exceptions for dedication requirements as defined in the attached Ordinance be Included as section 12.00.025 of the City Mm lcipal Code. The attached Ordinance has been reviewed by the City Attorney and has been prepared for your consideration. Respectfully submittL~,d~, . ~~~~ii William J. O'Ne1 City Engineer NJO:MP:dlw Attachment ORDINANCE N0. 50'~ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADDING SECTION 12.08.025 TO THE RANCHO CUCAMONCA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO EXEMPTION CF STREETS AND HIGHWAYS DEDICATION THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Section 12.08.025 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby a- ~d ern words and figures, as follows: 12.08.0?5 Streets and Highways - Oedi cation Exceotions. The provisions of Sec tlon 12.08.020 shall not apply to the following: A. Alterations whirh are required to bring a bull ding or structure into compliance with government code as determined by the City Engineer; B. Maintenance and/or reconstruction of a single family residence provided the total cost does not exceed fifty percent of the fair market value of the existing single family residence; C. Any addltlon or cumulative additions, within a sixty-month period, to an existing single-family residence, Drovided that such addltlon or additions do not exceed a total area of six hundred fifty square feet; D, Construction of garages, block walls, carports, storage buildings, patio covers, swimming pools, spas and similar structures accessory to a single-family residence; and E. Where dedication of the standard right-of-way Ts impractical due to existing Dhyslcal constraints as determined by the City Engineer. SECTION 2: The City Council declares that, should any provision, section, paragraph,- sentence or word of this Ordinance be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action 1n court of competent J'+rlsdlction, or by reason of any preemptive legislative, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences, and words of this Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 3: The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall cause~me to be puhllshed within fifteen (15) days after Its passage at least once in the Inland Yalie Dail Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation pub115hed n e y o nc o ucamonga. Add to Section 1 E. The City Engineer may require dedication not withstanding the above exceptions if the City Engineer determines there is a specific connection between the project and the need for street dedication. Any such decision of the City Engineer shall be appealable to the City Council pursuant to a!I procedures which are applied to Conditional Use Permit appeals. cu x ~r n01V l.IIV w~.ruvxvivvn STAFF REPORT DATE: February 17, 1993 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Suzanne Ota, Community Services Mana ~~~~''~~~ BY: Kathy Sorensen, CLP, Recreation Sup/ int~dent SU&IECT: 100$ LIGHT COST RECOVERY IN NEW PARKS RECOMMENDATION The Park and Recreation Commission recommends the adoption of the following Resolution on 100& light cost recovery for all new parks. Resolution: Upon acceptance by the City of new parka in Rancho Cucamonga, a use fee of 100& of full light cost will be implemented. This fea to include electrical usage and demand charges as outlined by Southern California Edison Tate policies. This use fea will be updated annually or as rate policies by Southern California Edison are amended. ANALYSIS Parks currently being constructed which would fall into this new policy are: Sports Complex. Parks currently in planning stage but not affected because no field lights planned are: Ellena and La Mission. An exception to this is requested by the Commission for youth baseball organizations using the 90' recreation field, The percentage payment for tha field would follow the tiered light fee resolution which all existing city fields are under. This tiered plan calls for 75a reco~'ery of costs on September 1, 1993 and 100$ recovery on September 1, 1994. Respectfully submitted, ~ ~ _ .. ~. J ' '~ . ,... , ~ ~~~ ~u nne Ota \~\ Cq~nmGnity Services Manager 50/KS/kls ec: Jerry Fulwood, Deputy City Manager RESOLUTION NO. 93' ~3J A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, THAT UPON ACCEPTANCE HY THE CITY OF NEW PARKS IN RANCHO CUCAMONGA, A USE FEE OF 100$ OF FULL LIGHT COST WILL BE IMPLEMENTED. THIS FEE TO INCLUDE ELECTRICAL USAGE AND DEMAND CHARGES AS OUTLINED HY SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON RATE POLICIES. THIS USE FEE WILL BE UPDATED ANNUALLY OR AS PATE POLICIES BY SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON ARE AMENDED. A• Recitals. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted Resolution No. 91-194A establishing a Comprehensive Fee Schedule on the 20th day of November, 1991; and, WHEREAS, that Resolution was revised into Resolution 92-223; and, WHEREAS, i.t is the City's desire to recover all consumable costs. B. Resolution. Section 5.0 - Recreation Fees NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby resolve as follows: Upon acceptance by the City of new parks in Rancho Cucamonga, a use fee of 100$ of the full light costa be implemented. This fee to include electrical usage and demand charges as outlined by Southern California Edison (SCE) rate policies. This use fee will be updated annually or as rate policies by SCE are amended. LaG I C. Resolution Effective Date. This Resolution shall become effective With its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 17th day of February 1993. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Dennis L. Stout, Mayor ATTEST: Debra J. Adams, City Clerk I, DEBRA 7. ADAMS, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a regular meeting o£ said City Council held on the 20th day of November 1991. Executed this 17th day of February 1993, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. GC.O uia a yr na+av ~.nv uua~raivavav uaa STAFF REPORT ~, DATE: February 17, 1993 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Mattager ~ i /> FROM: Suzanne Ota, Community Service ~ ager i. BY: Kathy Sorensen, CLP, Recreation uparintender~t/,' SUBJECT: SPORTS COMPLEX TOURNAMENT FEES The Park and Recreation Commission recommends the City Council adopt the new proposed Sports Complex Tournament Fees as an addendum to the current Tournament Rental Policy. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Currently the Community Services Departments hosts 52 weekend adult tournament rentals a year. Over a7 of those weekend rentals are private profit making organizations. Currently, they are charged $125.00 per field per day plus lights at our community parks. The following cities charge more: Ontario ($179.00), Chino ($173.00), Fontana ($138.75), Cerritos [Sports Complex ($165.00)7. The new Adult Sports Complex will provide higher quality playing fields that necessitates a higher rental rate to keep within the current market. Sports Complex Provosad Rental Fees Per Pield Group I 6 II Groun III thru VI Field Rental: *$50.00 *$200.00 Deposit: 20.00 75.00 Infield Lining: 8.00 8.00 Light Fee: Actual Cost Actual Cost *Includes initial field dragging and watering. The deposit would be applied to the total rental fee. GG.7 CITY COUNCIL MEETING SPORTS COMPLEX TOURNAMENT FEES February 17, 1993 Page Two It is also staff's intent to have the entire tournament policy reviewed annually and possibly seek modifications to ensuze marketability and that community Heads are being met. Respectfully subm` ~~ ~ .. .~ `~,~ ~, r tivC. 9uznnde Ota Cginmymity services Manager l~ ' SO:kls cc: Jerry Fulwood, Deputy City Manager Lill RESOLUTION NO. se ~~~ a23 ~ A RESOLUTION OF SHE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING RESOLUTION No. 92-223 TO INVOLVE USER FEES FOR TOUR9AMENT RENTALS AT THE SPORTS COMPLEX. A. Recitals. WHEREAS, the City Council oP the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted Resolution No. 91-194A establishing a Comprehensive Fee Schedule vn the 20th day of November, 199; and, WHEREAS, the Park and Recreation Commission recommends the City Council adopt the new proposed Sports Complex Tournament Fees as an addendum to the current Tournament Rental Policy; and WHEREAS, the Sports Compiex will officially be open for play on April a, 1993, and as fees have now been established for fields at the Sports Complex as an addendum to the current Tournament Rental Policy. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 6.0 - Recreation Fees Sports Complex Tournament Fees: Prouosed Rental Fees Per Field Group I & II Group III thru VI Field Rental: *$50.00 *$200.00 Deposit: 20.00 75.00 Infield Lining: 8.00 8.00 Light Fee: Actual Cost Actual Cost • Includes initial field dragging and watering. The deposit would be applied to the total rental fee. ~1 C. Resolution Effective Date. This Resolution shall become effective with its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 17th day of February 1993. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Dennis L. Stout, Mayor ATTEST: Debra J. Adams, City Clerk I, DEBRA J. ADAMS, CITY CLERE of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, da hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution Was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 20th day of Noveu ber 1991. Executed this 17th day of February 1993, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. 232 1;11Y yr nr+rvt;nv i;ui,r~invivvr~ STAFF REPORT GATE: February 17, 1993 T0: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager ~ + 1 "1 FROM: Suzanne Ota, Community Services ManawcY ~~j/ BY: Rathy Sorensen, CLP, Recreation Superintendent /~'~ ~.. SUB,7ECT: REVIEW OF CURRENT LIGHTING COST RECOVERY PROGRAM ~ For the City Council to adopt the recommendation of the Park and Recreation Commission regarding neighborhoo3 and community park lighted sports venue fees by adopting a resolution which amends the current Resolution number 92-223 to read that field light charges will change from 508 to 758 of electrical consumption in the Fall of i993 and will become 1008 in the Fall of 1994. BACKGROUND On November 20, 1991, Resolution 91-194A was passed Which states, "Commencing in calendar year 1992 and continuing until amended by City council, each user group shall be responsible for recoverable cost equal to fifty percent (508) of the costs of electricity used to provide light to that user group." At the January 21, 1991 Park and Recreation Commission meeting, a public hearing was held to review that resolution. ANALYSIS At the January 1993 Park and Recreation Commission meeting, a history of use and various fee options were presented by staff. The Commission chose to recommend to City Council another option which would provide a tiered implementation over the next two years. Thees fees would be automatically implemented in the Fall of 1993 at 758 of electrical costs and again in the Fall of 1994 to 1008. n CITY COUNCIL MEETING REVIEW OF CURRENT LIGHTING COST RECOVERY PROGRAM February 17, 1993 Page 2 As follow up to the implementation of the light fees, the succeeding outlines the total electrical expenses and recoverable costs received through the current sports field light cost recovery program over the past Spring and Summer sessions. Spring and Summer users were the first groups affected by the program. Current Fall usage is not included because their season is yet to be completed. It is important to mention that this cost recovery was on an honor system where the individual organizations were to keep track of use and submit usage to the City the following month. Staff has provided the hours allocated for use to the organizations and the hours reported by the organizations for comparison. Potential User Hours Recoverable Hours Recoverable Park Allocated Cost Reported Cost Heritage 731 $4,085.86 420.5 $2,373.55 Old Town 504.5 $1,450.93 75 $ 183.00 Red Hill Youth Groups (non-city sponsored) 1,303 $5,209.93 434 $1,917.96 Red Hill Adult Groups (City Sponsored) 360 $2,200.00 348 $2,200.00 Listed below are the total six-month electrical expenses associated with each park. These amounts are provided by Southern California Edison and include sports field light costs and security lighting, restroom and other building light usage, and any additional electrical use. There is only one meter at each location, so actual individual source coats cannot be separated out. Red Hill Park $32,142.45 Heritage Park 11,460.05 Lions Park 6,575.89 Old Town Park 2,041.29 East Beryl Park 785.43 TOTAL Electrical Expenses $53,005.11 n CITY COUNCIL MEETING REVIEW OF CURRENT LIGHTING COST RECOVERY PROGRAM February 17, 1993 Page 3 Provided below are the total sports field light recoverable costs collected from the various users. Organization Park Site Amount Due Alta Loma Little League Heritage Park $2,373.55 Citrus Little League Red Hill Park 1,917.96 Vineyard Little League Heritage/Old Town 153.97 Rancho Cucamonga Softball Red Hi11 Park 139.14 A.C.E. Youth Softball Red Hill Park 109.00 Rancho Little League old Town Park 36.60 Deer Canyon Little League Heritage Park 16.04 Rancho Cucamonga Spirits Old Town Park 9.76 Citv Programs and Rentals Red Hi11 Park $3,603.43 Beryl Tennis Courts 419.25 Beryl East Soccer Fields 15.40 Lions Park Tennis Courts 378.50 TOTAL Sports Facilities Expenses Invoiced $9,182.36 As stared earlier, the organizations were on an honor system regarding the documentation of light usage. Engineering has stated that the touch pad system will be operational by April or early May 1993 at the Sports Complex, Heritage and Red Hill Parks. The statue of the touch pad system for Beryl and Old Town parks is not yet known. A second issue regarding the timely reporting of light usage was deferred to the Sports Advisory Committee (SAC) for input. This item will be placed on the SAC agenda for February and will be heard again by the Park and Recreation Commission in March. Respectfully submitt~7 ~Smza~n Ota Com u ty Services Manager SO/KS/kls cc: Jerry Fulwood, Deputy City Manager n RESOLUTION NO. 11! ~~a3C A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING RESOLUTION N0. 92-223 REGANDING FIELD LIGHT FEES A. Recitals. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted Resolution No. 91-194A establishing a Comprehensive Fee Schedule on the 20th day of November, 1991; and, WHEREAS, it is the City's desire to recover all consumable costs. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 6.0 - Recreation Fees Neighborhood and Community Park Lighted Sports Venue Feea: commencing on September 1, 1993, each user group shall be charged fees equal to seventy five (75~) of the coats of electricity used to provide light to that user group f based on the most recent rates published by Southern California Edison (SCE). Commencing September 1, 1994, fees will be charged at one hundred percent (lOD$). C. Resolution Effective Date. This Resolution shall become effective with its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 17th day of February 1993. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Dennis L. Stout, Mayor ~, 0 µ._~.. ~....e C C m .a. 2 ~~ v~ .r' .. ,r ~ ~ ~~ 4 7 v m y N r Y y y N N 0.l N F a ce i 0 . - w Y .I y~ W C i ,~:. ~: .~. _. BEST, BEST & KRIEGER ..w-vem.. vc•L F W Y E`R 5 n ..~..v..m Falu pvt, n[w n aw C~r Irti Ilx [ 5 µvs• M ry E g ~i o N ~lf a n n u IIIY ~ Crf l W~If Cl a p [~v [ i~lv Yv ` [a V a n _ - x IV' r FI~ xNl[,~w cCx n [, L [ l HryL M ii ~ ] 9 i 51 u iE i~.fi AN111i ..n wii ii~m C nn~ri ix4 Ix IA4 FS P GIi PiN EUG[xE q[Sl ii 9aJ l pp 11 February 17, 1993 HAND DELIVERY Mayor Dennis Stout Mayor Pro-Tem Charles Buquet Councilmembers William Alexander, Diane Williams, and Rex Gutierrez City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729 SVITE 130 EOO NMTN HAVEN P65T OFiICE BOk a36L ONLAgI O. f.W FOgNIA 91]61 YELEP1gNE p1a1989-BSBq TF.L ELOP~Eq (]lal 9q a-1 a41 x1iM E11L~lnel.I V'A L 91]35 ~)F., q~Mlq M~R.16[ (619136! ¢611 Re: Smith's Markets Request for Approval of Rancho Cucamonga Store - Response to Written Challenges to city Approval of C.U.P. 92-18 Dear Mayor Stout and Members of the City Council: We are counsel for Smith's Market, the applicant for Conditional Use Permit No. 92-18, which would authorize the replacement of the existing derelict, long unoccupied structures at the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue with a new Smith's Market and the construction, (sub iect to further design review), of three additional commercial buildings along the Foothill frontage. Today we obtained copies of four documents submitted to the city in opposition to this project: a petition urging that Smith's be granted no special privileges, an unsigned packet of materials submitted by "Concerned Citizens of Rancho Cucamonga and Property owners Adjacent to Proposed Development by Smi.th's," a report from WPA, Traffic Engineering, Inc. dated February 9, 1993, addressed to Mr. Ed Combs, and a letter from Corin L. Rahn, attorney at law, submitted on behalf of Mario Teran and "concerned citizens of Rancho Cucamonga." usfzecc~ LAW O~f~CES DF BEST, BEST 6 KRIEGER Mayor and Council City of Rancho Cucamonga February 17, 1993 Page 2 Many of the issues raised in these documents reflect misapprehensions about the nature of the project that are best corrected by City staff, or by a careful reading of the existing record. The purpose of this letter is to briefly comment on some of the salient points. 1. "NO Special Privileges." The signers of this petition have apparently been led to believe. that Smiths Market has demanded, or been granted, variances from City standards. As you know from your own review of the agenda reports, this is not true. It is true that Smith's initially explored the possibility of redevelopment funding, given the blighted nature of the site. The agency preferred to rely solely on private investment to deal with the particular problem, and Smith's is willing to put up those funds. It has explored alternative site plans and layouts that would permit more intensive development, but that would require variances. However, the City has stood by its requirements, and no variances have been reyuested or granted. Smith's has concluded that the resulting design is workable, and while costly, acceptable to it. Therefore, the company has no quarrel with the petition's stated goal that the City follow its usual rules. Cucamonga. Comments of the Concerned Citizens of Rancho The principal concerns raised in this document appear to be about compliance with existing city standards, especially the Foothill Specific Plan, concern that the Planning Commission's decision may be modified, and anxiety about traffic circulation. As discussed below, those best qualified to address the circulation issues are the city traffic engineers. No one is more familiar with the City standards, and the Foothill Specific Plan, than the councilmembers themselves, most of whom were participants in its drafting and approval. The particular aspects of the Plan cited by the writers are arguments in support of approval: the proposed project does place a cul de sac at the western end of San Bernardino and results in the elimination of San Diego Avenue; it does not permit trucks over 7 tons on San Bernardino; it does consolidate a large number of small parcels into one; it does provide for integration of circulation and parking into a single unified plan for the entire block; it does direct traf.f is away from the residential neighborhoods, while providing alternative access to meet safety concerns; the sole remaining loading dock is fully screened and landscaped; building sites are placed adjacent to Foothill Boulevard, (indeed, the ratio of building to other frontage is usn<aas LAW O~FICE$ OF BEST, BEST 6 KRIEGER Mayor and Council City of Rancho Cucamonga February 17, 1993 Page 3 higher than on other Foothill Boulevard development of which the City is justif ia6ly proud); and landscaping, grade changes, decorative and functional walls, and public space make the periphery as attractive to the motorist, and the pedestrian, as is possible on such a heavily travelled highway as Foothill Boulevard. Parking lots do not dominate the street scene. The accusation that this project will result in blight is particularly sad and unfair. The site is presently blighted, and the proposal is a vast, privately funded improvement. Mr. Coombs property was previously approved by the City for an independent development; the Smith's plan expressly addresses shared access and cannot be viewed as making his property, or any other, less developable. Of course Smith's regrets that it was unable to resolve all site and design issues with the Planning Commission. The lengthy, and at times confusing, review process has been extremely expensive. Listening to the many different voices has at times made forward progress difficult. However, the fact remains that the Council, taking advantage of the hard work of the Commission, the staff, and the applicant, as well as its own subcommittee, is now in a position to approve the redevelopment of its most blighted "gateway" into a high quality, solid, attractive proposition, restoring the long lost "economic viability" that is among the important goals of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. Comments of WPA, Traffic Engineering, Inc. with respect to this letter, we simply wish to note that the site plan, and the circulation, has been reviewed both by the applicant's traffic engineer, Justin Farmer and Associates, and the City's own traffic engineer. Both of these experts on traffic and circulation have concluded that the site and circulation as designed can properly and safely accommodate the anticipated traffic. Indeed, the substantial off-site public improvements that Smith's will provide. should the City approve the project, will result in an improvement in traffic flow and safety in the area. Letter of Corin L. Kahn. Mr. Kahn's position is that the city may not legally approve this conditional use permit. The city's own attorney, James Markman, will no doubt be advising you on this point. We do wish to note that the project is a permitted use meeting every city requirement. The Foothill Specific Plan necessarily lists design alternatives and preferences; in seeking to meet its goals choices usvz<ci3 lPW OC[ICES OC BEST, BEST 6 KRIEGER Mayor and Council City of Rancho Cucamonga February 17, 1993 Page 4 must be made among those alternatives. These choices are not violations of the plan. The project has been designed specifically to complement the Thomas Winery project across the street; the City has made it clear that it does not want projects to mimic each other, but rather, to use appropriate materials, such as native stone, design elements, such as heavy arbors, and site design to complement that which exists. The Smiths project transforms the City's western gateway in admirable fashion. In keeping with the effort to remove circulation from residential neighborhoods, the large building is located behind the parking lot, but it is separated from Foothill by grade changes, landscaping, three buildings, a corner plaza, and a smaller court that accommodates mass transit users as well as landscaping. Mr. Kahn objects because Smith's has acquired many, but not all, of the parcels on the property. The Foothill Plan does not, and cannot, require that an applicant buy the property of others. It can require planning for future development. Smith's has met that requirement. Mr. Kahn objects that the City has not prepared a separate mitigation and monitoring report. The 1992 amendments to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 makes clear that cities may meet the requirement for a mitigation and monitoring program by including the mitigation measures as conditions of project approval. The City has done so. Mr. Kahn objects that a negative declaration should not be issued because the project could have an adverse impact on cultural and historic resources in the community. Mr. Kahn misunderstands the nature of those resources, the condition of the site, and the requirements of CEQA. The land in question has been graded and developed in modern times; it is not undisturbed. While it is known that structures previously existed in the area, it is not known to what extent they were actually located on this site. It is known that to the extent that they existed, they were removed and replaced long ago. 1'he historic and cultural significance of this site, from the point of view of cEQA, is conceptual. The substitution of a new building and parking lot on the site for the existing, dilapidated, nonconforming structures will. not in any way diminish the conceptual cultural significance cf the site. It Will still be the place where the Butterfield Stage may have passed, it will still be on Route 66, it will still, like almost all of this area, be a place where indigenous people passed before European settlement. 'rhe change w.i 11 be that it is no longer the site of an 45f?444] LAW Oi FIC ES Oi BEST, BEST 6 KRIEGER Mayor and Council City of Rancho Cucamonga February 17, 1993 Page 5 abandoned roller rink and restaurant. It may well be that it is appropriate to commemorate the past with a plaque or artwork on the site, but that is not in a CEQA mitigation measure. Sandstrom v County of Mendocino, 202 Cal. App 3d 296, cited by Mr. Kahn, is a case denying the propriety of a negative declaration on the grounds that: 1) the adverse impacts had not been properly identified; and 2) the applicant, not the agency, decide what, if any, mitigation measures were appropriate. It is sometimes cited as an absolute prohibition on the "post-approval formulation of mitigation measures." That is not a correct interpretation. (See, Leonoff v Monterey county Board of Suoervisors, 222 Cal. App. 3d 1337; Save Old City Association v City Council of Sacramento, 229 Cal. App. 3d 1011.) It is sufficient that the city identify possible impacts and make a commitment to mitigating adverse impacts. In this case, the uncontroverted facts show that the site's importance as a cultural and historic resource is conceptual, because it is past uses, not present structures, that create the importance. conceptual significance can be preserved and enhanced with memorialization, whether in plaques or artwork. The previous destruction of historic structures and alterations of the grade have eliminated the possibility of historic or cultural preservation activities on the site. very truly yours, Wynne S. Furth of BEST, BEST & KRIEGER WSF:ep MSf2<447 t TEL No. 31r 9n~ 98?E Feb 1r .33 1`:1? °.O1 N4'11dr CsQC1r~Ytlr H9l'a'~40II & $COIL • 111eMnOMY CaI11011At110M ATT011NEY5 AT UW T0.EPHOrff3: 18791 907-8988 16060 VaMUn Boubvud Suip 490 16181~90T 9896 13701 869->730 Shaman Oaks, Ca9fomG 91403 FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION Ow F9e Number: 10960-01dk To: City perk, Chy of Rancho Cucemunpa FAX: (714) 948.1848 From: Corin L. Kahn Alp W Nand De9trary: yp Re: Opposition to Smith's Superstore Dap: February 18, 1993 Total Popp Iwlcoval: 12 Endoprp: latter Mpaspr. none If you do not reaNW W tlu abor.,.lanllpd ppp, Wasp call Cory KaM 411678) 9074T999. CORIN I.. KAH\ AITORy CV As SAW . _[ ~.; e[• 5060 .'P'V RI ~Ob[pvnV O, SV nE .BO ~ne4 'c 9HERYAS OArz4~ CALIYORti i.e RIa03 Pu<nu.n, ~ ~.e.. o~ a zco+. e~e~ con coca . ~ s aeon no 1% ~l ill 90>•P f1P6 February 16, 1993 Honorable Mayor Dann is L. Stout and Members oP the City Council City oP Raaeho CUauoaga 10400 Civic Canter Driya Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729 RE: ~pQliaation Por Conditional Vsa Fs it. xo 92-19 6e1lb~^ Bunsratoraa Aaaada ILSS Mo. !1 bear Mayor and Membare oP the City Council: This of rice repreaenta cODCern4d C1t12ana of Rancho Cucamonga, including Mr. Mario Teran, in opposition to Conditional Use Permit Case No. 92-18, scheduled for a henring On February 17, 1993. ISSUES PRESENTED 1.) In the Proj act in accord With the use proyiaione of the City's General P1an2 2.) Does the Project comply with the applicable development standards applicable to the Subjeot Proparty2 3.) Does the Proposed use present a threat to the public health and safaty2 4.) Did the City comply with CEQA in cettify ing compliance with mitigate$ negative declaration2 Honorable Mayor Stout and Members of the City Council February 16, 1993 Page 2 BRIEF CONCLUSIONS TO ISSUES PRESENTED 1,) The Project is not consistent with the General Plan because it: a.) is not a consistent use with the Activities Center leniy~mliun oL the 3peo if is Plcn; b.) is not compatible with one of the City's few unique and historic resource, the Thomas Winery, located directly across Vineyard Avenue; c.) it fails to advance City's gataweys goals; and d.) it Pails to advance City'• goals of eliminating Practured ownership of large scale tracts. 2.) The Project does not comply with applicable development standards because: a.) parking area shall be located behind the Project; b. ) parking lots between the front property line and the major structures are strongly discouraged; c.) parking lots dominating the frontage along ?Foothill Boulevard are prohibited; and d.) buildings shall ba designed to minimize pedestrian/vehicle conflicts. 3.) The Project, as designed, presents a threat to the health end safety of its users. 4.) The City faileQ to comply with CEQA because: a.) there is subatantlal evidence in the record to support n "fair argument" that thors is the potential that the Project will hove significant impacts relating to cumulative impacts, cultural and historic resources, and geologic impacts, and LhereLOr city abused its disoration by not requiring an EIRi end b,) the City has not prepnred a mitigatioh monitoring program to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures, Honorable Mayor Stout and Members of the City Council February 16, 1993 Page 3 FACTUAL BACKGROUND Subject Property The Subject Property consists of approximately 10.6 acres of land located at the Northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue ("Subject Property") in the City of Rancho Cucamonga ("City".) Historic Foothill Boulevard ie one of the major east-west corridors of the City and Vineyard Avenue is a significant north-south route. The intersection is located in the western part of the city and is considered a gateway to the Clty. Directly across the street from the Subject Property is one of the City's oldest historic landmark structures, the Thomas Brothers Winery. The Subject Property includes a craftsman style bungalow constructed at !ha turn of the century by Thomas Hrothers. Moreover, the subject Property is the lormor site of the historic Cucamonga Post office. Thn avidonce euggaste that the Subject Property may also have been a significant location in the operation of the original Spanish hacienda, the Tiburcio Tapia Rancho de Cucamonga, as well as in more modern times, the location Por the Butterfield Stage Coach, the Pacific Electric Railway, and the historic Route 66. Directly west of the Subject Property is Cucamonga Creek. The evidence suggests that there may have been significant Native American activity on or near the Subject Property. The Subject Property is located within Subarea 2 oP the City's Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan ("Specific Plan")• The lend use designation is Community Commercial with an Activity Center overlay (Specific Plan p. II-5.2), The subject Property is also located directly over the City's Special Studios Zone for the Red x111 fault. The Project proposes an approximately 75,000 square feet commercial retail use for the sale of groceries, pharmaceuticals, and related sundries located under one root ("Superstore") at the rear third of the Subject Property. Two additional pad shoe consisting of a 3500 square foot uncommitted commercial use and a 4&00 square foot fast-food use complete the Proiect ("Project"). Approximately d0o of the 672 surface parking spaces provided are located between the Superstars and Feothill Boulevard, Loading docks ere located at the east and west sides of the building. __ ~_' ... ..~ ..__ aC _. __ -.._ Honorable Mayor Stout and Members of the City Council February 16, 1993 Page 4 Truck access to the loading docks are from south, from Foothill Boulevard, and from the east, Vineyard Avenue and from San Bernardino Road, a local residential street located to the north. The Project's internal circulation plan shows that trvck ingress and egress routes utilize the signiticant parking lot lanes in the same manner that automobiles will and that there Ss pedestrian crossing of the internal truck routes at a minimum of three different locations. The Projact'r Traffic and Circulation Study, dated July 22, 1992, Table IV, Trip Generation Forecast confirms that during the morning peak hour, the time of most deliveries, approximately 208 vehicles will arrive at the project site and 164 will leave, fora total of 372 average-daily vehicle trips. C. Plana R4 Commission Action In April, 1992, Smith's Pood and Druq ("Smith's"), owner of the subject property, applied for Conditional Uee Permit, CUP 92- 18, and a treo removal permit for the purpose of constructing the Project. At that meeting, members of the City Planning Commleaion met with Smith's to review conceptual plans :or development of the Project. Among the concerns noted ware the failure to eatiafy the objectives of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan ("Specific Plan") with regard to uses allowed for an Activity Center; concerns that the site was too small to accommodate the largo building proposed; and concerns with building orientation. It was also determined at that meeting that the Historic Preservation commission would consider the project because of the great potential for signlflcant historic •igniticence of the site, especially in light of the fact that the original Cucamonga Post office had been located on the site. beepite the concerns expressed by the members of the Planning Commissions, in late April, Smith's submitted an application and an initial study, wherein it wa^ determined by staff that for purpoaae of compliancer with the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Raao_urcea Coda Section 2100, ~ gQg., ("CEQA"), 16 Cal. Code O! Ragr. Section 16000, p1i g@Q., ("CEQA Guidelines") that the City would proceed with environmental analyaia by means of a mitigated negative declaration. Implies in that decision was a fletermination that after mitigation measures were imposed, that there was no substantial evidence to support e "fair argument" that the Project had the potential to aignitlcantly effect the environment. Thereafter, after much design, discussion, end redesign, TEL iJG. 313 907 ~~95 Feb !5.9? 15:..: F.05 Honorable Mayor Stout and Members of the City Council Februasy 16, 1993 Page 5 the Project was presented to the Planning Commission for public hearing on December 9, 1992, and again on December 15, 1992, at which several of the Planning Commiasionera continued to express the same serious concerns with tho Project that were rained earlier. At the conclueian of the second public hearing, the Commission directed staff to prepare a Resolution of Deniai of the Project (Resolution No. 92-151) on the grounds that the architecture and Project configuration did not comply with the specific Plan, that there was the potential for dangerous vehicular conflicts, and that several significant design •lerents of the Project were not consistent with the City's standards regarding an Activity Canter. Subsequent to the action taken by the Planning commission, a Cultural Resources Study has been computed, wherein it was determined by an independent areheologiet that the •its is one of major historic significance to the City. Moreover, en independent geologic study has been completed which has identified problems with the geologic report submitted by the applicant and suggesting further study of the site. II. ANALYSIS A. ~ iths'e Has Not S~steined it Burden Of Proof For The Granting Of A CuP. The party asserting the affirmative in an administrative hearing has the burden o! proof with respect to going forward with the burden of persuasion by a preponderance of evidence. $-Q,~glt Jockey Club._Z~ , °- eslifornin Horu Racing Boar, 367 Ca1.2d 167, 177-178 (1950); Gona v. City of Fremont, 250 Ca1.App.2d 568, 57a (1957). Smith's has tailed to satisfy the burden of proof because the record shows: a.) that the proposed use is not in accord with the General Plan, use and development standards of the Activity Centers designation; and b.) that the requested use will be detrimental to the public health, safety, with respect to conflicts between delivery trucks and both automobiles and pedestrians; and c.) that the proposed use does not comply with the applicable provisions of the Developmont Code and the Foothill Boulevard specific Plan. Honorable Mayor Stout and Members of the City Council February 16, 199] Page 6 smith's has made no showing in the record, by substantial evidence, or by any evidence of compliance with these requirements. B. ~ Teran Ran 6tand ing To Cho lanes Tha 2esuanne of The CfIP. An affected citizen has standing to challenge a permit that nos been issued in violation of the law. Neighborhood Action Grouo v. County of Calaveras, 156 Ca1.App.3d 1176, 1186 (1984). This rule is broadened by a well-recognized exception referred to as the "public duty' exception which enables eny citizen interested in having the laws executed and the duty in question enforcod to pursue a legal action to ensure that the issuance of a permit .is consistent with the law. p77,tteraon v. County of Tehama, 190 Ce1.App.7d 1298, 1713 (1997). C. Failure to epypply with the Uaa Provisions of the General Ll~u Specific Plan Policy 5.3.1 designates the intersection of Foothill 8oulavard at Vineyard Avenue as a Majer Activity Center. That Policy requires the "injection of small doses of urbanity". Policy 5.5.2 states: "The activity centers will be composed of urban oriented specialty commercial uses, designed In such a manner as to accommodate pedestrian oriented activities." With respect to the allowebie uses, the Specific Pinn contemplates that the Activity Center overlay raqulre• specialty retail commercial uses. (Specific Plan Policy S.S.2, p. II-5.8.) "Specldlty Retail" is defined at Specific Plan Section 9.1.2 ae "small shops and boutiques which specialize in limited product lines of unique and novel designs and/or putpoaea. The Project clearly does not satisfy the City's land use goals. Specifically, a Superstore does not not meet the criteria set forth regarding specialty commercial cluster use at key Activity Center nodes. The Specific Plan clearly contemplated unique retail uses. A Superstars ie n mundane commercial uso. Such uses could be located at a variety of other locations within Subarea 2, or other nearby locations. There Sa an abundance of underdeveloped commercial property located elong Foothill 9oulevard in the city. Moreovwr, the long term commitment to a use ouch as that proposed by the Project squanders an opportunity to create a more positive imago for the City at one of its important gataweye. .. ~ ..,. Honorable Mayor Stout and Members of the City Council February 16, 1993 Page 7 D. The Protect Doea Not Comply with The Applicable DesiaD Development Standards Tho Activity Center concept contains several specific development standards associated with ensuring a high quality development at those few locations identified by the City as unique resources Por achieving the City's goals for the Specific Plan area. The Project Pails to comply with many of these standards. The Activity Center standards provide that parking should be hidden (Specific Plan p. II-5.9); that buildings ohall be placed at or adjacent to front sot-back lines to create more appealing, active street stapes (Specitic Plan Policy 8.2.2, p. III-8.5); and front yard areas with parking lots dominating the street scone are specifically prohibited (specific Plen Section 8.2.2, p. III-a. 5). With respect to parking, Specific Plnn Section 8.2.5 requires that Activity Center parking shell be located to the rear of the building (specific Plan p. III-8.11,.) Section 9.a.3 pertaining to the Activity center map for Subarea 2, and the Subject Property stipulates that parking lots located between the trout property line and major structures are strongly discouraged (Spocific Plan p. IV-9.2). The design of the Project Se clearly inconsistent with these important and oft stated goals set forth in the Specitic Plan. The prollPeratlon of surface parking, as the primary Iand use of the Subject Property, is clearly inconsistent with the highest end best land use contemplated Por property with the Activity Canter designation. The design standards clearly do not allow the Project in its present configuration. Parking could conceivably have been provided in a variety of design alternatives competibla with Project's objectives and the City's design standards. the applicant's rigid commitment to surface parking in trout of the proposed use ie olearly incempstible with what the City ie attempting to accomplish through its Spocific Plan. one of the purposes of the Specitic Plen wee to consolidate ownership to encourage integrated large lot Qevelopment thereby avoiding linear strip, commercial development (Specitic Plan p. Ii-4.3). By not incorporated three lots located at the northeast corner of the property, consisting of approximately 38,000 equate feet, the Project la in direct conflict with this goal ae it relates to those parcels. The owners of those parcels have testified that development of the remeininq praparty, in light of the extensive exactions which will ba required, will become extremely difficult and economically intaaribla. This presents an independent ground for denial of the Project. rE~ ~,~. .:a ?o' ~a9~ FP5 :h,~~ !s 2s P.oa Honorable Mayor Stout and Members of the City Council February 16, 1993 Page e E. There Is inadeauete Evidence That The Proi act Wili Not Be petrimental To Public Health end Safety The on-site circulation study section of the Traffic Report demonstrates that the truck access to the loading decks at the east and west ends of the store utilize the precise travel lane^ that will be utilized by automobiles. Furthermore, the Traffic Report demonstrates that the semi trucks servicing the Project will require significant Lurninq radii for entering and exiting the Project, interfering with the existing strsan of traffic on and off-site. Furthermore, the Traffic Report shows that pedestrian croulnq of the on-site truck route occurs at a minimum of three locations. one of the important goals of the Activity Centers ie the enhancement of pedestrian activity. Rare the truck access across the Foothill eoulsvard pedestrian path sill significantly dinrupt this activity and therefore la in strong conflict with the goals for the Project site. All of the nice landscaping and aesthetic amenities designed for the southeast corner of the Subject Property are undermined by allowing truck access from Foothill Boulevard. It is also important to Hots that the Project involves a superstore, which will require either more truck deliveries or larger trucks than the average super market. For these reasons, the evidence does not support a showing that the project will not be detrimental to the public health and safety. F. the City Abused Its hiacretion By Not Requiring AG EIR To achieve the objective of protecting the environment, the Legislature enacted CEQA and authorized the Office of Planning and Research within the Governor's Office to formulate guidelines which are codified Sn Title la, California AQminiatrative Code Section 15000, g[ ggq, ("CEQA Guidelines^). If a project falls within a category exempted by administrative regulation, or it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in queotion may have a significant effect on the onvironment, no public evaluation is required. (CEQA Guidelines section iD060.) If there is no possibility that the project may have a significant •ftect on the environment, a negative declaration is appropriate. (CEQA ?EL Ne . ?13 ~?' yag5 Fe'o 16.53 '.5~~5 P.10 Honorable Mayor Stout and Members of the City Council February 16, 1993 Page 9 Guidelines Section 15083.) A negative declaration is defined as a written statement issued by the lead agency briefly describing the reasons that a project, not exempt from CEQA will not have a significant effect on the environment, and therefore does not require an environmental impact report. (CEQA Guidslinea Section 15371.) IL the project is one which may have a significant affect on the environment, an environmental impnet report ("EIR") is required. (Public Resources Coda Sections 21100 and 21150; CEQA Guidelines Section 15062.) Parlay v. Hoard of Sumervisors, 137 Ca1.App.3d d24, 430, 187 Cal .Rptr. 53 (1982). In order to determine whether a proposed project nay have e ^ignificant effect on the environment, en Initial Study must be prepared in accordance with the procedures proscribed by CEQA. (CEQA Guidelines Section 150d3(n) ) All phases o! project planning, implementation and operation moat be considered in the Initial Study of the project. (CEQA Guidelines Section 1506].) The contents of an initial study moat contain, in brief form, an identification of environmental effects by use of a checklist, matrix, or an equivalent method. (CEQA Guidslinea Section 15063.) Tha standard for determining whether a nagative declaration ie adequate is whether fair argument can be made thnt the project may hove a significant environmental impact. I! so, the agency must prepare an environmental impact report. N° 011. Inc.. v. City of Los Anagl,Qs, 13 Cal.ld 68, 76-75 (1974); Clty ofof Antioch v. City council, 187 Ca11.App. 3d 1325, 1311 (1986); CEQA Guidslinea Suction iS064 (g)(1). If there is substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact, evidence to the oontrary does not dispense with the Head for an Environmental impact Report when it ^till can be "fairly argued" that the project may have a significant impact. City of Antioch v. City council, ayptq, Friends of B. treat v. City of Navward, 106 Ca1.App.3d, 1002 (1980). An Initial Study must "[p]rovide documentation of the factual basis far the finding in a Negative Oacleration that a project will not have a significant effect on the environment." (CEgA cuiaaiinee, section 15o63(c)(S).) ^CEQA places the burden of environmental investigation on government tether than the public " (emphasis added, Sundetrom v. Cognty of Mendocino, 202 cal.App.3d 296, 311 (1988)). Nero there was substantial evidence TEL No. >1? +u' S'd76 Feb 10.9? 1`27 F.:1 Honorable Mayor Stout and Members o! the City Council February 16, 1993 Pegs 10 available to staff to conclude that the Project had the potential for significant impacts regarding cultural resources, geology, and cumulative impacts. Tha staff's decision choaa to disregard such evidence was an abuse of discretion. The size and scale of the project alone should have suggested to the staff the probability of cumulative impacts with respect to traffic, nir quality, noise. In cases in which a project may have impacts which ere individually limited but cumulatively significant, the preparation of and EIR la mandatory. (CEQA Guidelines section 15065. Specifically, the Traffic Report demonatratee that the Project, in combination with past, present and reasonably loreseanbl• future pprojects will interfere with the City's compliance with the Congsation Management Plan, potentlaliy jeopardizing the City's acces^ to highway imgrovement funds. Moreover, although the staff obviously knew of the evidence regarding the potential cultural and historic significnnce of the Subject Property by ordering review by the Historic Preservation Commission, this is not sufficient pursuant to CEQA. Neither the study, nor eny proposed mitigation measures which may be orlgineted because of the ^tudy, have been subjected to public comment in violation of CEQA's fundamental purpose. (Sea Sandstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cel.App.3d 296 (1988.) Also significant pursuant to CEQA is the fact that the site is located directly within the city's Fault Hazard Special Studies Zone, becnusa of the location of the Rad Nill fault. (General Plan p. V-11.) CEQA requires an analysis of the potential o! a project to attract persona to an area of potential health end eatoty risk, such es en earthquake fault. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(e).) Most importantly, with respect to the etaff'^ error to not to require an EIR, CEQA provides that a project will normally hays a significant environmental impact i! it is in conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of a community; if 1t could disrupt of adversely a!lect a prehistoric or historic archaeological site or a property of historlo or cultural significance; or it iL could expose people or structures to major geological hazards. (CEQA Guidlelinee Appendix c.) Tha evidence in the record is strong Chat the Project hoe the potential to created significant impacts on the environment with respect to each of these items. Consequently, staff erred in not requiring the preparetion o! an EIR. TEL No. 818 507 3896 Feh 16 93 15 't8 P.12 Honorable Mayor Stout and Members of the City Council February 16, 1993 Paqa 11 3. S±tY Erred in Not Praoar{na a Mande or+~ Moni orieng Program. Public Resources Coda eeation 21081.6 requires the city to adopt a reporting or monitoring program for any mitigation measures incorporated into the project or imposed as a condition of approval. Without ouch a program, citizens cannot be assured that such conditions o! approval will be adhered to Tha Staff Report contains an extensive series of conditions) howover, there is no mandatory monitoring program described for project compliance on an on-going basis. CONCLUSION Tha Project should ba denied for the following raaaons: L. The proposal use is inconsistent vitb the Genarai Plan eat forth for Activity Cantors In the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan; 2. The Project does not comply with the design guidelines sat forth in the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan; 7. Tha staff erred in !ailing to require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Raportt o. Tha proposed use, notwithstandlnq conlitione, will be detrimental to the public health, sstaty, and welters of the users and the eppliaant has not auetaineQ his burden of proof to show otherwise. For all of these reasons, it is respectfully requested that the Project be denied. RegpShtlul y submi ad, ~RIN CLK/ah ~OSfpN~.~`SCi C/J G~Q~.~Q. ~ - T~ r s {2E~-~ ~ s ~1 o r- ~u ~n,'~a, iu r~,uy w,p/. 70 C~3T l~.~P'E7¢Srcvt~f UPON Tflc ,PCJCRryTC~u G'.r! Qr ~im2~cr, a. L A c oc c~ ,4ECQJ~2o-~ r~~E /aPPF/2~>ur .9cetar ~PauJf q~lo~w~ TuF ~r~io~e o~ T/rE ,Buic~iRl6, lVt~T2:-: !!11 T1fIS ~UILbIAJG is ~ro .Qs Fucc~..f'Re'd~c(c~e~ y~u'r iT UJ~cc. HOt1SG-` F1 L9R6o- flaiouar CW' aRy ~7ti~P9G'E PLUS ~E-1~2i6C~¢eiTL~ S`rd,p,4ae ALL ALONG 7kG RG'~92 f~KT/O,o. 3. Tfi~ ^1~E' co.eru~ Lgc,e.r R Tu~PnJ y2o~,ua~ r..2 Ft 2.6 APP,rti2~4TUf, /nl Ty~~a.¢~ ate' ~4 H9rhnid~ HCs~9.~ 02 CUL d6 J'qC, ~rd-Tq,~C~ ri20ih '~fv" ~,er/Ewgf, G-?c C,~, S /Sf) rErr- `-~• SgmE P2a~L~j Gkisr-s pv Tyt ^~/w coeve~e wH~ Pf1~2KinJG 1u7~2t~~2ES\ ~ ~a «NING RH~iuf. THi,P SEt~~12CL.~/ ~1rYj(77 !'. o. ~CCSSS To 7HG Qr'~9rZcK 7~1N ~Lb6. b. 6L~.G, L'.ONST~eJCT1o,U IS TrPv- S1~ I~LLOca~,eJe ~e~2 ~floo ~ x a ~r,e ~{G~ CGC>g2ANCt oa s J'~AerJ = !G ooo~x 3 Cro,e sP2;~tK~~2 /IPP~~'CATio+J~ _ ~~OOa ~` . 'S .-- '~~ i~~'n LiloVL~ G., rs 7y~~9b~ ro-~ ~`~"6S rt 'lTr~w~ r= r 6UY'~-~ ?~f 1 S ~^c'~ G , Y2c-~Urk~s- /r y rJk. ray a ~ ra,, y~~t `~ ~cSCt'L~ Jl1GT;~ 7""t ~c~ Yp~ 3A '~dNCFPNS CONTA ~°• ~He~2E !S DnJLy ONE' Lo,q,~iN6 J~OC+C ~"J/rAT• cJitr_ p?CCOr1~M ODq~s 'TW p~ 6/6fFT ~OGT 4.liA4 TXAILEIQS.., w~Z r~~: CLb~g2RNC~ GJ E/Tlf'E~2, .('i~L--^. 4JHtz~2tr G.1fLL. T"dG OTH'GYL T2+lCK1 rl.~. Ber?9D~ So~~9~CN/Pf bTC. UN ~a9?~ ? f7~ err •CTD2E r'vPDA1T? 1N 7Fi`t: ~iCJ6GRnla-? 1 ONCC' T (S R2gCT/CE BECi/N,f/ ~J CAivT J`70f° /T: ?. / Kv- C,/2a~-sT~ fAr3~Lfry W= r`i2E ~S Ial T1te'Ga~c EN CLOD'&'~.~ SrAQAGFRRe,~ /N77fG R~9~.eK'TNLrQLD6,. ~~T>^CT/On( DF AN /K1CiPiErl~- ~,QE /,u7HiS H~i9 /SNa; AS LIKE[r qS rou woucLl lfgvE' /~ 7~s //lHiti! fb~enoxl oFr~iE- S`rokc. TN~e~~=o2~ H ,~2c /n1 ~ ~xl~e /S q ~siuc~ CRr~.T~7Q TIf,2~AT: TH/.l' /S ALJb 7NE A,2EY/ of 6',Q~~-~- G'ONCb7QhJ ~tX2. ~~ P20'TdrCT/Or~ ~/AJp h,C~E LgNE' .~'C6'.+'J, ~H(C LOA~fNG l~. ACKS' ~ Tl/a L~xr; FiQ0~1TCK"77fE d'ro,e~~ IN 'rftc~ `r~~J C*p~2uc~Y2 DF 7~ :QL~6, /S /~ m.R/o2 ~~~ ~~z.~,ea. r~sc~.~,~JC r2ucKr murr mq~ ~ 9o'~i8o '7 <72n1 To ~HC°K /a1 TocJ,q,2~ 7},y- Ngn1~iCF}9~p P9~P~cING t' f3 f CYCLE PA,2Kitii6 Ar2r7J.C, ~-r fr P,efmg2l~Y Fo,~ T>t~- ,Q~.rour Wirer we wo~~ U(cGE TkE Cl7y ~-.ou~Je~i. ~d Ue°ffp~~ '7}t5` /~~ANJ/~v6 C o r>) „~/ Js~aut u ya 1 Yorx- 'Ta 1~. sfu -.,__y fi ~~2nts~2, T1s9T `y";rc C' o u,i,'c is /~ Ic ~ Fb d r-Po ti'L~-~ Fa,2 F"u2r.~v^2 ~Prv y uu nc. The following major concerns were discussed by the Planning Commission first on April 2, 1992 and then on October 6, 1992. In addition a letter from Mr. Buller to Smith's architect, Prescott Muir, dated May 21, 1992...and Senior Planner Dan Coleman's letter to Prescott Muir dated August 27, 1992 again expressed the major concerns of the Planning Commission. All of the items below are still incorporated in the Smith site plan for approval Chia evening with no little or no changes since 4/2/92! TWO MEETZNGS...TWO LETTERS...and still nothing has changed, mitigated or solutions given!! Zssues, Concerns brou ght to the attention o£ Smith's MAJOR ITk2ZS Meot 4/2/92 Buller to Coleman to Meat Muir 5/21/92 Muir 8/29/92 10/6/92 activity Center dose sot neat Foothill specific Plaa Yea Yea Yea Yea Large Perking Lot doninatinq areas at fropt or property Yea Yes Yes Yes Location of Loading docks a sariova problem Yea Yea Yse Yee Policy of Planning not to allow x011 Up doors facing street Yea Yea Yae Yea Master Plan percale on Ban Bernardino Road Yea Yea Yea Yae Pedestrian safety ooncarna "oa alts" Yes Yea Yee Yee A sub committee meeting of the City Council was held to study the entire Smith project. At that meeting was Ma~or Stout, Council Member Williams, Smith's representatives, Smith's attorney, Brad Buller 6 Beverly S. from the Planning Department, and Mr. Reichelt 6 myself (Ed Combs). The meeting started about 5:05 PM S adjourned at 6:30 PM. The only major issue discussed at that meeting was the elimination of the east dock. Several minor issues, colors, venerrinq, location fountain, etc...was discussed. Approximate 15 minutes was spent discussing the elimination of the east dock with the balance of the time spent on minor issues. Nothing was ever discussed about relocating the docks. Towards the end of the meeting Smith's representatives asked Ma~or Stout (at least 2-3 times) if he felt everything was OS and would the Mayor approve the project. Mayor Stout indicated Yea and turned to Council Member Williams 6 asked if she felt it was OR. Council Member Williams indicated her approval. Smith's representative inquired from Mayor Stout what were the chances of getting the "third vote" from the remaining Council Members. Mayor Stout nodded his head in an approval manner and further .indicated he couldn't speak for the rest of the Council, but everything looked good. NONE OF THE FOLLnwr~vr racr~'S WERE Drs[T~c4Fn am THE SLR COMMITTEE ~Fmrrur_ I r ---- ~.. Activity Center does not meet Foothill Specific Plan Large Parking Lot dominating areas at front of property Location of Loading docks a serious problem Policy of Planning not to allox roll up doors facing attest Satisfactory Master Plan for parcels on San Bernardino Road Pedestrian Safety concerns "on site" "RECEIYEDAUG 04'•- .. ~~ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Posr Office Box P4:, Ranchr Cuumony, Ulitomu 9I~J0, fne ggq.,gs~ August 3, 1989 Mr. Edward R. Combs 419 B, North Central Avenue Upland, CA 91786 File: APN 207-102-3 d 5 RE: Two acre parcel on west side of Vineyard Avenue between Foothill Boulevard and San Bernardino Noad APN 207-102-3 d 5 Dear Mr. Combs: This letter is in response to your letter dated July 23, 1989, regarding access to the above noted property. First, you have asked that we reconsider our position regarding access to Vineyard Avenue in light of the information presented 1n your Letter. Unfortunately, you did not address the Issue of traffic safety, which is our main concern in limiting access to Vineyard Avenue; therefore I oust reaffirm our position as stated fn Mr. Hanson's letter dated July 18, 1989, restricting access to Vineyard Avenue. Secondly, I wouid like to address some of the assertions made in your letter: A. Lack of Notice of Restricted Access: You stated that receipt of our July 18, 1989, letter was your first notice that access would be restricted on Vineyard Avenue. A review of the DR 88-i1 fiie clearly shows that we had expressed those concerns to you and your representatives as early as January 1987 and that these concerns were repeated at various times thereafter. A brief summary of those previous references 1s as follows (copies of the Letters are attached): 1/29/87 Completeness Letter for DR 87-07 (later refiled as DR 88-11 ). Comment I.8.3. - Required that a Master' Plan be prepared for the surrounding area. One of the main purposes of a master plan is to establish acceptable access locations. Comment II.1. -States no access will be allowed to Vineyard Avenue. MrMr CnenrilmrmMrv William ~. Nevander Chadex ~. Buquri II om m.,.,r. Dennis L. Sfoul Deborah N~, mrown Pamela ~. Wright pck hm. NCP MR. EDWARD R. COMBS AUGUST 3, 1989 PAGE 2 1/12/88 Preliminary Review 87-09 for the same Droperty. Comment Site Plan 3.a. - States that only one driveway aligned with the Thomas-T1 n~ery driveway will be allowed between Foothill Boulevard and San Bernardino Road. 3/31/88 Completeness Letter for DR 88-11. Comment II. B. 5. - Essentially repeats the same comment as the 1/12/88 letter. In addition, your Master Plan for DR 88-11 (reduced copy attached) refl acts a single access an Vineyard Avenue aligned with the Thomas Winery driveway, which indicates that you were aware of the access restrictions on Vineyard Avenue in order to prepare the Master Plan. Finally, the DR 88-11 file contained a copy of the plan (full size) you attached to your letter. The driveway shown onto Yineyard Avenue was "%"ed out with an arrow pointing southerly to a driveway aligned with the Thomas Vinery Driveway. This indicates that staff had seen this plan and noted that the proposed driveway was unacceptable. Based upon the above, I find it clear that you were provided notice of our position on restricted access on Vineyard Avenue. B. Public Access A1ona Previous San Otago Avenue Alignment: The purpose of the abandonment (vacation) of the San D1e9o Avenue right- of-way was to reduce cut through traffic to Foothill Boulevard in order to reduce the impact on the residential uses on the north side of San Bernardino Road. Secondly, 1t increased the amount of land available and provided more flexibility for future development. It was always understood that the public would use this access corridor, which is clearly indicated on your DR 86-11 Master P1 an. C. Access to the North thru DR 88-11: You are Drobably correct that no one from the City suggested to you that access be provided to the property in question thru the DR 88-i1 property, because: (1) they were unaware that you owned or were a party to the development of the southerly property, and (2) more importantly, e north/south access to the property in question would be better located further west approximately between the two buildings shown on your master plan. We now suggest that you may wish to investigate the connection thru DR D8-11, because you have control over the property, or an access more westerly as noted. MR. EDNARD R. COMBS AUGUST 3, 1989 PAGE 3 In conclusion, I hope this information has sufficiently clarifted our position on this matter. If you should have any Questions, do not hesitate to call arysel f, Barrye Hanson, or Barbara Kra11 at (714) 989-1862. Cordially, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ENGINEF G'OTyIS ell H. Magu Ci E RHM:BRH:sd AttacMnents `:... , dl" ,, -~ 1i4 -, t C[']Y OF RANCHO CUCAMONOA ~ pa, omv ao. n", x..~ o„~„~ usruw ntw, nin flsaui w„r Demo L Swm wuR u January 29, 1981 D<bonE N. B,o~e p,mel, 1. WAak icing >Lal Cy MME [~urev Wu,ermu Ed Combs 435 N. Central Avenue Upland, California 91786 SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT REVIEN 87-07" Dear Mr. Combs: Your applicatfon for the above referenced protect has been reviewed for completeness and accuracy of fil iiq. As a result of the revs ew, the protect application has been found to be incomplete for processing. .4tt ached please find a list outlining the additional information needed prior to finding the application •complete, non-conformities with development standards and motor design issues. further processing of your protect cannot begin until this additional information is submitted and the application accepted as complete. Please revise your application per the attached list. Submit four (4) copies of the revised application to the Planning Division. Upon receipt of the revised application package, this protect will then be scheduled for review far completeness at the next available staff meeting. Should you have any questions regarding the review process, or if we can be of further assistance, please feei free to contact the protect planner, Chris NesGnan of this office. Sincerely, CO T EVELOPME T 0 ARTMENT P IMO D VISION ~~ D oleman color Planner GCagr Attachments cc: Bar rye Hanson Steve Falk FILE NO.: DR 87-07 (COMPLETENESS COMMENTS) NOTE: This information is provided to assist in the preparation of a development package complete for processing. Additional information may De necessary based upon a more thorough analysis during the Development Review Proles s. I. Planning Division ~- _, ~'A.~1 Foothill Interim Polic Determination : Your protect st to is ocate in t e oothi ou ever toy area and therefore fs reviewed for consistency with the interim goals and policies as well as special development standards adopted by the Planning Commission. The interim policfes for Foothill 0oulevard requfre that the Planning Commission conduct a Preliminary Review to determine consistency with the interim goats and policies. Your site fs being considered for ^COmmunity Commercial" type uses which would include banks, finance companies, real estate offices but would not include administrative office uses. Your protect has been scheduled to be reviewed at their meetin~o -Fe roar -99 o t o to report w e orwar e o you pr or to the meeting. Further processing of your related Development Review application cannot occur until the Commission completes its Preliminary Revtew. 0. Additional information needed prior to finding the application complete: Complete the missing information as shown an the attached checklist. 2. A Tree Removal Permit is required for the removal of any trees (see attached): ---~ 3. Please submit a Master Plan for Assessor's Parcel o's~OT--.02-~6~8~9-13aad_19 in conformance with ~nter m po"T lacy ~C,3.~ The protec non- conforming because it is approximately 1 0 square feet in tot area and approximately 146 feet in depth and 111 feet in width. The Development ~ Code requires a 40,000 square foot minimum lot area and a mfnimum lot width of Z00 feet and mininNm,,lot depth of 175 feet. / Ff le No.: OR 87-Di Completeness Comments Page 2 ~ ro n ties re wires Master ann n or ots w is o ~~ not meet t e m nimum area wi th an e t re virements. a intent o as er ann ng is to ssure ntegrated development, enhance harnanious orderly development, mitigate site constraints on ad~oi ning property and maximize land potential (refer to Policy C.1 thru C.3 for further information). 4. The site is located within a City adopted Special Study Zone for the Redh111 Fault. Suhmit a report by a certified engineering geologist consistent with the guidelines and criteria of the Alquist - Priolo Special Studies Zone Act. The applicant will also be required to pay the cost of the City's geologist to review this report. A list of geologic consultaMS is attached. C. The followin are technical issues which do mat meet the it 's Deve -Dment o e an or oec c nr , omnun tv an vnc~es. i, Drive approaches shall he a minimum of 30' wide at the property line from which point the width may transition flown to the minimum atsie width of 26', 2, Setbacks at the south and west property lines for Dorking shall be a minimum of 10 feet to provide a landscape buffer. 3. Compact parking stall depth is 16 feet. No allowance is made for overhangs on compact stalls. 4, The number of trees shown on the conceptual landscape plan appears inadequate One (1) street tree is required per every 30 feet of lot frontage. One (1) interior tree is required per every 30 linear foot of building face. 5. Drive aisles shall be a minimum of 26' wide. File No.: DR 87-07 Completeness Comments Page 3 . The following are design issues that are recomirended to be ad r~10 Che remised p ans: 1. Because of the non-conforming lot size, the building setback frwn the street is reduced. Northeast corner of building should be angled to create greater setback to curb radius on corner. 2. The architecture should provide addf tional design elements that relate to the heritage of Rancho Cucamonga. The building fs most closely associated visually with the historic Thomas Bras. Vinery. A Ranch-Minery Revival image is encouraged featuring elements such as red rile roof, barnroof shapes, multi-planed roof, exposed rafter tails, roof overhangs, grape arbors and simple stucco walls. II. Engineering Division ~.- 1. No access shall be permitted from Vineyard Avenue unless it is for emergency purposes only. 2. Dedication for street purposes shall be required for San Bernardino Road and Vineyard Avenue. 3. Fu 11 street improvements shall be requlred for San Bernardino Road and Vineyard Avenue, including curb, gutter, sidewalk, street lights and landscaping. 4. The traffic signal lights may be requlred to be relocated. Please show than on future submittals. 5. In-lieu fees for future undergrounding of overhead utilities shall be required for both streets. 6. Show existing utility poles on the "Detailed Site Plan'. Also, refer to the attached "Exlsttlg Overhead Utility Requirements" handout and provide a separate drawing per Section B of the handout. 1. Provide crass settions at the property boundaries and the proposed grade alolg the southern boundary on the grading plan. ~~ CffY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA vnn omw aw Im, iV.J,e cuweeep cauwme +ifw. niet+e+.iui January 12, 1988 Matlock Associates 502 Nest Halt Boulevard Powona, California 91768 SUBJECT: PRELININARY REYTd 87-89 - COMBS OFFICE BUILDING Dear Sir: Thank you for subrltting plans for your office building for prelldnary revid. It /s our hope that tAts lnforgl review rill provide you rltlf enougA infonwtlon regarding your proposal early 1n the process so that you can ayke an accurate assess~ent on har to apprwch the protect. A review ws done by the Planning and Engineering D1v1s1ons on January 6, 1988. fie foliowing are eoanents generated at that aaleting: Planning D1v/sfon: 1. The protect falls within the Red Hill Fault Zone and x111 reQUirc a Geologic Report. The report shall be coapleted by a certified geologist and shall be consistent with the guidelines and criteria of the Aiquist-Pr1o1o Special Studies Zone AtL. The applicant w-11 also be reeqquutrod to pay the cost of the City's geologist Lo revter this report. A list of geologic consultants is atUehed. Z. The FootAttl Specific plan encourages Lhe preservation of existing trees whenever possible. fie reagral of any trees will reQutrc the tsswnee of a Tree Rsovai Parfait. As part of that app11pt1on, an Arborist's report eky also be rcautred of the applicant. 3. fie Footlf111 Boulevard Specific plan calls for the vautton of San Diego Avenue, Th1s vacation w111 have an effect on the a>aster plan as subafltted and should be revised to accurately reflect possibiitties for those parcels, The master plan should also atldrcss issues furMer outlined 1n the Engineering section of this letter. Site Plan: i. The trash enclosure should be relocated to an lnterler location which will reduce its prafelnence. c,.+n~.a• w... DeborN N acorn luhq w,n~ on V..re.. 4nnn LStwt Churn J. Baguet ll Pumlu 1. Wndn. Duren M. Weuermen wtlock Associate: PreitaHnary Rerler 87-89 January 12, 1988 Page 3 Z. fie FooM111 Boulevard SDeclftc Plan (Section 7.1.5) Cfrculatlon Concept specifies Uat San Diego Avenue Detrreen Footh111 Boulevard and San Bernardino Road shall be abandoned but used for circulation of the area by neaps of a pr/vate drive. A eul-de-sac shall be constructed on San Bernardino Road (see attaehedl. fits abandonasrn4 and the construction of Ma cul-de-sac shall W shorn on the arster tan and caagl eted upon the dewiopaKnt of the portion of Nster plan area adiacent to Moss streets. 3. The ter plan shall W rev/sed to include Me follortng ttean: ~.. a. One rlveray Doty r111 he aliowd on Vineyard Avenue be n FooM111 Bauiewrd aM San Bernardino Rwd. Thi driverey shall align riM Me proposed drtveray } Me Thoars Vinery pralaet and M sMrad by all /~ properties. fie circa anon pattern of Me raster plan shalt shot future use of Me drlver{y. \ b. 11 parcels shall provide reNprocal accns to Me urroundln9 parcels. c. Ail drive approaches shall M a arlnlo of 35 feet at Me right-of-ray 11ne. 4. fie ultlrtt rldM of San Bernardino Road and Vineyard Avenue shall be coordinated r1M Me approved ellgnaent study for Me Thaws Y1nery pro3eet, CUP 87-26. Copies of Me plan r111 De avellable. Please cMgct Barbara Krell to Me Engineering 01v1s1on far further lnforartion. S. The site utlHzatton plan shall be extended to tndude Me Cucaapega Channel to Me rest and Me 7haalas Y1nery site to Me east. Also, Me location of existing drive approaches on Me north side of San Cernardino Road shall M shorn. If you should haw aqy further Questions, piease call aM at (711) 984- 1861. Sincerely, CDIIM1N11Y DEVELOPMENT OEPARTNEMf P,L~ANNIM6''D~I -VII SION .l (~~UTA.I,_ Chris Yestaun AssisUnt Pinner CY;te Q CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Pan an> m, roi, p.,.n. Cuomm,~ curon,. mYw. pui aev-i ee i MarcA 31, 1988 Mike Gonzales Matlock and Associates 502 N. Nolt Pomona, CA 91768 SUBJECT: OR 88-11 Dear Mr+ Gonzales: Your appl7cation for the above referenced project has been reviewed for completeness and accuracy of filing. As a result of the review, the Ata hed please find aalist outllningttheaddltloona]tlnfarwatloneneeded prior to finding the application complete, non-eonforwitles with development standards and mayor design 15 sues. Further processing of your protect cannot begin until this additional information 1s submitted and the application attepted as complete. Di ease revise your application per the attached list, Submit four (A) copies of the revised application to the Plenning Division. Upon receipt of the revised application package, this project will then be scheduled for review for completeness at the nelet available staff meeting. Should you have any questions regarding the renew process, or if we can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact the protect pianner, Chris Nestman of this office. Sincerely, COMMA DEYELOPME DEPARTMENT P1 IN6 VISION Dah Coleman Senior Planner DC:CN:Js Attachment cc: Barrye Hanson v+~~~ ~eeonfl V Bra-n lenre Km Drn m. 1. $mm Y ~ Gn v,.r+ C~,tlnl Bu9un 11 Pune41 Wrght LaurenM Wuurmm FILE NO.: DR 88-11 (COMPLETENESS COMMENTS) NOTE: This information is provided to assist in the preparation of a development package complete for processing. Additional information may be necessary Dosed upon a more thorough analysis during the Development Review Process. I. Planni na Division A. Additional information needed ri or to findln the a 1lcati on comb a e• 1. Complete the missing items marked on the Submittal Requirement Checklist. 2. A tree removal permit application and arbarist report must be prepared by a City approved Arborlst and submitted to the City to determine what action shall be taken on the existing trees. 3. The protect 1s within the City designated Red N.111 Fault Zone and therefore rcqutres a geologic report prepared in conformance with state guidelines for the Aloquist-Priolo Act. Attached 1s a list of geologic consultants. a. Separate landscape and site plans should be ~ submitted. ~e Master Plan must 6e expanded to include tNe e Lire block from Foothill Boulevard to San driveways of the nhomeslone theh north side of San Bernardino Road, and the Thanes Brothers Ninety proposal.The Intent of the Master Plan requirement 1s to shay the potential for integral development including tnternai ctrculatlon. 6. Enlarged details for the bench and raised planter must 6e submitted. 7. The height of the first story should be dimensioned on the elevations. 8. Your conceptual Master Plan and the Thomas Brothers protect should be shown on the site utillzatlon ^mD• B. The followin are technical issues which do not meet the ~ y s eve oilmen 0 e do or peC pr omnun~an t 3 rl dal 5 o C e5. 1." A 15 foot landscape setback is required along the west property line. ?fd;P,f-'~ %t~~~`, ~, iy ~~, 2. Parking lots with fewer than 25 spaces must provide all standard sta115 of 9' x 19'. 3. Single trash enclosures oust be 6' x 8'R" per City Standard 901. 4. A 50 foot setback for the second story is required from both street frontages.F~P.F~~~ yc,~g~ aa.YFfrN uih£bs~~ C. The f~ o11~ny~ are design issues that are recamaended to be - ~n we rev 5 p any' 1. A single story design solution could be explored, however, Because of the site size and constraints, development at this time may be premature and should 6e reconsl dared. II. Engineering 0lvision A. Completeness: 1. Show existing ut111t ales on the "Detailed Stte Plan'. Also, re er e a Lathed "Existing Overhead Utility Requirements" handout and provide a separate drawing per Section B of the handout. Include ut111t1es on both sides of the streets. B ues: 1. The grading plan and the site plan do not show receprical access to the property to the west as sham on the Master surroundlo it Parcels shad provide access to the g parcels. 2. My relocation and/or modification of the traffic signals shad be the responsibility of the developer. 3. Parking lot design must allow direct circulation from ayolning parcels. 4. The proJeet's drlreway on San Bernardino Road should be Located at or west of the west property line. -'-'-~-5. Master Plan a. The drive approach shall align with the prevlousty approved project (Thomas Vinery) on the east side of Vineyard Avenue. This is the only drive approach that will be allowed on the west side of Yineyard Avenue. The lot to the south shad De included in the Master P1 an in order to show the correct Iocatton of the drive approach. b. The alignment of San Bernardino Road for the proposed project on the eaststde of Ytneyard Avenue shalt be shown on the Master Plan. Refer to the attached Ultimate Alignment P1 an. c. The cut de sac bulb at the west end of San Bernardino Road is not to City standards (see attached). ~imith'~ Smith's Food & Drug Centers, Inc. 1550 South Redwood Rd., Seh Lake City. Utah 84104 • P.O. Box 30550. Salt Lake City, U;ah 84730 Telephone (801) 974-1400 Pebruary 17, 1993 4[r. Charles J. Hvqvet ltnyor Pro-Tam P. O. Boa 607 Raaaho cuaamoaga, Ca. 91729 Bear I9r. Buquet: 11e appreciate the feat that the Rancho Cueuoaga Citp Council afforded Bmith's the opportuaitp to cork out the deeiga issues rith the city staff aa4 the Counoil evbaouittee over the last fer weeks. TDe input given to um was e:treeelp helpful. re regret sot getting these issues resolved sooner Lor it would have aevad a lot of time sad effort on the part of the Planning commisaioa. our store rill be such more a~ansive aor that re have incorporated ell the changes suggested to ua by Btaff, Dut the sad result is teat everyone in Rancho Cucamonga will be proud of this new facility. N+ hope you will vote in favor oL the project this evening because re are very anEiovs to open d ner 8mith'• Pood and Druq superstore in your community end beoome a good oorporate citiaea and neighbor. sincerely, ~-~-_~ ~~ La Mane senior Vice resident corporate Development 82~05~y3 15:30 WcSi UN PK iNGLe HfJU RSSU::WiES VV~ :.: ~ ICI -y----~ Weston Pringle 8. Associates i-~-' A i TfiAFF1C A FAX 7"1?ANSMfiTAL DATA .~' ` 93 ITRA1n ATIL`lYiION• ~~ `~~o~~~-~ FROA1e ~~ /`/~i.+a `• WCS70N DRIIV6LC do ASSOCWTES F~Jl ENGINEERING DESCR/P710Ne NOTFs WE ARE TPrWSM1ITIN@ A TOTAL OF ~ PA4',PS (INCLUDING THL+~ f.OVER PA6l9. .IF YCU R1a1r'E AMA' PRODLEN N1iti THE TRANSMISSION. PLIFi~Se CALL US AT (71A) 8712931. OUR FAXNUMOER IS p14) 871~Q38y. THANK YOU. ,. ~ 1 ~ 11 0?f 29"i ...p:~,~ i.osau bL 3.: 1S: dU wool Wt ~.a ~..~ rd lu r~sa~.,,r~ieo Jw_ W p~ `fit ~ 1 A , WPA, Traffic Engineering, Inc. TRAFFIC Lc TRANSPORTATION ENGINRERING February 9, 1993 Mr. Ed Combs 419-R North Central Avenue Upland, CA 91786 SUBJECT': SMIT'H'S FOOD KING, RANCHO CUCAMONGA Dear Mr. Combs: This letter is in response to the request of pruNctty owners ou San Bernardino Paul to review tramc Factors related to the proposed Smith's Food King developnra:~ ~. northwest corner oC Foothill Roulevard and Vineyard Avenue in the City of 1<anchu Cucamonga. T77e project would include a Smith's Food and Drug Center along with satellite uses. Vehicular access is planned on FUOthill Boulevard, Vineyard Avenue, and San 6ernardino Road. it is indicated that ultimately the Foothill Boulevard access will br. right uu~ns cnly. A loading dock is proposed on the west end of the main buildwg. Our review has been Lased upon a site plan, a traffic study by Justin P. Farmer Transportation Engineers, Inc., dated January ]3, 1999, and information provided by you. 000 Loogudurf U; he • Si~ilO 2Z2 - : ~ ~ Or4n,. CA b8u71 • j%19) 871-I':31 ~' . ~. ;91 Gil-c. ~9-~~ ~- -z- A site plan, prepared Ly Tait and Associates, shows a deceleration lane located on Vineyard Avenue, south of the San Isemardino Road/Vineyard Avenue intersection, a[ the Smit.li s Food and Drug Cnxer driveway. 'I~his deceleration lane was examined to determine whahcr the leugth is adequate. Vinrya rd Avonu has a posted speed limit oC 45 MPH in the vicinity of the Smith's Food and Drug Center site.trt Typically, the design speed on a street is higher than the posted speed limit. Therefore, a conservative design speed of 50 MPH was assumed Vineyard Avcnuc. CulTrans' Ii hwae Design Manua{t'~ states [ha[ [he "desibn sp:... the roadway should Lc the basis for determining deceleration lane Icngth". When measuring the length of the deceleration lane, the bay taper is to be included in the measurement, The deceleration lane shown nn the Smi[li s site plan is approximately 225 feet. Table 405.2B, in the H_ghwawDesigu Manuah'; shows the relationship betwemi the design speed of a roadway and the desired deceleration lane Icngth. F'or a design speed oC 50 hfPl-I, a duderation lane Icngth of 435 feet is needed; however, where partial deceleration is permitted on through lanes, the avet'age sprcd may be reduced 10 to 29 MPIi. Duc to the faa tlmt two southbound lanes arc provided on Vineyard Aveuuc, a reduction of ]0 MYH was assumed. A 40 MI'H design speed was utilized for determining the appropriate deceleration lace length for the Smith's driveway. fable 405.215 indicates a leugth of 315 feet for a design speed of 40 Ml'H• As stated previously, the deceleration lane shown ou the sire plan is approximazely 225 feet, which falls 90 feet short of the required 315 feet. (1) Shown iu Figure 7 of the Smith's Food and Drug Center Tralic Study; prepared iry,Jusun F. Farmer 'fransportatimt Engineers, Inc.; dated January I2, 1993. (2) H' hwav es~t Mam , 4th Rdition; California Department of'ltansportatiou (CalTrans); February, 19!12. (3) JJtid It was also noted that Viucyard Avcnttc has a horizontal curve, north of the site. This resnl~s in restricted sight distance for southbound drivers with respect to vehicles entering 4tc project site, As noted in the leaer from Justin F. Farmer Transportation L'nginrers, Inc., a truck exiting the Vineyard Avenue driveway will intrude into the southbound [:umber one lane or, in cfie4, block southbound traf5c!'t Since the stopping sight distance for 50 MPH is 430 Feet, a safety concern could exist. It is understood that typically 65 foot trucks are utilized to serve these prgjeds, The turning characteristics of this vehicle are illustrated on Figure 407C oC the wa Ilcsign Manuahs~. Rased upm~ these characteristics, [he driveway design raises some concerns. Thr driveways nn both Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue are not su[iicinu to allow esiting vehicles while a truck enters. This condition results in both traf6r operational anti safety concerns. Access via San Bernardino Road is~another concern. This is a residential street and it is understood that access w the project site from San Bernardino Road was Precluded in fie Poodrifl Roulcvat'd pion, The project traffic study assames that 22 Percent of the trips will utilize Sau Bernardino Road. This access via San Rernardino Road raises the Ibllowing concerns. o V<hiariar access to San Rernardino Road is via [he west end of the main building, past the loading docks. This access route (s not highly visible to patrons and is a "back door" to the facility. In addition, safety is a Potential pn~hlenl due to trucks backing into the loading docks in the Path of vcbi~.les utilizing San Bernardino Road• Truck drivers have limited visibility when backing. (d) ,Justin F. Farmer Transportation F.nginerrx, inc: s letter to Prescott Muir Architects; January ll, 1003. Ih) H18~7Y~~c~ign Manual; r~,,,~'I, ~[. ~j. y3 15:32 WESTQN PRIIJGLE kN0 RSSOC1pTE5 {~p5 "4- o If an access is not provided on San Bernardino Road, there arc significant traffic impacts. Rased upon the trafGt study, the total left turns from Vineyard Avntuc is 718 vehicles during the PM peak hour. Figure 16 of the traffic report indicates that this volume would require a storage length of 900 feet. Since the limit line wr Vineyard Avenue at Foothill Boulevard ie approximately 860 Cce[ Gom the driveway, there is noc sufficient diswncc fora 800 foot storage area, o tf vehicular access ix not provided on San Bernardino Road, the outbound volume a[ [he Vineyard Avenue driveway would increase to 182 vehicles during the PM peak hour. A volume of this magnitude could introduce a demand for signalization, which would impact traffic operations on Vineyard Avenue, u The traffic repm-t addresses the sensitivity of increased traffic on San Bernardino Road due to the resirleutial use: There is no discussion of truck impacts. 77re San Bernardino Road access would he an attractive route For trucks entering the site. Lr summary, there are potential traffic related impacts that should be addressed iu the review of the proposed development. 't'his site has some specific access ;imitations which should be addressed prior to the approval of the prnjccL Also, tratGc impacts on Sao Bernardino Road and adjaccm property should be darified~ * ~ ~ -5- We trust that these comments will be of assistance to you. If you have any questions, plcasc contact us. Respectfully submitted, WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, ]NC. ~~~~ wcuon s. r~ gle, r.E. Registered Professional Engineer State of California Numbcts G16828 & T12565 WSP:ca #9SO1G0 February 17, 1993 To: City clerk - Rancho Cucamonga FROM: property Owners Adjacent to Smith's Project Residents of Rancho Cucamonga RE: Smith's Proposed Site Plan We have given the Council Members several documents which we want to become part of the official records and minutes of the Public Hearing which will be hied this evening (2/17/93). We are enclosing copies of those records with additional documents for your records. If you have any questions you can reach me at 909-981-0466, Mr. Ed Combs, or Mr. Rich Reichlet at 909-946-4848. Thank you ,Y i. f . ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ / ~ a `~ -• • .. v i s a xo4~11r>r(r a x x ~' 4,~ ~; ,., ~,~~, ! ~ ~K!'k .. .. 'a ., .. ~i t r F y t A Sufmitted To: 3: . Mayor D~ernis Stout Mayor Pro-Tem.Charles Buquet :'~ <' Council Member William J. (Bill)''Alexander Council Member Diane Williams ~ Council Member Rex Gutierrez , `\ TABLE ~ TENTHS Preface Letter Letter of Introduction Brief History Statement of Facts & Concerns Regarding Smith Development Foothill Specific Plan -Concerns Summary of Major Facts/Concerns Excerpts taken from Minutes of two Planning Commission Meetings & Planning Staff Report(s) Exhibits Submitted by: Concerned Citizens of Rancho Cucamonga Property Owners near Proposed Development Residents in the Immediate Neighborhood February 8, 1993 ^_'he f,ilowinc document is the result cf inaut received _rom. many individuals, including residents of the City ..' Ranchc Cucamonca, property owners i^ the immediate .rea =_.c= w_'a be affected b}% the proposed deve'_opment, cors:_tants and adrisors. We have Sp=n~ a great deal Of ~lme re Ji ewing the .5'mi til pans, conductinc independent studies how the development wlii effect Ollr ,city, 1t5 residents dnd property owners. We asx that you review these materials with ar, oo_en mind ' and try tc understand why we feel the way we do. We naJe attemated to highlight points of issues, concerns and sericus problems with the Smith project. All of the s'~atements we refer to in the two Planning Commission Meetings of December 9th and 1.5th were *_aker, from the official minutes and are verbatim, word for word. For your convenience we are enclosing copies of those minutes highlighting the sentences, paragraphs and words we are referencing. We tried to condense our repcrt as much as possible; however, with *_he importance of the project, its affect to the City and its residents...the report is longer than expected. ZNTRODUCTION February 8, 1993 fF TO: City Couaail Members FROM: ProDertL' Owners - 8aa Bernardino Rd. i Viaeyard Ave. aad Concerned Citiseas of tha Citv of Rancho Cuaamonga RE: Bite Plan fi DeveloDIDent Pronoeal from 8mith's Food Rin4 Many of us attended the Planning Commission Meeting cf December 9,1992 and the City Council Meeting or. January 20, 1993 regarding the above mentioned project. We are property owners and citizens of Rancho Cucamonga. We hope that you will take time to review the enclosed materials and uphold the Planning commission decision to deny the project for the reasons stated. We have many concerns about the design elements, integration of the Smith development with adjacent properties, and we feel there are several serious design flaws that could cause serious health and safety hazards as outlined by the Planning Commission. We are not necessarily against the project, but we strongly feel the site needs to be revised to meet the goals Which your Planning Commission and City Council have upheld for many years. BRIEF 8I8TORY AND SUMMARY OP TO TBIB DATE •. Zn April 1992 Smith's Food King submitted an informal plan to the City which included ALL PARCELS bounded by Foothill (South Side), San Bernardino (South Side), Vineyard Avenue (East Side) to the Flood Control Channel (West Side). After the City indicated two (2) Fast Food Pads on the site would probably not be acceptable, Smith's submitted a second plan excluding three (3) small parcels at the extreme Northeast portion of the block. These three (3) parcels have a total land square footage of about 35,000 sq.ft. with two parcels of 8,900 and 9,500 sq.ft. Prior to submitting these plans Smith's had entered into contracts with ALL PROPERTY OWNERS is the block including the three parcels in question. In fact, until 9/1/92 these parcels were still under contract (options) with Smith's. As late as December 27th or 28th Smiths' representatives contacted the three remaining property owners to see "what price they would sell". Smith's met with the City and Design Review Committees several times beginning in April 1992 up until the Planning Commission meeting of December 9, 1992. The minutes of those meetings will clearly indicate the Commissioners strong feelings of jjQT having front and/or side "loading docks". The Commissioners kept telling Smith's 'gear loading docks" was the preference of the ~ Commission. Smith's was informed the City HAS NEVER APPROVED anything but rear loading docks. Other serious design issues were discussed during these meetings including the safety and health concerns especially with semi trucks coming into contact with other vehicles and pedestrians. Planning Staff recommended approval of the project to the Planning Commission. Planning Staff indicated the project met all the guidelines of the Foothill Specific Plan, General Plan, etc. At the December 9, 1992 Planning Commission meeting numerous issues were brought up concerning site design, site plan, health and safety issues. The Planning Commission made a motion and voted to deny the project S to 1. Smith's requested the Planning Commission expedite the administrative process so Smith's could appeal to the City Council. The Planning Commission agreed to call a special meeting on December 15, 1992 to ratify the motion to deny. However, we learned just this week (after purchasing and reading the complete file of the Planning Staff report) that at the December 15, 1992 Planning Commission Meeting the public hearing was reopened and time was spent further discussing the issues. End result of that meeting was the same 4 to 1 vote to deny the project. At that meeting Mr. Buller inquired from the Commissioners if Smith's eliminated the ~~east loading dock" and moved it over to the same location of the "west loading dock", would this be acceptable to the Commissioners? Again, the minutes clearly show where the Planning Commission not only would give their approval...but, in fact told Smith's and the Planning Staff this would significantly change the site plan and should further be reviewed or resubmitted. During these meetings Smith's originally told the Commissioners that Smith's could not design the project with rear loading docks, because of site constraints. (Note: Prescott Muir - Smith Architect originally stated the site could not be designed to accommodate rear loading docks, but at the Planning Commission meeting he did indicate the site could be designed, but it would cost Smith's too much money to acquire the additional property. Property which Smith's already had previously agreed to purchase.) Smith's also indicated their normal design calls for front or side loading docks. (Note: In the minutes of the Planning commission you will note at least 2 Commissioners confirmed this fact). The Planning Commission actually denied the project on two separate occasions by the same vote of 4 to 1. The findings indicate numerous serious concerns including non conformance of the Foothill Specific Plan, health, safety and site plan deficiencies. As property owners and residents of Rancho Cucamonga we just want the site to be developed as per the Foothill Specific Plan, eliminate the potential safety/health issues, assure us that the "right hand turn lane" going South on Vineyard is safe, cul-de- sac the west end of San Bernardino Road as per Section 7.1.6 of the Foothill Specific Plan, and develop a workable Master Plan that meets the needs of ALL PROPERTIES OWNERS affected in the area. Statement of Facts & Concerns Smiths' DeveloAment • Denial of this project, on separate occasions, by the Planning Commission. • Planning Commission makes a motion and votes to deny the project, 4 to 1, on December 9, 1992. (P8,L20) • Once again, Planning Commission makes a motion and votes to deny the project 4 to 1 on December 15, 1992, (P12,L29) • Several serious concerns are pointed out which affect The Foothill Specific Plan. (Part Pgl, all Page 2, Part P3) • Non-conformance to The Foothill Specific Plan with deficiencies in the site plan which affects health, safety, fire and possible injury to c!tizens. (Part Pgl, all Page 2, Part P3) • (Until now) The City of Rancho Cucamonga has NEVER APPROVED anything other than REAR LOADING DOCHS. (P6,L2),(P5,L19) • Engineering concerns, regarding the site, were never discussed. (P1,L24) • Citizens, especially in the immediate area, are opposed to heavy trucks/traffic traveling on San Bernardino Road. (P3,L34) • Planning Commissioners are opposed to front or side loading docks. (P1,L10), (P2,L26), (P2,L38), (P5,L19), (Pb,LI), (Pb,L7) (Pb,L9), (Pb,L14), (Pb,L35), (Pb,L37), (P7,L10), (P7,L21), (P7,L26), (P8,L5), (P9,L9), (P9,L25), {P10,L23), (P10,L34), (P10,L46), (P11,L13), (P11,18), (Pl 1,31), (P11,L42), (P12,L24) • Turning radii and truck maneuvering diagram has not been discussed in detail or presented formally. (P6,L23) • Traffic patterns on Vineyard and Foothill must be addressed. • Rear loading access, without using San Bernardino Road is feasible and practical...see sample plan #2. (See Attached Plan). • Insure the residents that the 'right hand turn lane' going south on Vineyard Avenue is "SAFE' and meets the goals of the City, We've been informed the lane is 'bearly at minimal standards'. We believe the lane should be considerably longer to insure the "safety" of Rancho Cucamonga residents. • Need for "fire lane" at rear of building. • Cul-de-sac of San Bernardino Road (per Footh(II Specific Plan) FOOmarr.r. SPECIFIC $j~ _ ~~ ~ ~~ Issues ]gg Feel Need ~ ~g Mitigated Fr=°r ~Q Approving ,~ R," Proiect We have concerns that the Smith Plan does note meet or exceed the minimums as indicated in The Foothill Specific Plan: A letter of introduction from Mayor Dennis Stout precedes The Foothill Specific Plan (September 1987). "The City of Rancho Cucamonga is a community committed to excellence. The City's development and design revisr process olncee heave eanhnaia on quality long tern conaitaeat ~r the developaent of this vital corridor." The following Statement appears several times in the beginning pages of the Plan: "The City of Rancho Cucamonga is a community committed to excellence. The foothill Blvd. Boscifio Plaa is a Iona tarn comitaeat for the davsloomeat of this vital corridor." ESCERPTS FROM T8E FOOTHILL SPECIFIC PLAN (verbatim) section 1.2 - Authority "Development Plans site plans and tentative tract/parcel maps in this area must be consistent with both this Specific Plan and the Citv's General Plan." section 3.2 - opportuaftiea "Opportunity to consol'date lots through City redevelopment incentives and Master Plan requirements." section ~.3.z - Policies "Reauire compliance with the community design guidelines....." section ~.~.i - Objeotivee "Reauire master planning at key sites within the Specific Plan study area to assure integrated development tilizina coordinated a s parkins building orientation/locations pedestrian and °~ transit facilities " Bection 4.5.1 - Circulation Objectives "Minimize vehicular throueh traffic on adjacent residential streets." Bection 4.5.2 Policies "Discouraee new commercia~ and residential davelooments from taking nnv access from ~o el residential, by developing internal circulation systems which direct traffic away from surroundi~ resi ential neichborhoods." Section 7.1.6. Ban Diego Avenue Abandoment "...In an effort to remedy this si +a ion it ~s the intention of this plan to have the C~ty vacate San Diego Avenue and cul-de-sac the western extent of San Bernardino Road"....."and the abandonment will include access provisions to San Bernardino Road and Foothill Blvd. as part of any development plan at the following locations:" a. "At the point where San Diego Avenue currently intersects Foothill Blvd; and," b. "Northerly and southerly of the western extent of San Bernardino Road where the proposed cul-de-sac would be constructed." "The abandonment shall be a condition of any QeveloomenL oionosal...." (Note: A couple of years ago San Diego was "barricaded" to eliminate traffic moving along Vineyard to San Bernardino to San Diego ultimately to Foothill {both ways). The public used this thoroughfare as a "short cut" to avoid the intersection of Foothill & Vineyard. This is the main reason for the Section 7.1.6 of the Foothill Specific Plan.) section e.o - General Design 6uidalinea and Development Standards 8.1 - Introduction - "All new develonmant in tAe approval The overall Guidelines era used by the City as Dasis for review of all protects. Proposals that do not addre9s these guidelines will not receive City approval." Section 8.2.2 - 83te Planning "Orient/screen all auto related facilities (i.d., working bays, storage, etc.) from gublic view." Section 8.2.2 - Bite Planning "At activity centers glace buildings at or adiacent to Lroat setback lice to crests more appealiaa. active streetacaps. Front yarn areas with parkins Iota dominatiaa the street scene are specifically prohibited". a. Current Smith Plan has s$ of the total number of parking spaces at rear of building, WITH 92$ OF TNS TOTAL NDNBRR OP PARRZN6 BPACSB AT TRS FRONT f. BID&8! b. Current Smith Plan has 18,600 sq.ft. concrete paving for parking at rear (6.8$ total) WITH OyHR 250 000 sa ft OH CONCRHTB IN THE FRONT PORTIONS OF THH SITS f93.2 $)! c. Of the 475 total parkinq...435 are located at front or sides. eectioa 8.2.5 - Parkipg Lots "In activity center locations locate oarkis areas to the rear of buildings". "Vehicular circulation through a parking facility should be directed away from the fire lane (adjacent to the rears of stores), to the cuter edge of the~arkina lot where there is less pedestrian traffic". Section 9.1.3 - Nester Plens The first 3-4 paragraphs in Section 9.1.3 discuss what the Master Plan needs to include and the intent of creating a Master Plan, piscouraaes "niece meal" attempts to deve~gg~rooerties. "A conceptual master plan shall be submitted for the Plann l.ng Commission approval, together With any development proposals and shall address all other parcels as they relate to the master plan". eeetioa 9.x.1 - Subarea Tvo - Dseign Guidelines (Diagram on Page IV - 9.20) In this diagram there's a notation about "parking dominates street edge" on the Parcel at the Northwest corner of Foothill and Vineyard. SUMMARY OF MAJOR FACTS/CONCERNS POBLIC T88TIMONY PLANNING COmNI88IONSRB BTATSMBNTB/ACTIONS POSITION TAEEN SY SONS CITISENB OF SLa1iCH0 COCANONGA CONCERNS OF ADJACENT PROPERTY 01fA8Re We believe the minutes of the December 9th and 15th Planning Commission meetings clearly state the position of the Commissioners on several maior concerns We'd like you to consider the following: Testimony of Smith's architect where in the beginning he stated it was impossible to redesign the site with rear loading docks (P7,L38),(P7,L45)....and then he states it may be possible. (P9,L31). Nr. Slang (smith's rep) stated there should be no truck traffic on enn Bernardino Road. (P7,L19). Mr. Buller feels uncomfortable without any access to the project from San Bernardino Road. (P10, L7). Smith's was told numerous times, even in the very beginning, the wishes of the Commission with regards to the loading docks. (P6,L9), (P6,L37), (P7,L10), (P7,L21), (P7,L26), (P8,L15), (P9,L25), (P10, L32), (P11,L17), (P11, L32). The major conflict with truck traffic, autos and pedestrians all gathering together agar the loading docks. (P2,L38), (P6,L27), (P6,L33), (P6,L35). If two loading docks are placed together on the west side...does that mean there could be two semi trucks loading and/or unloading at the same time. Would a study need to be required2 The current site plan (ae of 1/x9/93) shown handicspped parking and bike ranks right neat to the went loading dock. Information told to the Commissioners, by Smith's, about other Smith "site plans" and location of loading docks. Seems there were several "misunderstand.ings" about comments made by Smith's and what really is the truth. (P11,L32), (P12, L12). What is the overall length of the semi trucks that will be used to deliver products to the site? 11e've been iaformeQ the leagLh is aB' to 69', not ~8' as ham been diacusasd in meet inga. Did the truck diagrams indicate 48' trucks or 68'-69' trucks? would thin have as effect oa the diagram and truck maneuvering? (P5, L32), (P6,L20). Public Comment and statement by Coaunissioner Tolstoy about the heavy traffic going South on Vineyard and the "shortness" of the right hand turn lane onto the Smith site. This is one issue that is extremely serious and could cause immediate injury if it is not designed properly from the very beginning. We understand this lane will be used by traffic going North and South. Commieaioaer Tolstoy stated be hoe observed "loaq lines" of traffic going Bouth on Vineyard. (P10,L11) a. A question was posed to the Bngiaeeriaq Department about the length of the right hand turn lane on Vineyard Avenue. "Ia the right band tarn lane at its ideal laagth, adequate or minimal length?" We were told '•it bearlp meets the minimal requiremeata". Upon further investigation we believe it doesn't oven come clone to the "standards" as outlined in information given to us by the Engineering Department. Prior to the Council Meeting on the 17th of February... we implore you to observe other cars approaching the intersection (going South) at San Bernardino Road and Vineyard, traveling at speeds around 40 to 45 MPH, passing the intersection and then attempting to enter the right hand turn lane in such a short distance as indicated on the plans (90' radius and 125' full lane = total 215'). Please drive it yourself. After passing the intersection there is about 125' before the curb begins to start the approach of the right hand turn lane. b. We were given materials by the Traffic Engineer showing a "Bus Say" with an acceptable 220' turn out. Another diagram shows a "Bus Bay - Right Hand Turn Lane" combination with an overall length of 375'. How did the City determine a total length for the right hand turn lane of only 215' would be safe and the ultimate distance? overall concerns of the Commissioners and public testimony about the locations of the loading docks. Commissioners and public testimony overwhelmingly agree the city should uphold their standards as they have for the last 12 years. This has been discussed many times with the Commission at several meetings. Has there BVAR BEBN A PROJECT APpROVBD MZTH LOADING DOCEB OTHBR THAN AT TH8 RBAR 08 TB6 BUILDING? (P6, L2) Other public and safety issues including Fire and Engineering Department concerns. Close proximity of residential dwelling units to Smith's building. Significant difference in elevation between Smith's finished pad & parking lots with the elevation of the apartment dwelling units. With the Smith building located at the Northern Doundarp and real property line, (closest possible point to the apartments) this rill leave a "dead apace" between tDe txo properties. This will invite unsavory persons to congregate and cause concerns for the apartment dwellers and the single family residences across the street. Furthermore, as property owners on San Bernardino, we understand that The Foothill Specific Plan specifically prohibits buildings of this type (in activity centers) being located at the "rear of the property". Tbia is something that aDould not De overlooked sad approves. This seems to be a direct violation of the Foothill Specific Plan. lo. Noa-conformance of Foothill Blvd. Specific Plan. The Foothill Specific Plan clear states the following: section s.2.2 - 83ta_planniac - At activity centers place building at or adjacent to front setback tine to create more appealing, active streetscape. Front yard areas ri th narking lots dominating the street scene ar il. Lack of a well thought out Master Plan for the remaining properties in the block. Under smith's proposed plan Smith's will be developing about 500,000 aq.ft. of land leaving loon that 38,000 aq.ft. comprised of three separate paroals. The remaining parcels will definitely became a blight and will do nothing but create potential problems in the future with the neighborhood. Txo of the parcels (sash about 9,000 aq.ft.) x111 be virtually loft uadevelopable, iacompatiDle sad offer no hope of future improvement to the City, Citiseas of Rancho Cucamonga or the immediate aeigbborbood. A blight will most likely occur without further consideration of a "good workable Master Plan for the entire area". 12. Planning Commission required trash can only be picked up between the hours of 9:D0 A.M. and 10:00 P.M., yet smith's will be permitted to briaq semi trvoka onto the site at ANYTIl18 they desire. How can this be! Please remember the immediate area to the North has eight apartment dwellings units with families. 13. The Planning commission and residents is the aeighboraood are against having heavy trucks access the project from Ban Bernardino Road. (P4,L30), (P4,L41), (P5,L3), (P5,L10), (P10,L22). The street is now used strictly for residential purposes. Smith's own Architect, Mr. Muir, states if Smith's can not use San Bernardino Road for truck access to the project...it will necessitate added truck maneuvering on the site. (Note: this will be right in the middle of pedestrians, autos, handicapped parking and bike racks where children will park their bicycles.) Section 7.1.6 of The Foothill Specific Plan mandates for the west end of San Bernardino Road to be a cul-de-sac. 14. smita's were made aware of tae serious design issues ae early as April 1992. (P5,L45), (P6, L9), (P6,L37), (P7,L21), (P7,L26), (P9, L25), (P10, L32), (P11, L17), (P11,L32). They and their consultants kept ignoring the Commissioners requests and recently have been pushing very hard to get the development approved, without meeting City requirements. Smith's (Klang) has indicated if Smith's doesn't get the project approved now, they will probably not go ahead with the project. The architect (Muir) said the project was costing Smith's too much money; therefore, Smith's could not afford to purchase additional properties to meet the requirements of the city. Upon reviewing the minutes of the two Planning Commission Meetings and the Public Testimony given by the Community, it is , problems... to allow tae project to continua forward witaout major revisions. we believe if Smith's redesigns the site to remedy these concerns, the development will benefit the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the immediate neighborhood, adjacent property owners and be a quality development which should be the ultimate goal of Smith's. mitigates all safety/health issues, insures "right hand turn lane" is safe and develops a "workable Master Plan for all parcels in the block, we will lend our support to the project. There are just to many MAJOR PROHLEMB with the plan as proposed i by Smith's. Making any material adjustment or modification, at this late date, (ie. moving loading docks, moving building pad, eliminate add parking spaces, change elevations, closer study on traffic and circulations concerns) to the site plan without conducting an in depth study, may not be serving the Community or Citizens of Rancho Cucamonga very well, especially when the ~ggiewiac tae smite nroi et. This site is just to important to the Citizens of Rancho Cucamonga to rush in and make hasty, last minute decisions...juat to eatiafp a developer wao has "blatantlp'~ ignored tae viabee of not just oaa, tvo, tares, or four Commieaioaera....BDT ALL FIVB COMHIBBIORERB, at one time or aaotaer, HAYS 8YPR8888D VBRY e8RI0H8 COMCSRSB pith tae site plea. Two times tae Planning Comieaion H718 VOTED ~ TO 1 TO DSSY THS PROJSCT. THIS PROJECT ~g STORY ~ SHOIILD ZjQ'j, ~ APPROVED ~"~,,~ q'j~+,,, Many Rancho Cucamonga citizens and all of the property owners who are in close proximity to the Smith development wish to meet with you at your earliest convenience. We will be meeting at one of the homeowners who live on San Bernardino Road. We ask that you please meet with us prior to the 17th of February. We're willing to meet with you at anytime. We believe it is important to the City, the residents of Rancho Cucamonga and the adjacent property owners. We encourage any comments, assistance or input you might have about the impending project. We sincerely thank you for taking time to review the enclosed materials. Respectfully yours, Concerned Citizens of Rancho Cucamonga Property Owners on or near San Bernardino Road and Vineyard Avenue The following excerpts have been taken "word for word" z from the Planning Staff's Report(s) 6 Minutes of Planning Commission Meetings. 4 6 During the December 9th and December 15th, 1992 meetings, several concerns with the site plan, circulation, and project design were 8 voiced by members of the commission. 10 The orientation of the loading dock doors... East and west sides of the store and which face foothill boulevard, were a public 12 circulation and aesthetic concern for the commission...The internal circulation plan has potential for conflicts between 14 truck, automobile, and pedestrian traffic within the parking lot. 16 April 2, 1992 (Pre-Application Review Meeting la The out-parcel to the north should be master planned. 20 Three of tie Commieatoaers were oppoead to roll-up doors 22 Lacing PootLill BoulsvnrA. 24 ENGINEERING...CONCERNB WERE NOT DIBCD88ED. 26 October 6, 1992 (Design Reviex Coatwittee Meeting) z a ~" A Master Plan which incorporates access to the tercels to 30 the north should be provided. 32 December 15, 1992 (Planning Co~i.asion Meeting) 34 Trash collection shall occur between the hours of 9 A.M. And 10 36 p.M. Only. 38 Modifications and relocation,...Traffic signal...Vineyard Avenue and San Bernardino Road and Vineyard Avenue, shall be the 40 responsibility of the developer. 42 2. (d) The application, as proposed, would be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare and does not comply with each 44 of the applicable provisions of the development code and the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan for the following reasons: 46 (1) The architecture and related design elements within the 48 proposed project, as reflected in this application, are not 1 consistent with the goals, policies, and design guidelines 2 of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Which states the following: 4 1) In Section 4.5.1, That vehicular traffic through 6 adjacent residential streets shall be minimized; 8 2) In Section 8.2.2, That activity center parking lots dominating the street scene are specifically prohibited l0 and auto-related facilities (i. e., Working bays, storage, etc.) Shall be screened or oriented away from 12 public views, buildings shall be sited and designed to minimize pedestrian/vehicle conflicts and avoid 14 locating driveways and service areas which interfere with the flow of Foothill Boulevard pedestrian 16 movements; 18 3) In Sections 8.2.5, That in activity center locations the parking areas shall be located to the 20 rear of buildings; 22 4) In Section 9.4.3, That parking lots between the front property line and major structures are strongly 24 discouraged. 26 (2) The design of the Smith's store, as proposed, provides loading dock facilities on the east and west sides of 28 the store which face Foothill Boulevard and are, therefore, inconsistent with the design of other major 30 supermarkets in Rancho Cucamonga which front onto major thoroughfares. The location and orientation of loading 32 facilities are typically provided along the rear elevations of grocery stores and/or shopping centers to 34 conceal delivery activity from public view, particularly in an area which is considered to be a 36 major gateway into the western section of the city. 36 (3) The location of the loading docks create potentially dangerous vehicular conflicts between truck and car 40 traffic within the parking lot. In addition, such a potent is l7.y dangerous and confusing traffic pattern 42 within the parking lot could be hazardous to pedestrians entering and exiting the store. 44 (a) Truck traffic along San Bernardino Road and truck 46 ingress/egress from and to this street which is proposed by the project site design, is undesirable to 48 existing residences along both sides of the street. 2 3.(a) That the proposed use is not in accord with the general 2 plan, the objectives of the development code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 4 3•(b) That the proposed use, together with the conditions 6 applicable thereto, will be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to e properties cr improvements in the vicinity. 10 3. (c) That the proposed use does not comply with each of the applicable provisions of the development code and 12 Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. 14 Public testimony December 9, 1992 Planning Commission Meeting 16 Statement from Mr. Klang (Smith's realty consultant).. "Smith's decided to forfeit the earnest money because they did not feel 18 they could get effective use from that much land in the development and meet the City's and Smith's requirements. He 20 said they could not get enough building area in the total project to justify the purchase of those additional properties." 22 24 move the oroiect forward and did not want the concerns tonbe`an impediment to the process." He requested that the uniform sign 26 program approval not be required prior to issuance of building permits, but rather prior to issuance of a certificate of 28 occupancy. 30 Mr. Muir stateA rne;,- ;.,r,,... :_ __,.___ ~v_ 32 34 Bill Hartag, 8837 San Bernardino Road,...He objected to trucks using San Bernardino Road 24 hours a day. 36 Chairman McNiel asked if Mr. Rlaag or Mr. Muir would like to 38 address the public oommeata. 4o aoth Mr. Rlanq sad Mr. Muir responded negatively. 42 Chairman McNiel closed the oublic hearino. He asked if the Sm,i this oroiect meets the recuirements of the Foothill Bou~evard 44 Specific Plan• as Nr. Fuller stated that in staff's opinion the project is in full compliance with Foothill Boulevard specific Plan as relntea to 48 master olannino of the a as 3 Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, ...He indicated there would 2 be sufficient grounds for denial if the site plan is not appropriate for the proposed development. 4 Chairman McNiel noted one request was to have the uniform sign 6 program approved prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy rather than prior to the issuance of building permits. 8 He recalled there had been numerous problems on other projects. Commissioner Chitiea agreed it would be inconsistent to delay 10 adoption of the uniform sign prcgram. 12 Mr. Buller said staff would not recommend any chance to those condi.t ions. 14 Chairman McNiel agreed there should be no chances Commissioner Tolstov agreed that there could be a lot of problems 16 if the cit allow d radin to be riot to C ltrans a royal. 18 Chairman McNiel noted the applicant had objected to the 3-ton limitation on San Bernardino Road. 20 Mr. Buller stated that the applicant had indicated they would 22 want to reconstruct San Bernardino Road to specifications which would handle heavier trucks and would want the limitation based 24 upon the specifications, rather that limiting to 3-tons. 26 Commissioner Melcher felt the applicant was considering running semis on the street which would be many tons over the suggested 28 3-ton limit. 30 Commissioner Vallette noted that the street is still residential and she felt it would be inappropriate for larger trucks to use 37 the street. 34 Mr. Buller stated..."That Bmith's desired truck access from th® North." 36 38 no Commissioner Melcher felt the use of San Bernardino Road would be 42 to the apparent detriment of other properties He said he understood Smith's desire for the opening but he also would 44 understand the neighborhood's opposition. He questioned why and when the 3-ton limit was introduced and when it became apparent 46 to Smith's. 48 Mr. James stated that the 3-ton limit was suggested by the City's Traffic Engineer. He said the applicant had been advised of the 4 limit during technical review 2 Commissioner Tolstov felt that semis should not utilize San 4 Bernardino Road. 6 Mr. Coleman stated a similar limitation had been placed on the Nuwest Shopping Center at Foothill boulevard and Hellman Avenue 8 regarding access down Helms. l0 Commissioners Chitiea and Vallette agreed that semis should not use san Bernardino Road. 12 Chairman McNiel questioned if there would be a need for any l4 access to Ban Bernardino Road if truck access were eliminated. 16 Commissioner Vallette stated she had an issue to bring up later 18 Commissioner Vallette stated that the side loading dock areas are 20 inconsistent with chat has been required in the rest of the City. She said other grocery stores have all been required to have 22 loading to the rear. She stated she had recently observed a truck trying to position itself for unloading at the Rialto 24 Smith's store. She said it's backinc view was obscured because of vehicular parking in the area, as would exist on the east side 26 of the building. She noted there is no direct access straight into the loading area and it is only I2 feet wide. She observed 2s that the trucks would have to maneuver at a right angle from the front of the store, backing up on the blind side trying to get 30 into a t2-foot area. She said she understood the trucks are generally about 8 feet wide, leaving only 2 feet on each side. 32 She said at thn n;~~f., ems,...,. ..~._ v_~ _~__-__~ ~~_~ ._ _ 34 wa no v n a a ich -nal She also thought the view from Foothill Boulevard would not be aesthetically pleasing and noted 36 the intersection is one of the city's major entrances. She commented that the Smith's store in Fontana has a rear loading 3e dock. She thought consideration should be ci wen to reconfivvring the loadrno dock to the rear of the buildino even thouoh she 40 noted that may require the purchase of add'*ional property to the north of the site. 42 Commissioner Chitiea...She said she did not mean to discourage 44 retail building but she felt the design of the oenter should meat or exceed that eaiats in the city. Bhe noted that d~ri a the 46 Die-aoDlicw*{nn ....t e.. .. w.. ._. ________~ ___. _. _ 48 5 should be redeaiened. She concurred with Commissioner Vallette's 2 comments regarding the loading docks. Bhe did not think there was any other location in the city where a front or side loading 4 dock is permitted and she particularly opposed one at such as important intersection. 6 Commissioner Tolstov...Had a problem with the side loadinc areas 8 10 12 14 16 18 2G Commissioner Melcher stated he was also concerned about Commissioner Vallette's comments recardinc truck maneuverine. 22 Mr. Buller stated that one had been prepared (a truck maneuvering 24 diagram) and staff felt that it would work. 26 Commissioner Chitian observed that in other projects throughout the city, even in the industrial areas, measures are taken to 28 orient trucks away from the automotive traffic areas She did not think the project is an appropriate design, particularly at 30 one of the major intersection entries into the city. She also felt it was a safety issue 32 Commisaioaer Valletta screed it was a antety issue 34 Chairman IfcNiel acknowledged that it was a matter of conoern 36 Commissioner Tolstov..."He recalled that at the pre-application 38 reeler. the r[,mmissinn hart ~om.ee•e., ~e ~.. ,,... a: .... __~ ti.~L~_ ._~ 40 Commissioner Chitiea felt there were eater p-oblems than 'ust 42 the loading dock. 44 Chairman McHiel reopened the Public Hearing to gain input from the applicant. 4G IdT. Rlaaq... "and in moat cases they aan utilise roar loading 4E docks." 6 z a 6 B 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Commissioner Va_'iette...She noted that the loading area had been an issue vi th all five commissioners during the pre-application vorkshop...NOV before tl:e full commission the loadin area is still an issue. Mr. Muir..."Being $1 500 000 over their typical cost"..."Cosmetic imprevements...He said such deliveries are typically in the early morning...He said if there were adequate street access, rear- loading docks would require a high retaining wall on the back side of the store and create a bigger visual impact than what is currently proposed...Me avid that the nature of the site and the e_an aernard ino Road were limited. He felt that the configuration desired by the commission would preclude any grocery store on the site." Commissioner Chitiea She felt the entire site elan should be reviewed. Mr. Muir stated the dock coafiauratfoa had been considered and they did not feel it could be deaianed is aav other xav because o~~,he cant iauration of the site the slope sad the limited i9QQ~n s. 7 He (Mr. Y.lanal said he now felt som of the commissioners had expressed concern that the site was not even a proper place for them. Commissioner Tolstoy... "Commissioners had expressed coaoerns about safety matters and aesthetics." Mr. Xlang stated he did not personally believe there should be truck traffic on San Bernardino Road. Commissioner Ch itiea...She felt the concerns were greater than 2 iust the loading dock...The orientation to adiacent properties and the corner... 4 Commissioner Melchor stated be xas not convinced it rould be 6 impoeaible to locate tha docks is aav other coaf iauratioa. ~ stated there is also a grade difference at the shopping center a 8 Milliken and Hi ohland and that loading dock is to the rear...Re thought it could be used at this site but it would probably mean 10 that access to San Bernardino Road may have to be abandoned. 12 commissioner chitiea noted that at Baseline and Haven. grid Lemon and Haven there were similar situations with grade changes where 14 appropriate designs have been employed. She noted that the Planning Commission first saw the project eight months ago at a 16 pre-application revier and all of those concerns xere voiced at that time so that the applicant had early input from the 18 commission. She stated that her motion stood. 20 Commiasioa voted ~ to 1 to deny the project. 22 z4 December 15, 1992 (Planning Commission Meetin 26 Brad Muller. City Planner gave a recap of the history of the project..."He stated that during the process the applicant had 28 been advised of the issues and concerns of the Planning Commission and Staff and the Applicant had made some changes." 30 Chairman McNiel stated he had talked with the applicant's 32 Architect following the -ecemher 9. 1992. meeting and the 34 project...He had told the architect they could make a short presentation to address the issue of loading dock placement and 36 its effect on circulation and Vineyard avenue and the aesthetic issues of front loading docks. 38 Prescott Muir..."He suggested the eastern dock could be 40 eliminated by creating a corridor in back of the building but that would mean losing the trellis element or approximately 12 42 parking spaces. He thought the project did not have excess parking available." Mr. Muir agreed it would be possible to 44 eliminate the east dock, shift the building forward 6 feet to maintain an interior corridor, maintain the setback, and place 46 double loading parking or, the east side of the building. He said they would not need any variances. 48 Commissioner Tolstov fe It there may be a grading problem with 8 such a shift He stated there is a 14-foot grade elevation 2 difference between the first finished floor of the apartments and the floor of the store He said that was why they had felt a 4 rear dock could be hidden with an eff ective_areenbelt separation. 6 Mr. Huliar tho®cnt a minor exception process could be used. He said that would require a notice to the neighbors. e Commissioner Chitiea noted that would still leave an exooaed dock 10 oa the nest side. 12 Mr Muir showed where the rear dock would be locatei and stated a 12-14 foot retaininc wall would be needed in addition to closing 14 off the access to San Bernardino Road. 16 Mr. Buller felt there were findings that could be made to grant the variance because of the lot configuration and the grades. He 18 felt that a minor exception might also be available. 20 Commissioner Chitiea asked if a public hearing would be held. 22 Mr. culler stated a public hearing would be held only if a variance were required. 24 Commissioner Vallette stated that at the pre-application revier 26 rorkshop direction had been given to have all docks in the rear 28 30 M Mr uir state d they had plan ned side docks bec ause of 3z . combi nation of trvina to main tain the minim um park ins requir ed and trvina to accomm odate the oval s of the Foothill 34 Boule vard Sp ecific Plan in crea ting an activity ce nter. ..He said th t i n ord r com to a odate the rear docks the y wo uld have 36 a to buy e the ad c m iacent property a nd they had re ceiv ed d irection that a n additi onal fast food dr iye~thru pad w ould not be ae palata ble. He stated Smith's f elt that th~ro iect wo uld not be e~ro mically feasible to absor b the cost of th e a dditi onal ao prope rty to a ccommodate rear docks. He felt it woul d also requir e a 16-1 8 foot retaininc wall. 4z M M i id th b ibl r. r sa u e pos at may s e. 4a 9 tSr. Huller said that if the dock were moved North, the grade may 2 be more difficult for maneuvering the trucks. He said that during the Site Plan Review there had been comments about traffic 4 flow and there had been discussion that it would be easier for users who wished to travel North on Vineyard Avenue to exit to 6 San Bernardino Road because there would then be a signalized intersection to enter Vineyard. He said be Mould De concerned 8 about env deaicna that eliminated access from the nroiect to Ban Bernardino Road. 10 Commissioner TolStov stn d ha h r o n-~+n of a 12 ooinc Sou h on V+n vard Av ~+e attemptinc to cross Foothill Boulevard and those cars would conflict with anyone attempting to 14 make a left from the eastern drive of the center onto Vineyard Avenue. 16 Chairman McNiel felt the changes proposed Mere very dramatic and 18 would require that the project qo back through design revieM. He asked if enough information had been presented to allow the 20 applicant to process through design review. 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 10 Commissioner Vallette said she had some rte; ncerns regarding the architecture but her oerioue concerns Ma~wi tD the loadiac dock sad the esiatiac internal circulation... °~She felt the design review committee had done the best they could with what had been presented by the applicant but indicated she did not feel it is 2 4 Mr. Buller asked what the commission vas expecting the applicant 6 to change. 8 10 12 14 Commissioner vallette stated the City implemented a pre- 16 application design review process to allow applicants to receive early direction from the entire commission. Sae said direction 18 had been quite clear at the pre-appli%ation workshop that there should be no front dock areas visible from the street and she did 20 not feel tae City should try to massage the plane submitted. 22 Mr. Buller requested clarification if it was the position of the planning commission tact there should be abaoiutely ao front dock 24 doors ao wetter what. He said if that were the case, the applicant could then decide whether to pursue additional design 26 review meeting. 28 chairman McNiel stated be felt tact commissioners Caitiea sad vallatte were firm is their opposition to front docks. 30 commissioner Tolatoy stated hs also eae a problem with front 32 loading. Ne said the commission had been told at the pre- apolication review workshop. that Smi this could not operate a 34 store unless they had the Ioading_as depicted on the current site plans but afterwards the commissioners leer ed there are stores 36 which are back loaded. 38 commissioner vallette stated she Aid some further checking end found there are stores is olendora sad Riverside in addition to 4o the Foatena atom with rear loading. 42 Chairman McNiel Celt that rear loading would be tae abbropriate Direction to oureue. He agreed a full commission Workshop should 44 be held and additional attention should be paid to building articulation. 46 Mr. Buller recommended reopening the public henrinq to allow tae 48 applioaat to addreae it they would be willing to consider a design tact wou1D elimlaats all Croat loading. 11 Chairman McNiel felt that would not be acceptable. 2 4 6 8 l0 12 14 16 18 ZO 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing. Mr. Muir stated they felt they had already gone through the process. He said their understanding at the last design review committee meeting rae that Ilietoricaliq tbs reaommaadatioaa of the design caviar process anrried coasidernDle refight at the planning commiesioa sad could not require aubaequeat design caviar processes. He felt to go back through the design review process would be a six-month step backward. He indicated that Smith's and their legal counsel could prefer a vote on the project at this time, even if it rare a denial, to alloy them to pursue the matter through anq appeal. He apologiaad for the miaundarataading that the commissioners felt emith'e dose not Lave rear-facing dock eonfiguraticae. He said a majority of their stores do have rear-facing dock configurations, but they felt the site configuration demands side-loading docks. 12 Commissioners voted again ~ to 1 an4 deaie4 the oroject i ;. IiI ;: ; ~ .~ ;; ~ ,,, ~ ,: ~ ~; a o ~ ~ `~ h y l ~ e ~:i~l,;Y.::~: 'iy7i ~. Wy'! ii ~ ~; a ii ~ .. iT _ p ahjli.~.:~.ii1 ~I`lliiiai e ?tilll~ ~ .~ ;i Fi .ili;f: u.ni.'~:I1 ii ~ 7{ qFi Y d a 4 f rr .r ., .r,. .r I y -- _ age ~ it ~ ~ ~ ~>f : .i ; ~ ' ~ ~ _- _ 3 - ~~ ; ~ i~ + ~ . A. /r~~ ~ f- -a Y c y „`® ! 1 I i' ~~ 1) !1 I~ P ~!t ' + E ~ i~~ ~~ Y i ,.~ ~ i ;,i. ~' ~ I ` ,,i lif ii ~a,~ y i a is Y~ i= v3 4i ON IA17//0I 77/NL 00/ -- -_ i1 ~~ !r ,, i~. o .- r e' • ,~ ~~a 1 tl u A ----_==- _ ' ~ ~- -+~~ 0/ _ ,1- ~-~- -- - ii ~ PED Corp =-+- ~ - ((((p~p~p~p~-7~7~7-7 11~ P~n~ter 1/99T2 / 1993 2 Economic Census ~~~ ~ ~ ~i v 3 Gazey Pazk Plaza v ' C_ ~' 3 Pomona Marketplam Center 4 Retail Opportunities 6 IncubatorConferenm .4 Publication ro: Shareholders of Pomcnz Economic Development Como;atior. i One Stop Pem:iLHng TAKING CARE OF BUSINESS Pomona Economic Development Corporation (P'cDCorpl, in mnjunctlor, with several local. regional and state organizations, is embarking on a city-wide Business Retention and Expansion Prog:arn. Scared H.S. "Riff' 8vrvm.PEDCorpChief 'executive Office;, "The retention and expansion or erdsting Pomona firms is key to increasing employment. mazntaimng a stable tax base and attraRing new business. The maprity of new empioy:nent growth m a community comes from misting business." Apartnershipofbusinessstateand Ioca1 government, and academia will work to identify and solve immediate problems and develop ways to meet long-term business ronrems. 'pnis program can thus be the vehicle by which, to address such ronmms. In order to oositiveiy impact derision-making, state and local governments must educate themselves as to the wants. needs and pempdons of the 'nosiness community. By the same token, the business community must recognize that government is concerned about its problems and can effecdveiy respond to them. Toacmmptishthis goal,a projectfeature is to conduct personal onebn~ne business visitation int=rvtewswithmmparyexecutives A yuesdonnaire davmentwillbedesigned to assist in the interview process and in the gathering of daa for the program. 'By visitl rig local businesses, we will:rome to understand their needs, problem<_, and challenges. We can then begin to address the issues and help provide programs and resources as we]! as real answers!" states Mayor Donna Srtith. Reggie Webb, PED Corp President, remarked, "The program represents an opportunih~to develop solutions to issues (coruiwed an page 2/ MAJOR RETAILER ANNOUNCES POMANA SITE R'ELCOME TO POMONA! Smith's Food k Drug Centers, a leading regional supemuuket chain based inSalt lake City, Utah, announced recently the;ovation of its Pomora store, slated to open in Map ]993. The82,000. squ are-f oot grocery store wil I 1R bated on the northeast comer of South Garey and Philadelphia, across from the Prim Club. The 512 million renter, which sits on an 8.63acre site,isexpected togenerateb150,000 to 5200,000 a veaz in sales tax forthe dry, and in excessof5120,000annuallyin propertytax revenue.Over 200 newjobs will be created N Pomona because of this project. "Smith's has planned one of its very ftrs! Super Stores' and it will be right here ir. Pomore. Not only hasre they removed blight from thisarea ofourdty,bm theyareprivztely funding this development and with a commitment to hire Pomona residents," explained Nayor Donna Smith. lcwuirwed on page 21 _...- _{ -c --t - .-- _`~~ :_-z .W Smirh's food proposed site plan NEWS .Views 363 South Park Avenue ~ Suile 709 ~ P.O. Box 1073 ~ Pomona, Califorttia 91769 ~ 909/613-1946 ~ Faz 409/622-0217 7ypicd Smi;fi's Food Facade ..,7„ :.i:CNHic]:,,i .: K:. :.Q v(/we - .' . _ .. -~zL.~ i ~ .. - . ..~C=- _ _ c~G=a ^ 1 l ~ -..vim c ~ \ 1 ~n/ E95 i Sim ~ ~ ~ eU,~'R~HrI I fM CCy ' I (~ NS `KnrTM lJe:- I ~ m "~~r., ,s ~ ~ j ay u. a."~ a . y °r, , ~ ' Paa ~ I ~" n:_. Co~_e /N 4. t_ Yr..RN ~ ~' SNOW: QUIIL~: p;,r, 4 :Tr ~^.VL , P,CK ,_ %iN YJ YO/. , ~~ "6'-Cw:x c F,:LpW ' Two AC~O r .. m' ~c.~ ~nr_ n _ ~.tCJ2~ _ r u/- _fl c-i'IiL C~/i_. Iti A?,~:- ~ 5~_0 ~.:.: ~~ 9~a~`rci~9c i19 r. /.. rJl h~or: ~crJ ;a UrvrmP~e~. rp_r e~ E -;2c 5c-cr'j', /' D U w ~~ °, I ~/ ~ / ' %° I I I~lo°=I, i ~ MINIMUM D!SiANC°_ SVBJcCT 7p DRAINAGE AND TRA'r FIC FFCI~I?IES 60' 70' ~ --- i 90' FLOW EINE . _L_ _.~_____ C~ ~ ~°_: BUS BAY W 2 C w ti O ' MINIML'Id DISTANCE S~6 JE OT TO DRAINh 3E L AIJD TRAFRC FgOIUTiE6 ~I 6C' 275' MIN FLOW lINE ~- PUTTER LIN2 i i ~ Dc91GN If:`cr _ _, i ~ I o. PER CITY STD. W9TH WIREMESN DWG. NO 10d ON 6" CLASS II A,a. SECTION a O O w w N CUHVc R !~ L ~ T I ® 92.50' 18° 55' 29" 30,55' 15,62' ' r ® 136.67' 12°a0' dam' ~ 30.25' 15.19' 273.33 12° a0' 69" 60.49' 30.37' ® 86,57' 20° d6' 39" 30.67' 15.50 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA R' BL'S BAY - RIGHT TURN LANE ' s1""°ARD PL"" `_,~,p _~•~~v2 DETAIL ,~ 119 iEEP 1953 DAtE US[ WITH STANDARD SPECI(IOATIONS (OR PUBIIt WORKS CONSTRUCTION SNEET 1 G% 1 i ~~ SiDcwA1N I BUS BAY -RIGHT TURN LANE ulrr ~h 1LnLVUnv wunmulvtia STAFF REPORT ,~ DATE: January 20, 1997 a TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council .j Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM; Hrad Huller, City Planner BY: Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner SUBJECT: EN VI RO[JMENT ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERM LT 92-18 - SMITN'S - An appeal of the planning Commission's decision denying the development of a commercial shopping center consisting of a 75, D00 squara foot grocery store, two satellite buildings of 3,500 square fee[ each, and a drive-thru pad of 4,800 square feet on 10.6 acres of land in the Community Commercial District (Subarea 2) of the Foothill Houle vard Specific Plan, to catad at the northwest corner of Foothill BoU Leva [d and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-102-0}, 5, 9, 15, 20, 21, and 49. Aas oci aced with this project is Tree Removal Permit 92-17. RHCO!!ffiIBAiION The planning Commission recommends that the City Council concuY with the findings made by the Commission and adopt the attached Resolution of Denial. However, if after receiving input on thn proposed project, the Council determines to uphold the appeal, staff should ba directed [o prepare a Resolution of Approval to be brought back at your nett meeting. HACIfGIiDBNU FolLowrng Che Planning Commission's public hearing on December 9, 7992, the Planning Commission denied [he above-referenced Conditional Use Permit on December 15, 1992. At the ^ecember 9 and December I5, 1992 meetings, several concerns with the site plan, circulation, and project design were voiced by members of the CommissLon. A mote detailed drscussion of the Commission's concerns can he reviewed in the attached minutes From the December 9 and December 15, 1992 Iwhlic hearings. The Co:mni scion's primary concerns can generally he summarized as follows: A. Site Plan/Circulation The orientation of the loading dock doors, which are located on the east and west sides of the storn_ and which face Foothill Boulevard, were a public circulation and aesthetic concern for the Commission. The internal cir~~+lation plan has potential foz roof Lict9 between truck, automobile, and pedestrian tra Ef is within the pa rking Lot. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CVP 92-18 - aMTTH'S .Ta nua ry 20, 1993 pa qe 2 Truck traffic along San Bernardino Road and truck ingress/e gcesa £rom and to this street is undesirable to existing rase den t5 on both sides of the street. B. De si qn The amount and location of the project's parking within the activity center was not found to 6e consistent with the Foothlll Boulevard Specific Plan. Following adoption of the Resolution of genial for the Conditional Vse Permit on December 15, 1992, the applicant filed a timely appeal to alloy the City Council to consider the application as proposed. Aelwysls A. Site Plan/Ci rcti la tion The Commission felt that the design of the grocery store building with the dock loading areas facing the front of the center (Foothill eouleva rd) was in coneis tent with other shopping centers which have been approved and con~tNCted wl thin the City. The Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan requires that auto related facilities (i.e., working bays and storage areas) 6e screened or oriented away from public views. It was the Commission's opl nlon that the docks we re not adequately screened with the trellis element the appll ca nt was proposing and thaC any design that indicated docks in the front of the store was unacceptable. The Commi ssinn indicated that these service related areas are typically and more appropriately prowl dad along the rear elevations of grocery stores and/or shopping centers to conceal de live ty activity from pu6l is view, pa rticu lady in an area which is considered to be a major 9a teway Snto the western section of the City. The Commission felt there could be potential vehicular conflicts to tween car and truck tra Efic due to the location of the ea steely dock area in such close proximl Cy to the entry from Vlneya rd Avenue. The mitigations incorporated into the project's design were not found accepts ble. The Commiss3 On also Ee It such a confusing traffic pattern on the site could be potential Ly dangerous to pe des triana as well. Desl gn The Comml ssion also felt the parking lot would be a dominant feature along Foothill Boulevard which would ba inconsistent with the goals and design guide li nee of the acttvl ty center concept. outlined in the Foothlll Boulevard Spe cif is glen. At the public hearing nn December 9, 1992, the Comml ^.~ received four le tte ra From adjacent property owners to rF~ ~~~rrth of the CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CUP 92-1H - SMITH'S January 20, 1993 Page 3 project site and on the south side of San He rnardino Road. The letters have been attached For Council review; however, the owners ware generally concerned that their parcels would be difficult to develop if they were no[ included with the Smith's Foo3 and Drug proposal. They also Ee It as though a more aesthetically pleasing project could be developed if the entire 61ock were developed as a whole. Additionally, a re aide nt at the north aide of San Bernardino Road objected to large truck traffic on his street. OPTIONS The City Covncil may consider three possible options regarding the proposed project: i, Uphold the findings of the Planning Commission and deny the project without prejudice. 2. Di ze ct the applicant to work with staff and the planning Commission to redesign the site plan in order to address the concerns of adjacent property owners, residents, and the COmmi9910n. 3. Uphold the appeal and approve Conditional Use Pe twit 92-1H ae curzenGly proposed. ODRABSPONOENC3 This item has 6aen advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property has bean posted, and notices were sent to all property owners within Subarea 2 of the In duetrial Area Specific plan. Res lly s to d, Bia 1 r Ci pianos HB: BN:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Lc tter of Appeal Exhibit "B" - planning Commission Staff Repntt Dated December 9, 1992 Exhibit "C" - Resolution of genial 92-151 Exhibit "D" - Minutes from December 9, 1992 Planning Commission Meeting Exhibit "E" - Minu tee from De cembet 15, 1992 Planning Commission Mee ting Exhibit "F" - Le tte [e from Adjacent Props tty Owners Ae so lu tl on of Denial BEST, BEST 6 KRIcGIER ••~~ uwr[w[ -w~ wIV(R>IOC n0O NORTN NAV[N, nYli[ 1}0 ~~ --~ -~ ~ nw n9e.L.eo roar orncc wa y99 wRNCNO Mw>o( rwLM ONNOf oNTww10, CAfI10RNlp 9~)~~ la ul nee.au 16191 »n.a>e. T[L[wNONf 1)I.1 999>nf. T[L(coRl[w 1)1.1 9}.~M}I AECEIVED ..~fY OF RANCHO CUCA1ApNGP December 21, 1992 CRy CLERK HAND DELIVERY DEC 2 31992 Debra Adams City Clerk 7 8 9 10 ll t2 ; 1415161 City of Rancho Cucamonga h,e ~ ~u~~ 10500 Civic Center Drive -T Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729 Re: Appeal of Denial of Planning Commission's Denial of Conditional Use Permit 92-18 - Smith's Dear Ma. Adams: We have bean asked by our client, Smith's Food and Druq Centers, Inc., to file with you, pursuant to Section 17.02.080 of the Development Code of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision on December 15, 1992 to deny Smith's application for a conditional use permit. Smith's asks that the City Council approve the conditional use permit and the related mitigated Negative Declaration, A check in the amount oP $126.00 is attached, as required by the City's fee schedule. The bnsie for the appeal is smith's belief that the project as approved by the Design Review Commission and presented to the Planning Commission is consistent with the land use development standards of the City end that the findings for the issuance of a conditional use permit cen and should be made in this case. After reviewing the record end attending the hearing, we believe that the findings of Tact and conclusions of law in the resolution of denial adopted by the Planning Commission ere not supported by significant evidence in light of the whole record. We request that this matter be set for hearing at the City's earliest convenience. very truly yours, I.L~v~.. `a. emu,-d.L.. Wynne s. Purth of Best, Best i Krieger WSF/jr __~amr v, cl: ~ yr nruvunv uuur~:rtv:vvn STAFF REPORT r DATE: December 9, 1992 TO: Chairmnn and Nenibere of the Planning Commission FROM: 8tad Euller, City Planner DY: Bbverly Nleean, Associate Planner SUSJECTC F 4ND CONDITION u36 PEA IT 92-28 - SNITN'S - TM development of a commercial mopping cantor consist ing of + 75, DOO aquera foot groeery ato[e, two satellite buildings of 3,500 square foot each, and a drive-thru ped of ar800 square feat on 10.6 acres of land in the Community Commercial District (SUbaree 2) of [he Foothill Soulsvartl Specific Plan, located at the northuaet corner of Foothill Sou levard and Vineyard Avbnua - APN: 207-102-03r 5r 8, 15, 20, 21, and 09. Auoc iaL ed with thi• protect le Traa Removal Permit 92-17, PROJECT AND SITE DEMRIPTION~ A. A R weat ttl by A oli ent: Approval of a Conditional Uat Permit for the dove lopment of a 75,000 square foot grocery store and eoncapcual site plan approval of two satell its buildinga of 3,500 square fetc eech {Pads N and C) and conceptual approval of e 4,800 equere foot pad (Ped A) for drive-thru purposes and is euance of a mitigated Negative Declaration. E. S to inc Lan U d 2 l Nosh - Vacant and existing apartment buildinga; Community commercial {SUberea 2, Foothill 8oultverd Sptcif ie Plan). South - Vacant; Community COmmttcial (SUberea 2, Foothill Boulevard Specific Plsn). East - Thomu Winery Plaza; Specialty commercial (Subarea 2, Poothlll eoultvartl SptciEic Plan). West - Cucamonga Creek Channel; Flood Control. C. General Plan Deaicnationa: Project S1[e - Commercial North - Commerciai South - Commercial east - Commercial Waec - Flood Control ~X4tl~~t l:1() PLANNING COMMI5520, ,TAFF REPORT CUP 92-18 - SM ITN'9 Oacvmber 9, 1992 Page 2 0, site CharecC9rlet lee• The project alts 1• approximately 10.6 acres in •lze and •lopae approx Lnately 4 percent from north to south. The eLN le made up of several parcels, all of which are currently owned Dy amlth'• Food antl Drug. A hourr built by the Thomas family In 1930 still elt• on the property. An existing restaurant building i• located on the cite as wall es a vacant roller rink faculty. These structures ere proposed for demolition wleh conetructlcn of thr project. e. parklne calculat ionr. Number o[ Number of TYpe squarr Parking spacb Spaces o e Footace Ratio Rewired PCOVlded Grocery store 74,896 1/250 300 Pad A (drive-thru) 4,800 1/75 64 Peet Food Psd 8 3,500 1/250 14 General Retail Psd C 3,500 1/250 ~ General Aetail TOTAL 792 475 A. General: TM applicant i• nqueetlnq to develop a 7d, 896 square toot supermarket and a fact [ood drive-thru pad of 4,800 equate tnt and two genarsl refill pads of 3,500 square test each. Tha review requeegd for the three fraestand lnq psd^ Ls conceptual only and epee ltlc design review o[ she archltectursl slevat lone and •!ta plan dstell• will Da required In the futon when they aw proposed for development. The propoud •!te pLn also lncludo development of the Activity Canter concept at tM corner, Lncluding • water •l.ment and spsclQ paving consistent with the Foothill soulevard spec if le Plan, and a psdutrlan connection to CM future Regional Mull l-PUrpoee Trail located along Cucamonga Creek Channel which borders the site to the west. Tha project aLo ptov idea a vehlcu lar connectLon to the vacant parcel to the north at the corner of son Bernardino Road and Pooch 111 soulward a part o[ a conceptual master plan. ~( n , a CVP 92-18 - SNSTN'S Daeember 9, 1992 Page 3 e. @aekmround: A Pn-Application Rwiew was conducted on tM project on Apr11 2r 1992, by the full Planning commission. at that meeting, [ha Commluion identified the following isaue• and •uggeaied Ghat tMy b+ atldn uad in any future aubplCCals: 1. TM challenge far GM applicant i• to fit the '15,000 aquas foot building onto the •ite. 2. The out-parcel to the north should ba maRer planned. 7. TntN of tM Ccaminioners were opposed to roll-up door facing Foothill Boulevard and one of the Commiuiornrs felt eMy might W sueeef afully incorporated Into the project i[ uathstics and location ioues were conslderatl. 4. Metal roof Se not dedraDL. 5. The uchLNCture of [he project should not re[Le[ thae o! tM Thamae klnery shopping center. 6. 6ngineerinq and @Ldoric Pnaervatlon eoncetns more not dLcwssd. TM applicant anould consult with tM Plra Olstrict to determine it the secondary driveway off Vineyard avenw could M turf bloeked and wNther a majority of the drive ai/lo could M reducM to ]• [eat. TM NL/tot lc Pruervation commUsion will consider tM project •inca ens original Cucamonga Po/t OStiN wu located on tM alu. 7. TM applicant anould revip CM Activity Center concept. Build togs of an appropriate scale should W added and LLNd at the cornet. C. Deslan Rwiw Coeeittsee TM Du1gn Rwiw Comeatbe )@e lc Mr, ToLioy, Coleman) reviewed tM project on October 6, 1997, and rscoemsnded tM to11w1nq revldonn 1. TM applicant indicated roar tM rock wterlal utilized on the store wu •la/Lr to eMe o[ CM waylarer'• Chapel and Tallssln INSt. TM CoapltCN felt CAL was unacceptable, beeves[ the aru veal noted toe river rock )i./., emooeh, rounded cobblo); howwr, cM Camaletee was willing to revive speeltlc desalt/, photographs, and mortal aamplu of now CM material could work •nd wMther or not le would tit into eM tooter[ of the site. Tradlt tonal river cock wu auggsstsd as an alGrnat Lve which mould be eompatlb le wish river rock approved Lar the northust and aoutMut corner o! eM lnterwcelon It cM otMr type o[ atone Ls determined not to M appropriate. N p, ~ N ' V ~ PLANNING COMH ISSS 01. .TAPE REPORT CUP 97-IS - SMITH'S December 9, 1992 Page G 2. The CommltGa preferred the Ncond opt Lon for the drive-thru; however, they required that the drive-thru lane be screened from Foothill Boulevard. An illustrative croee-section should De preunted Co the Committee for further rwieu. 3. A master plan wh lch Lncarporata• acau to she percale to the nortA •hou ld De provided. <• Landscaping should be provided in front of and adj anent to the Smith'• 6uildin9. 5. Ho csrt atorsge should bs allowed in front of the grocery store Duildinq. A letter tram Smlth'• agtNlnq to thi• condition should be submitted prior to scheduling fo[ Planning Commie /on. TM Committee auggasbd using the triangular apace between the store and the loading axsa Car urt storage. 6. Tha meu of the towec ehauld a modl[isd by incraeainq lta height end width. 7. TM size of the tn11L eolumne on the front elevation should Ds carefully studied and posLLbly incrssud In depth Co be square Ln shape. In addition, the •1N of the trellt• member should be specif led. 8. The pedsetrian connection to the front of the atom should line up at 90 degrN• with the front entrance, rather than angled a currently shown. 9. Spec isl paving (aggreget• fin Lh or lnterloekinq psvere( ehauld 6e provided in [root of the ant lra entryway aeroe• the driveway. 10. Large canopy Lrau (not the Prunu• csraLLfara( should be provided [or shading o[ the parklnq lot. Additional trees should W added to tM parklnq lot end may 6e planted adjacent to the light etentlsrds, ulth the he lght of the light being lover (1. •., maximum 15 fNl) than the eventual canopy height of [he erN. 11. The retaining walls •lonq Vineyard Avenve and Footh ill Boulevard should be treated ulth the came <yp. o[ rock [hat will be provided on the building front. 12. Redesign Che Smith's entryway Co provide • urond Nt of gleN door^ rather than a forced •lr barr ler or •llminate tM dividing wall between the entrants and azlt to provide a more lnvlt Lnq entrance. it ~ yell CUP ~92-19 - SMITN'a ~ V December 9, 1992 Pages 5 13. The Foothill Bou lrvard Activity Cents [/landscape concrpt whould continues from the cornet to the channel along Foothill Boulevard and from Che cornet to the northerly driveway along Vineyard Avvnur. Terraced rock walla should be provided to minimize 2:1 elope[. la. The veneer of [hr two buileinge at the corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue should be conettucted of the rock material. 15. If the two building pads at the corner era not eeveloped at the aana time av the growry store, then the rtrwetecape ehou l0 be devvloprd up Co thr level of pad one Che pads laneacapvd Ear erosion control. 16. Incraaard Lntormat ion on how [hv feet-food pad will work e hould br submitted, includ inq a wracking study, 17. Thv Cammlebs expruerd concern that thr "aqurduct^ elamrnt wa• awkwartl, and combined with the grade dlfferenela 1, would nwgaCivrly a[Lct Sm1tA'• vlrw eorrldor. 18. The Dua [tap eN1Gr shoultl W redesigned to eliminate thr etvaply pitchatl roof element. 19. Provides a rendering of the truck londing arras to show how trucks would br scrwned. The applLcant submitted cvviud plans and the Committw (MCNie 1, Matcher, Coleman) reviewed the revtud proposal on NOVember 3, 1992, and indLULd Chet some o[ their concerns could become coneit ions of approval, wnila some Laruse needed to be rovlewre further by the Committer. Add it tonally, certain •!ta planning avpvct• rsgar0ing the corner Pade B one C were eiscuueO and may bs incorporated ar conditions of approval at a conceptual level only. Thr approval of the epecitic architecture for Pada A, 8, and C was deferred to a later dates. The Commit tea recommended the plane br pvlwd co addreea the following item[ at [heir November 17, 1992, meeting: 1. Thr poured Ln-place rock eroatment propovad was not acceptable to the Commtttrs. Additional al brnatlvrs, such ea native river rock •hou id Dr preeentrd [or Committer review and approval prior to ec hrdu ling the project tot Planning commirrlon. 2. Thr bright of the trellis Ln front of the Smith's stare should be lowered to convey • human scab. Thr eizr of CM wood mrmben of the trellL should be increaerd, the architect 1. 3_~~, PLANNING COMMISS IOi. STAFF PEPOPT CUP 92-18 - SNITN'S Ueeembar 9, 1992 Page 6 Lndicete0 Chat the alzs of the members were 4 inches x < Lnchee, d inches x e inches, and 4 inches x 12 lashes. The Committee felt Che smallest member size ehou ld be a in<hee x 8 inches with the other elements inc reaeetl proportionately. Tha trellis mould not just plainly terminate et tM building Cece, Dut ehou ld somehow appear to be etru<turally supported. Tile with a rafter treatment and possible texture around the edge might bs incorporated. 3. Tha •Lze and shape of the trellis columns ehou ld be Lncreassd end/or modl[Led. A battered •ide or a crucl[orm shape was euggeetstl by the Committee. Also, iN tre11L etructu[s should bs pusRed Dack Gowarde the store front with something morn substantial than vines planted In front. d. The pyramidal shaped trellis element over the Smleh'• entry door aaould De revised sad prow Ldea with a solid ills root element. 5. The roof of the bu• shelter i• et 111 too atop end should be modltlsd to reflect the shape o[ the larger pyramidal element ovor the Smith's store. Tha bu• shelter should have some type of solid overhead structures which will protest bus pauengan from the rain. 6. The overhead aqueduct element conneeting Pad• B and C antl the bue shelter should be eliminated. 7. Tha low walla adjacent to Patl• B antl C should be Lapered back et the ends rather then terminating abruptly. B. Tha landscaping/pedestrlen walkway area between Psd• B end C and tM parking lot should be lncreued to 10-12 tact In wldeh minimum. 9. Some landecaplnq at tM corner of Vineyard Avenue and Poothlll Boulevard la appropriatat however, as indleatsd, It LnLrrupt• tM flow of pedestrlen movemenC on the alto. Tha corner ehou ld bs designed in an opn manner end ehou ld invite pedotrlan• onto tM site. The reflect ing pool and fountain are acceptable and may even De scaled down; however, the CreoGndlnq wal: parallel to Poothlll Boulward between tM two wt• of atalrwaye ehou ld Ds doUUd. 10. The ecaU o[ eM stairway along vineyard Awnus ehou ld be bolder, ^lmllar to that wR1cR i• provided along FooGhlll Boulevard. 11. Thw metal pipe hands ll• are not desirable end ehou ld be deleted or redealgnsd. h n rU CUP 91-1e - SMITH'S Decsnibar 9, 1992 Pe9e 7 17. Ths agrees lane onto Footnill Boulevard should be modified to extend the length of ens landscape planter area even with the end of the fire[ row of parking. The Committee cecommendad Coat the following items be included as conditions of approval Eor the project: 1. Tha berminq along Foothill sou Levard adjacent to the drivs- thtu lens ehou ld ba a minimum of 3 Eeet in height in order to adequately screen care. 2. special paving (aggregate finish or interlocking pavers) should be provided in front of the entire entryway across the driveway. 3. Tha rstalning walla along Vineyard Avenue and Footnill 8oulevartl should be treated with the same type of rock that will De provided on the building t[ont. 4. Tha Foothill Boulevard Activity Center/landecaps concept should coot lnue from the corner to the channel along Foothill Boulevard and from the corner to the northerly driveway along Vineyard Avenue. Terraced rock walla should be provided to minimize 3:1 elopes. S. The veneer of the two bu ildin9s at the corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue should bs constructed of acceneed with ens approved rock material for the 9miC h'• etorofron[. 6. If the two buildings et ihs corner are not developetl et the acme time as the grocery etorer then the etteetecspe should De developed up to the level of the pads and landscaped for erosion control. Tne applicane sudnitesd revised plans which warp reviewed Dy the Committee (MCNiel, Nel<Aerr Coleman) at the meetleg of November 17, 1997. Ths following items from the prevlou• meatlnq of November 3, 1992, were incorporated into the reviesd project: No, 1, 7, ], 6, 6, 7, 8, and 17. The Comnittes recommended aootoval subiect to iha followirc. and orevloue Comments of the Committee. belnc incorporated as cond It iOne of aooroval: 1. A solid, [let bus shelter roof i• permLelble. Vlnu may be i.ncarporatsd adjacent to the supporting columns in ortlsr to soften the structure (addreuea prsvlou• comment No. B). 2. The concept of utllizing palm tru• within iM Activity Center was approved] however, iM applicant should work with Butt !n order to determine the most eppropr iete species dur lnq the pLn cNCk procsu (addremu pnviou• comment No. 9). 11 p., ~ / 11 FLANHI NG COMMISSIOI, eTAFF REPORT CDP 92-1e - SMITH'S December 9, 1992 Page B 3. The metal pipe handrails are acceptable on a limited basis when needed adjacent to etairwaye. color of the tell loge should blend in with the surrounding hardecepe and not 6a treated with an obvious contrasting color (atldreeeee prey taus comment No. 11) . 4. The pedestrian entrance to the fast food pad should be treated with a textured paving similar to what ie proposed adjacent to the Smlth'e slots entrance (scored concrete with a broom finish}. S. Cond it Sane No. 1-6 from the previous Dee ign Review Committee meeting will apply. 6. The green color of the root Cile, window mullions, and LLnted ulndows should be discussed by the full Commission. TECh lc al A law commltt The Tachnleel Rev law Committee reviewed the project on October "!, 1992, and approved it subject to conditions contained within the Reeolut ion o[ Approval. ENVIAONtLNTAL ASSF.SSMF.NTe part I Of Cho Iolt lal Study has beeo completed by the applleent. Stef[ ha• completed Part 2 a[ the Environmental Cheekllat and found that Gha project could have a significant effect on the environment in several areas: Cultural Resources Studv: The alto hoe Deen Ltle nt if ied es pert of a larger area that represents an Important phys lcal link to major historical periods in the Rancho Cucamonga area end ae such, there are many potentially significant Smpacte as well a• a variety of ident load and unldent Lf led cultural reeaurcee. The alts was traversed by local native Americans prior to the arrival of the spanleh explorers. The sib wee an integral part o[ Che Tur6lclo Tapia gencho de Cucamonga which included the Thomas Ninety and we• the loeatlon of the tint poet office in tM area, which was commi aatoned by Pnsldent Lincoln in lBfi4. FurtMt, the site still contains one of the taw structures built by the Thamu family for family member and workers. This aingL tamlly siruetua i• locebd at BO 10 Vlneya[d Avenue. St wee bu lit In 1910 and Le of e creEbman architectural style. in eddit ion, the Thanu Nouee, located at the corner o[ Foothill Boulevard end yen Bernard loo Road, which has bean denwliehed, wee bull[ !n 1926. Therefore, a Cu ltu rel Reeou rce Study has been raga Lred, subject to Historic Preservation Commission review antl approval. The study has bun eommU•Lonsd and a consultant hee bean ealaetad; however, at the iLme o[ th L puhllc hearing, the study nee not bean complsud. A Cond It ion of Approval regarding ih. study has been placed In the Roolutlon of Approval. CUP 93-1a - aNITN'S December 9, 1992 Page 9 e. Geoloeie Ravlew: The site ie located within Che City's designated Special Study 2ona for the inferred Red Hi11 Fault and ae such, the provisions of she Alquiet Priolo Aet apply. The preliminary geoteehniul Lnvnstigatlon concluded that Che proposed stall stares could be subject to eignificant groundehaking which could result from earthquakae on any of eeverel nearby act Lve faults. However, based on the coneultant'e investigation and data review, [hero ie no evidence indicating that the Rod Hill Fault preeant• s eignificant ground rupture hazard to the proposed development. Ra conmendaC SOn~ contained in the report have bean incorpotatsd within the Conditions of Approval in the attached Raso luClon of Approval. mho geocachnieel investigation is currently under intlependent review by an outeld0 consultant chosen by eh0 Clty. C. Arboriet Reoort: The arboriet [sport ides[ SPied 28 mature trees of varying species on cha Bite. The arboriet recommended that the two large palm trees (Maehingtonla robuete and Waehingtonie filiEara( be relocated on the site. Several other trees (Pious eenarian•le, 'Cadrue deodara, Platnnu• acerifolia~ may aLo b0 rnloesLd with probable eucceu. TM arboriet hoe recommended Coat the remeininq trees on-site b0 removed. Tha removed trees would Da subject to the tree replacement criteria in Chi Tree Prase[vat loo Ordinance. Port Soso[ Condit ions have been included in the attached Resolution of Approval. D. Noise Studv: The •iu may be impacted by road noiN from POOthill Bou le vartl and Vineyard Avenue ae indicated in the Noise Rlemant of the General Plan. A Noise Study will ba required to determine the noise source and level, and propose a mitigation and monitoring program to nnsur0 ih0 reduction of intnrior nois0 levels aepecially for Pads A, e, and C. An appropr Lau condition has been included in the at taeMd Resolution of Approval. Staff concludes that there will B3C b0 a •ignlf Scant effect on tM env ironmsnt in thin case beCaeN of the mlt igation mna0ur0a which have boon ins ludnd in CM project design or a• Ccnd ition• of Approval within thn attached Resolution. Therefore, if after reviewing the propogtl mit Lgation meawru apOCiLiOd uit his the Resolution, the commission concur with etaft'• findings, roan issuance of a mitigated Negative Dnclarat ion would b0 in order. FACTS FOR PINDINGS: In order for the Planning Commie Lon to approve the project, LM follow ing facts for findings must be made: A. Tha proposed use i• in accord with Cho General Plan, the oDjectiven of the Development Coda and the Foothill BoulOVatd Specltlc Plan, end the purpow• of Cho district in which the siC• l• located. B. The propoud un, togethnr with the tend itione spplicebL thereto, will not be dot [Smoot •1 to thn public has lth, safety, or wnlfarn or macerielly injurious to proper[ ias or improvamant• in ehs vicinity, (. ~ ~QN PLANNING COMMISS IOI. STAFF REPORT CVP 92-18 - SMITH'S Decenlba[ 9, 1992 Pegs 10 C. The proposed use complies with each of the applicable provle Sons of the Development Cods and Indu atr ial Area Specific Plan. CORAESpONDENCB: This item has been advert teed ae a pubic heating in the Inland yallw Daily Bulletin newspaper, tM project has been posted, and notices were Bent to ell property owners wLChin Sutraree 2 of the Poothlll Boulevard Specific Plan. RECOMMENDATION: St a[f recommends the[ the Commlss SOn [welve all public testimony on the project. If, after rswlving all testimony, the cammlas Lon coneun with the findings suggested, then Leeuanca of e mit LgsNd Nsgatlve Deelaratlon and approval of Condit Tonal Usa Permit 92-18 through sdoption of Chs attached Resolution of Approval would bs In order. In addition, the Commluion shall review the proposed colors and roof tLle material, which will bs presented at the public hearing, and make a recommendation regarding thslr aeeeptaDll Sty. Aeepeet submitted, Brad r City Planner BB:BN:mlq Attschments: Exhibit "A" - Exhlblt "B" - Exhlbit "C" - Exhlblt "D" Eahlbit "E^ - ExhlDit "P^ - Exhlblt "C" - ExhLbLt "N" - Resolution of ExistLnq Parcels S lie Plan Oradinq Plan Bu llding Elwatlons Tree Plan Aetlvity Gntar Parepect LVS SkstcMs Landscape PLn Approval t ~ ill ;; ~~ ...._~~ _. ~ , C11Y OF RANCFi~~eUCAMONGA ITEM:~P R2alA PLANNING DMSION TITI-E~ EXI5TU1~ ~ ~ ~ S N E7CHIBff: pr SCALE: ti ~~`ON `_ I' ~~ 4 •1 • ^•~ ~`+ ['iEM: CUP q2 -16 C['I1' OF RANCiiO.~CUCAMOIVGA rm.E:~,~p,~ s~mt~y ~ PLANNIfYG• DMSION EXHIBR': ~j SCALE: . ,. a~ CCIY OF RANC(-i0.`CUCAMONGA ~~M' GAP ~y ~ 19 PLANNING DMSION rmE: ~-,e~~u~ ~ N EXHIBIT: C SCALE: i~ ~ ~ i~ ~ ~~~ ~:,~ x ~_I ~.j l 7 ~~ ~~ z ~~~ x .~ w~ ~~ ~~ U~ ~~ ~z z Jd ~ i ^ ~ n I ` 4 F W ~a ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~, ~~ ~, ~~ 3g~ ~S ~~ ~k^ d~ ~/ ~S: N N_yaAgl I F U ~U~ ~¢ JCL ..7 ~_ uXd z ;~ c :; :, I °~~s . `M ~~ U > ~. F' J ~ ~' ~~ ~,1~~~ ..~~ :%, CI'Il' OF RANCHO CUCAMOIVCA PLANNING DMSIOIV rrEM:~eA2 - 8 TCfLE; ell _ N EXFIIBfl': ~ SCALE: a,.. !' i i I C IIII:~iIIIII1111IIr1 i. ~ I~ N t1~ I r, "'• - E i 1 ~ ~ 7~C ~ ., Z rE < :J ~ ~ u~,~qu n ~`i 1\ W i a~ ~~ ~~ ~~ <I ll;~, `~%~~, 'h, r~ ~yl ,' i. a ~a +i ~~ I ~. it i ~ ~~ '~;~ U > n ~ ~~ ~ ~~ z r< w U ^' e ~; ~ /l \ I~~ i i ~'' ~\~` ~ , ~, ,, ,, ~, w ~, '~ II~I~ ~4~ ~~ ~~ U > n ~~ ~ .r - z ~~_"' < ~^ E u ~ ,a~ ~~ 3 ~~~3~ - d ~ ~~ i i ~ ri: I ~, ~~ S k' S •.i a $ t!' ~ z q~ ~ ~ ~~ `J ~~. ~ ~;. ,z .i: i ~+{. ~; C F ux. J~ n ~~ v~ Z l~~"' ~ < ~.J ~ ~ __I! i:1:ull;iii i... :~l311 'i u.; r9 W s i r ~ ; ~. ~, ~ w `s 1 '• it ~! ~' ~' I F{ r I .~ i ~; ~'j'tf'1 u~~.'~1jf ° f 2 W~ li /. ~ ~ ''r ~ ~~ m9 ilai~:~7~,li: i. ~1171<f a~ ~iJi~ rq ~~~[ i 1~ m5J ~.,~ .n..v •.,,a ~ ~9yay 'f ~ j ; r F~! If ~ ~ 7~ ~a}'^IL4 ]t tll ~i. /I =~~ f , i / f~ 'I fl !I I~ I S ~ I iii i,ll ~n,~'ti a !~ e~ 91 d 8 ' i z~ h N ~ o 4 0, ~, ~.. w ~I r i ~~ ` i I~ ~!a ' a ij , I~ , i ~ ___-_'~ ~ _{ ayressno• >>iHSOO~ j -------- ----1~ !1 f I -: -~._...-_- f { - ' .-~__~ _ r _ ~~~i__ _ i 41 ' n I ~ ' i h ux+ a ~~ z V CG !L~ ~, ~~a3„ I i=-r- r ~' ~ --_ ~ i3 t4_..... is r~ ~: 1 1 ~ ~ ! -~ - -- ; ~~ ~ 1 i( _. _ ~ ~ ~$ ~ r- - - i ~ 9 :j ! .. 0 ~~ _. ~_ i 1 - i~ / L!.~ , LL S ~+:- ~ ~_ E F W a ~" ~ ~ Z ~~ ~ RESOLUTION No. A RESOLUTION OF TXE PLANNING COMM ISEZON OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVZ NG CONDITIONAL UFE PERMIT NO. 92-18 POR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A COMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTER CONSISTING OF A 75,000 SQUAA£ FOOT GROCERY STORE, TWO SATELLITE BUILDINGS GF 7,500 SQUARE FEET EACH, AND A DRIVE-THRU PALI OF a,B00 SQUARE FEET ON 10.6 ACAFE OP LANG IN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (SUBAREA 2) OP T:IE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIPIC PLAN, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNEA OP FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND VINEYARD AVENUE, ANO MAKING PINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -, / APN: 207-102-00, 5, d, 15, 20, 21 and 69. /."_+'1112,)l\M,•~_T'"}J A, en~~«wfv (i) Smith'• ha• filed an application [or tea laeuance of Conditional Vw Permit No. 9248 as deecribd in iM [laic o[ thi• Reeo let ion. Hereinafter In [hi• Ruolut ion, the wbjeet rand It Lanai Vq Parm it request i• reterre0 to a• ^t he application." /ii) On the 9th day o[ December 1992, and cantlnued to the 15th dsy of December 1992, the Planning commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public nearing on tM application and concluded said hearing on Gnat dab. (iii) All legal prerequiaibs prior to the adoption o[ Cola Reaolut ion have occurred. e. 119,golution. NON, THEREFORE, it i• hereby found, determined, and reeolved by the Planning commie ion of the Cicy of Rancho Cucamonga as followr. 1. This Commission Mreby specifically finds that all of tM facts wt torte in the RecltaL, Part A, of Chu Reaolut LOn are trw end correct. 2. Based upon aubatantial evidence presented to thl^ Commies ion during the abdve-reterenud public heating on December 9 and 15, 1992, including written and oral cuff reports, te9eeher with public dstimony, Chia Commie ion hereby specl[lcally ti ode a followu (a) The application applies to property located at the northwest Corner of PooLhill Bou Lvard and Vineyard Avenw with a et reef fronuge of 770 feet along Foothill Bou lsvatd and lot depth of 7B0 Ewa end i• prauntly improved with a versed ro liar rink and rutauran[, a tree-atantlinq vacated res a urant and auocia ud peaking lac with landscaping, a vacs bd furniture store, and a one-story woad framed ru LdNw; an0 Ib) TM property to the notch o[ the subject •iu i• partially va<ant and partially dwelopsd wleh two apartment build Loge, CM property co the routh of that rite eonsieta of vaunt prmperey beyond Foothill Boulavarn, the property to the Net i• 2homas Winery Plaz• beyond Vineyard Avenue, and the property to the wNt ie Cucemange Channel; and PLANNING COMMISSION 1 .OLUTI ON NO. CUP 9Z-1B - SMITH'S DKemDer 15, 1991 Page 3 (c) TN euDjeet property L designated Cemmunlty ConaMrelal Dy the Foothill BouLvard Specif lc Plen; end (d) The project requires the damollt ion of Che existing roller rink end restaurant buildings a wll a• the single family structuw locarid at 8010 Vineyard Avenue, which wss Du ilt Oy the Thoma• family toe warketa •nd family members. A CulturQ Resource Study L currently Delnq condueGd by Society o[ Pzotusioel Archeologiet• (SOPA) rectified eoneultane; anQ (e) The project •ite heel[ may also be •Lgnltlcant •Lnee it wa• [ravened Dy local Native Americana prior to the err lval o[ the SpsnLh pxplorsrat w• an integral part of the T1DUrcio Tapia Rancho de Cucamonga, which include !M Thoea Nlnery bull[ in IBJ9; wa• part of the ground tranaportat ion aysta of gearatlon• pt Aerican• lncludin9 the Butterfield stage coach, the Paci [lc Electric railway and Rpute 66; and was tM iota[ ion of Che Llrat poet of flee Ln Che •na. Te Cultural Reource Study will devtmine the signlflCmw o[ [hoe items a wll a• recommend mit igat ion measure. J, used upon the eubstant Sal av ldsnce pnented to this Commission during the above-n[eroced puDltc herlnq and upon the epeeL[lc findings o[ facts ut forth !n paregnph• 1 and Z above, thL• Commission hereby find/ and eoneludea a follows, (a) That the propo ed use i• in accord with the General Plan, tM objective o[ the Development Code, and Che purpoeo of the dlKrlct in which the alto L located. (bJ That tM proposed ue, together with the cond ltipn• epplicsbL thereto, will not be detrimental co the public Malth, e[ety, or wlLare or materially injurious to propertio or improvements in the vicinity. (c) TAsC the propped ue compile wish eeh of tM applicable provisions of Che Devslopent Code and Poot hill Boulward Spec if le Plan. 0. TAle Commie ion hereby Linda and cart if lee that the project has ban reviewed and considered Ln compliance wish tM Glltornla Environmental Quality Act o[ 1970 and, LurtMr, this Commie ion Maby Lee a mlt lgated Negative Declaration. 5. sued upon the find logs and conclueion• set forth !n paragraphs 1, Z, J, and • above, tAl• CommUSion hereby approves the •ppllcatlon subject to each and every condition ar forth below end In the Standard Cond It ion• attached hereto and incorporated hen in by this reference. Plannlnp Division 1) Upon completion o[ tM Cultural Resource Study currently De1n9 conduct-d Dy a EOPA certified coneu pent, all mltlgation me au n• and recomendat ion• contained [Aare in, a• veil e add lC Tonal sits plan considerac ion^ and CVP 97-18 - SMITH'S Degmber 15, 1993 Page 7 environmental mitigations, eha 11 De Sncorporatsd into the project dos Lgn. All oubtandinq Luues and any revisions and/or modifications required Dy the Study shall bs reviewed by the Historic PisaervaiLOn Coamis•lon and torwarded to tM Planning Conm laeion for final approval prior to the Luuancs of gradlnq permits. 3) Prior to eha demolition of any structure on the project sits, a cazpLte demolition asbestos survey and abatearn[ plnn shall be required and shall W subject to rwLew and approval by tM Building ofticlal. 3) cargo canopy trees within the parking lot shall 6s planted for shading at a rate o! om tru per three parking stalls. <) A Vnitorm Slgn Program shall he subaleted and rw iswW and approved by tM Du 1qn Rwlew Commletn pr for to the SUWDCe of Duildlnq permits. 5) All [ueure building pees shall W seeded and irrigde0 for erosion control. Detailed plans, includlnq landscape and lrrigstion, shall De submLeUd to tM Plannlnq DLvision p[LOr co the iswance of buildlnq psrmLN. 6) Untform hatdscape and street furniture (includlnq sating benches, trnsh recrptaclo, Erse-stanelnq potted plane, bike racks, light bollards, etc.) shtll be uCllizsd and he compatible with CM archluctural styL of tM center. Detailed design shall be submitted (or Plannlnq Dlvl•LOn review and approval prior to the Leuance o[ Du Lldlnq permits. 7) TrasA collsctLon ^hall occur becwwn the hours o! 9 •,m. and 30 p. m. only. e) Graf [itl eha 11 be removed wLthin 73 hour. 9) All operations •nd 6uslnu w• shall Ds conducted to comply with eM tollowlnq standards which •ha 11 be incorporated into tM lease agreement of •11 eenantu a) Nolu 6ew1 - All commercLal scely iciu shall not treats any noUe that would exceed an extsr for noiu level o[ 60 dB ~) ~.a~), PLfNNINC COMMISSION ,OLUTZON NO. CVP 93-10 - SMITH'S December 15, 1993 Page { tlurinq the hours of 30 p.m. to 7 a.m. or 65 d0 during the hours of ~ a. m. to 10 p.m. b) Loadlnq and Unloading - No person shell cause the loading, unloading, opening, clot Lng, ar other handling of taxes, crate •, containers, 6ulltling maierla ls, garbage cane, or other •imllar objects between the hour of 10 p.m. end 7 a.m., 1n a manner which would cauw a noiw dLturbanee to a resident Lal area, unleo otherwise epecltlsd herein. 10) Provislon• for the [ollawing design futures In the trash ucloeure to the u[is[act ion o[ the City Planner: •) architecturally integrated into the design of tM shopping cuter/project. b) Separate pedutrlan aece• that does not require the opening of the main doors and include ult-closing pedestrian door. c) Largs enough Co aeeomnodKU two Groh bins. d) Moll-up door. •) Trash bloc with counNr-welghGd Ills. r) /\rchltecturally treated overhud shade tn11 L. ql Cha In link ecrun on top to pnvut trash from blowing out o[ the enrloeure and designed to be hlddsn tram viw. 11) The entire ^ite shall W kept Lre from Groh and debris at all times, and in no swot shall trash and debris remain Cor more than 24 hours. 12) 1111 Lulu re pad development within tM ^hoppinq center shall be du igned to De compet ibis wish tM oublLMd archlgctural program. 13) The light Lnq lixture deign Concept •ha 11 compliment Che archiuccural program. It shall include the plats are lightinq [lxtuns, butldlnq lightinq [ixturo )exNrlor), and parking lot lightinq fixture. CUP 97-18 - SMITH'S Oecampet 15, 1992 Page 5 10) Approval from Calirana shall be required for drainage acceptance (under sidewalk drain) and work within their right rot-way prior to issuance of grad Lnq permit •. 19) A dope drainage aeeeptance latter shall be requited prior to iuuance of grading permit. 16) Maximum/minimum heights of all wa1L and elopes shall De indioaGd on tM [Snal grading plan. 17) The Master Plan L approved in concept only. hture tlavslopment [or Pede A, H, and C mall Da subleet to uparats Owelopgnt/Oee Lqn Asview prodea [or PLnnlnq Connlu ion approval. Mod Ltieai lon^ to Chs (shopping center/MNter PLn) shall G aubleet to Planning commtadon approval. 18) The terming •lonq Poothill Boulsvartl ad)acut to the drive-thru lens shall be a minimum of 3 teat in height above the lane in order to adequately ecroen care. 19) Special paveeunt shall W provided across eircu Leton aU1e, peducrLn walkway, antl plaza. TM pavenwnt shall b• of br LCk/til• pave re, expeNd aggregate, integral ca for concrete, or • combination of them. Full eempLa shall W wbmiebd for CLty PLnnsc review and approval prior to iuuance of bu tiding perm i[. Spsclal pav log shall bs provided in front at CM ucLre entryway acrou the driveway. 20) TM ntainlnq wa1L along vineyard Avenue antl Foothill Houlward shall W treated with CM eaaw tyq of rock tAac wLll be provided on tM gcacsry score building [root. 21) Ths Poot hill Boulevard Aetivi[y Centr. landscape connpt shall continue tram tM corner to the channel along PooCh111 Boulevard and from the corner to chs nortMrly driveway along Vineyard Avsnue. Terraced :ock wails •h-11 be provided co minimize 2:1 slopes. 22) TM ehrei pad Du iltlings (A, e, and C) shall incorporate the approved rock material [or the 5mLth's •tontrone into tM it deign scheme. II a v ~~ ll PLANNING COMMISSION ,OLUTION NO. CVP 92-1a - SMITH'S Oeeember 15, 1992 Fags b 2J) if CM two bu ildinge at the corner are not developed at tM same elms ae rho grocery store, then the etreatscape eatbsek arse shall be Cully dwQopsd up to CM pads and the pads shall be landscaped for erosion control. 34) A flat bus aM1Gr flat root L• permLS•ibls; however, the roof shall be solid Ln order to provide all warner protection. Vlnee may be incorporated adjacent to the eupportinq columns Ln order to sofbn tM eiructure. 25) T;u appllunt shall wrk with statf during the plan check process Ln order to debrmine eM moat spProptiaG apeeiu of palm trees at ens interNCt lore. 26) The uu o[ metal pipe handrails i• acceptable on • llmlesd buL when nee0ed adjacent to stalrwayr, Dut must M archlteeturally Lntegrated within the plaza hardacape deelgn !n terms of color and scale. 27) The pedutrlan entrance to the tact [ood pad shall be truted with a apselelty peving similar Co what 1• proposed adjacent to tM Smith's store entrenw (world concreG with a broom [lnlsh). 28) Tree Removal Permit 92-17 i• approved euDject to the following: a) The a+Letnq Naehlnoton is rc,.~,d, MAahinaton l• flll[era, PLnu• Canauanale, Cedru^ dwdau, end platanu• •cerlfolla eNll be relocated on ens sits and Lndlcated on ens [Lnal landscape plans which shall be rsv lewe0 and approved by tree Cley Planner prior to the lesuance of building permit •. G) The remaining trees shall be removed •nd replanted on • one-to-one OuL wSCh CM larqut grown nursery stock ova liable. Spec lee and location shall be indlcaud on ttu tins! :andacape pLn to be rw iswd and approved by the City Planner prior to Che iuuance o[ Dulld Lng permlG. 29) Recommender ion of tM •Prellminary Cw[echnlul tnveetigaticn" prepared by Le Lghton antl lruoc Latta, dated September 10, 1991, shall be uuP 9I-ln - tletTH'S December 15, 1994 page ] incorporated into the project dos iqn with pertinent information noted on the final grad tnq plan which shall be reviewed end approved Dy Che Butlding OFf ieial prior to Luuanes of gradLnq pe[miu• Vpon complselon of the Lndependent geotechnical analyein eurreni Ly being conduebd, any add i[ional revieiona and modlflcat ions contained therein shall De incorporated into tM project deign. 30) A [foal nalu study/accou nt ical report shall M preparetl with any reeoamsndationn and mitlgat loo mauuru incorporated into ens tinal prof act design. TM final no Ln study shall W reviewed and approved by tM City Planner prior to louance of building psrmlta, Sn9inu[inD Div i•ion 1) Construct the entire lsngeh of San Bernardino Roatl full width tree Vineyard Av1nw weagrly )including cM cal-de-uc bulb). O!f-sib street trees end •ldnwalk may G deterred until dwelopmene o[ the atljuent property. TM developer maY request • reimbursement agreswnt to rneover the cost of of(-site lmpcovewnL from saran dwelopment/redwslopment as it occurs on adjacent property. ?) Pooehlll Boulevard ^nall be conntrueud as tollowa, subject to modlf icaelon by and approval ut Ca lcrann: al lull improvemnnu on she north •ide from Vineyard Avnnw to the Cucamonga Cruk bridge with nncqury trannltlon u astatminad by the Ctty 6nglnesr and a Combined right turn lane and bw bay from eM Lnteruction to iN wuurly project driveway. b) A landscaped median from she inunwtion with Vineyard AVMUe to eon canter of eM Cucamonga Creek bridge to CM oat U[acC ion o[ CM City Enq ingr. Tt Cale roan doe• not •llou a aingl• ugment, in-lieu feu will be ra~~ind in cantormsnp with Condition No. 7. c) Thirty-two [eat of pavement on the south ^ide of tM mad fan. a 0..'T~4 PLl1RNZNG COMMISSION , _JOLfiT ION NO. N- 92-1E - SMITH'S December 15, 1992 page e d) TM dwaloper may request a nLmDursemsnt agrNNnt for permanent lmprovemsnb south of the eentarllne, including half o[ the Lndecapud NAlan coat •, [ram future development ae 1t oc<un on the aouth •ide Of the etrNC. ]) IC Coltrane dwe not allow covet ruction of the median Ls land within -wthill eouUvard, tMn an in-lUu [N for one-half the coat of the construction, Lncludinq landscaping and irrigation, shall be pa10 to the city prLor to iuuance of building permits. Tha [N [or tM median island ahall W Daeed on the distance between the center Ilne of Vineyard avenue and tN esntsr of the Cucaswnga Creek bridge. a) acquln neceuary addlt tonal right-ol-way and construct pavement to we Ln •.he vest •Lde of Vineyard avenw [rw foothill BouUvara southerly to provide sate lane trawltione [or tM relocation of the Vineyard avenw centerline to the utL[actlon of the Clty Englnser. The dweloper may requNt a rslmDunement agreement to recover tM cost of ot[-sits permanNt lmprovemsnt• [ras future dwelopmant/redwelopmsnt a• It occurs on ad~acsnt property. 5) Overhead Utllltler. •) TM ea Ltlnq overhead ut tilt lss (uleeonmunlcae ion and electclcal) shall De undergrounded ae Lollowr. 1) -oothlll Boulevard - on [M project •ide of tM etrNt [ram the [lret pol• on tM west •ide o[ Cucamonga Creek to and including the lNt pol• utterly. 11) vineyard avmw - on the pro~eet •ide o[ tM street Crow end including th• tint pol• south of San Bernardino Rwd to and lnc ludlnq the last pol• southerly (all remain lnq linty and removal o[ erirt inq poleal. iii) On-•ide - from the first pole on she north side o[ San Bernardino Rgad to and including the lut pole CUP 92-IB - SMITH'S December 15, 1992 Page 9 (on-vita) north of Foothill Boulevard (along the vacated po[c ion of San OiegO Avanw). The developer may requae a reimbursement agreement co neover ono-half the Clty adopted coat for undergroundinq from future development/redevelopment ee it occurs on the opposite •ide of Foothill BouLvard. D) An in-lieu tee a• eontribue Lan to the future undergroundin9 (San Betnardlna Road) and reimburseant for previously undergrounded (Vineyard Avena) overhead utilitis• (tsleconmunieet ion and •lece rical) on the opposite •ide of the at rest shall be pa td to the Clty prior co the Lseuance of bui ldinq permits. TM Cse shall be one-halt the City adopted unit amount times cM following langtN: i) San BrMardLna Road - the length of the project frontngs. ii) ytneyard Avenue - Trap the north project boundary to [M center o[ Foothill Boulevard. 6) An Ln-lieu fw a• reimbuzssmant Coc street impravemenu canpletsd on the wnt side of Vineyard Awnu1 per reimbursement agaement In •ffeet shall be paid to the City prior to the iuuance o[ bu ildinq permlu. 7) Nod Lticatlons and relocation, if necaury, of the Graff is signal ae the Lnunecttona of Foothill Bou lava[d and Vlneyartl Avenue and San Bernardino Road and vlneyartl Avenue, shall De tAe ruponaibility of the developer. Tha relocation and modiEicacicn shall be co LN eat is[action of cM City Cnq loser. B) Conatrucc the local storm drain pipe in Footh 111 Bou lsvnrd from the sxlat inq connection at the interaction of Vineyard Avenw to Cucamonga Creek co tM •atiataction of the City EngiMar. 9) "NO Perking/Stopping" ^Lgn^ shell be posted along the troncaqu of Foothill Boulevard and V •neyard Avenue and a "NO Trucks over 3 Ton" •Lgn shall be posted on San Bernard Lno Road. (~$~33'( PLANNING COMMISSION IOLUTION NO. CUP 92-18 - SMITH'S DecamDer 15, 1992 Page 30 10) M In^liau fea for onr fourth Cha cos[ of tons[ ruct inq epaeial pavare wiCAin. the Foothill Bou levartl/V Lnaya rd Avenw intersection shell ba paid to tM City prior to [Ae iuua nee of build inq parmiu. TM Faa amount shall be eases on the square footage of the intetaacilon. 11) Corolatent with the Foothill Boulevard S(»cl[le Plan, the ester element at the northwat corMr of Foothill Bou lavard and Vlnaysrd Avenue shall be looted outalda LM public right-ot-way. Bulldlnd 6 5efaty DL tai n 1) AppravaL from San Berna[d lno County Health, Cucamonga County Mater Diettlet, and aehool dLtritG shell N requlrad prior to the L ouann o[ build inq permlu. In atldlt ion, AQMD approval may Da required LL hazardous materials are uaad, handled, or stored. 6. The Secratery to thL Commie ion shall csrtlly to the adoption oL this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED iNIS 15TH OAY OF DECEMBER 1992. P[.ANNING COMMISSION OF THE CSTY OF RANCHO CUCAMONCA tatty T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Roller, Sacratary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of tha planning Cnmmiuion of the City cE Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify thaC tha longoinq Resolution wu duly ana rage Lrly introduced, pupd, and adopted by CM Plmnlnq Commie ton of the C lty of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meK ing of CM Planning Commission ha ld on the 15th day of December 1992, 6y tha follow inq vote-co-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: °1T1,,a DEPARTMENT OF ~~~C00O C°°~10".a COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT a: CV ~ q2 SUOJECT ~~`` / ~/ / APPLICANT: _~It-[,~t7 LOCATION: Al(.r1G ` ' attjl. G /ILK%1 Thow items rJrrkal an CondMlorre d Approval. APPLICANT SNM.L CONTACT THE vuNNtNO Drvl$ION. pta) fY-leet. FDR COe1PLJAfYCE WRN THE FOLLOWING CONORgN9: A. Time umru ~_ t. Approval ahaM szpin, unNw exnrrded W tfre PWetep Cortartbelon, Y DuYCYq pemiu are nor owed a approval uw hw rxlt o011xIM11Gdwrlhlrl 2{ nMllahe homtM titled apgoval. 2. DewlopnMnVDealpn RevNw eMY W approved prbr b / / 3. Alopovtl d TeretlNe Tract No. Y pnlYal arged b the rlppovtl d ~ e. TM dwebperaMYOamrrce, penlcbtleln,tlW mrttlbnttlearuuaeb0e oorrrrterrced, Penkptlad b. or aorraunxrltlal, a Melb•Rooe C'amluNly FaWYIw OYYIQ (CFO) for IM Rancho Cucarrrorpa FYe ProleNon DWf W 10 Mzure ooMnwtbn arldrOr mWMenY>ce d a fln sUtbn Io wrn tM rYlvebpnwe. TM eztlbn altY Oe bCaled tbelprted, and drYt b ar avecaictlxNr d tM RerrJb Cucurgrga Fee Prawubn fNalrlcy, turd ehaY Oecortra tM OWrla's properly upon Co1lPlelbn. TM trqupnent anal W wlected W dle Oltlnq in aocorderoe wan ea rwe0e. In arty OuYr1Yq d a tltlbn, tM devebper eMY oonpy with all appricaole rave aro re¢rlalbna TM CFD eMe W bmrd M tM DYOtG artl dle dsvebper W tM lrM reoordtlbn d flM htal map o¢un. 5. Prbr to recadarbn d dfe Law map a IM lawarrce d WYOYp peme4, whkhever Comes Iwtl, IM applican aheY OOfteera to. M penx:pate n. tlN wtaEWMten d i McYo-ROOs Comrnunsy FacWNs DFrtrlq br IM mrrtnwslon am mWeentlbe d rreceseary aCtlOOI IiCaYMa. However, i1 irry fdgdl owra hq previouey eaubeefted such a CommurMy FataxlNa Oisukt, tM appflpnl of all, in IM aaemtllw, COrleela b lM atwxtlbn d tM propq sne xxo IM lamlory d auto existlnp DiWip prbr to tM reooldtlbn d IM Iinat map or IM nsuana d Ouildnp WrrnYS, aAlicMver wmw IIM. Fur1Mr, Y IM affected aClbol dgtrrp has not to/nN0 a AaeYo-R00e CommuMy Facail{ea OitlAcY wYMn twelve Ir10AM Irom tM dale of approval d IM pojeq and prior to tM redardtlbn d the Intl map a issuance of wxartp Wrrrrq la card proNCt, IM mndtgn aliaY W deemW ruY and wid. r~eldamr J~_ -l_/_ J_/_ J~_ ___/_/_ SC ~!/at lof l] 11 ,f/'3~u ~.. ~ a P~m az=,~a ~m~ Thb cortdNlon sMM M waNed N tM Cry receives notke that the appNCaM and aq aflected SCI1001 dblf Ws have emered IMO an agroelMm b privately acCpmRlodffie airy and aN School inyacis as a rowp d this pro)eU. ____~__ 6. Prbr to romrotlbn of tM fatal map or pMr to laeuarrw of Aullding permNe when ro map b irrvrNVed.wMten cenMlcatbnlmntM aneaed walerdlslM Intl adequate aeweraMwtler IacilNlas aro or wet Ae avagabb to serve IM proposed pro(sA shah be S1lbrrilled to IM Oepanmem or Comrtunay DevsloprrteM. Stx:lt tenor rtarel nave Aeon isstrM AY 1M water dbirict within 90 days prigto llrW map approval lniM easedSUAdNMlon orprbrtobwarica of permits in tM case of aq otfter realdeM W pro)ects. B. SM DwebpnteM 1. The silo ahaN MOevebpsO arW malmairtednaratrWnee wNh ets apgovad pWte whkh incWde site plarq, archesdurtl ebvatbrr, etdsdormtledaM artl adola, lartdar'•aDkN, sign program, and gradrq on IW at IM PWWrq Dlvlalort, dts mrtabrM eoraaNted Mein, DevebpmeM Cods rogulalbrts, and YLIOtMr~l Blul . Specilk Plar~~rrb ~MnnedCemetwalp. 2. Prbr to arty use of tM proisU sqs or AtWMp actlvgy baYtq OOrrartarRSd IMraon, aA Cortlgiorte of Approvtl snaN W Carlpbted b tM sa8tlallbrt d iM Cry Plantar. 3. ooo,p.neydmsladNry shaNndoommsrtp uralttudtltmsataN Urtbrtn8ultdatgCods artd Stets FlA MarshaN's regultlbna Mvs 6asn cottidlad wah. Prbr ro ooagaray, p4rta snail be eu6rMtted to pN Rancho Cueamortga Fln Prolactlon ONhkt and tlr et+MYrq and Salary Dlvisbn b sNOw conpNVtoe. TM Wlldatp ahaN tr e~paraad for mnplartcs prbr b aowpartry. ~_ a. Revbed sNS plans and buNdatg eWtlbr~ hoorportlMq M Certdltlot~ d Apgovtl shah W suomMed for City Planner rov4w and approvtl prbr b Naurtca d 6ulgrlp pamtgs. 5. ANsge, gradNa,lartdsnps, argaeon, era tltsellrrprpverrNrN plan efWMCOOtdgtstad for corxiiMSrtcy pAOr to ieetrarta d arty pamtge (such a Rttdeq, trN rerrbvtl, erlCloacNMM, Ouil0alq , tlc.), a prbr b INtl map approval b iM CW d a clrgem bt auedwhbn, or approved uss na, oomoartad, whkMvar rnrrlaa fYaL _~ 8. Apprpvtl d dtb rpWq sMN rbl waiW CORiPaaltoa wNh aM aecUOrt d tM oawbpmeM Coda. aN omer appacabM Coy Ordatartwa, and appacabN CarmarNy PtaIM a Spaalk Marts in efleq ai tM tIfIM d tjlrlarp MrrIIN Malrartw. X 7. A amaNad an-tlts Na+ho plan enaN M r.vl.vr.e tlw aaaov.d W tM Ctty P4nner anc SMrNfa Osptllmara (gB9-EB11) pdw b tM bwarkN d EutWNtp pernila, Such plan snal irMkals sryta, iaumaW ion, IOeatlon, Migfa, and tlttlho0 d ahtaldMtg w tl rat b adversel} aflect adlaeull properlMS, 8. II M cenlraMzed trash recapaWa an provrdW, aM Vaah pidwip aftaB Os far ktAvldual unq: wqn aN rsupacks shielded Irom pudk vNw. _~ 9. Trash racaptackfs) an requira0 era shah meat Cry startdarda. iTta httl daabt, bcatbrts and rite numpar d tron raesptatdaa shalt bs strbMa to Cry PlaltrNr rwMw and approve prior to bsuana of Wildirtp permNS. _/_/- J_J J___/~ JJ_ J___!_ J~- J~- J-i_ J_' r- _~ 10. AX ground•mouMad utilNy appunenances such ae IransfortMro, AC anMrmen. etc., shall ~ M boated out of pudk view and adequately scrosnad Ihrgrgh IM use d a tOrMatal'an o1 ~' mncrele or nasonry walla. Dermrrtq, artdror laraacapinp b tM atllMagbn of 1M CAy Planner i 11. Street NRNa shall bs subrNnad for Coy Planner review and approval in accordance wan ~ IM adoplW Stretl Namrq Policy prior to approval of tM linal map. I .~_ 72. Aa Duaoap ralmoen and NtlNidlal units shall a idsntXled in a clear anr! concfes manner, includnp proper ilbnwytbn. 13. A detailed plan irdicalpq tros widdn, rlwrimum sbpea, physical cordabns, lendnp, and weed control, b aoroMarbe wen City Master Trail drawwgs, anae bs sudrillad br City PlannerroNew and approvalprbrlo approval arO remNatlond dN FMwlTraq Mapandprbr to approval of street inyrovsmed arq tYaMnG Plana. Dwebper shatl upprede andconslNCt as trails, irlctudwp lencinp and tlrainape devices, in oonlurbtbn with street alprovements. 14. TM Coveriartn. bt ownero n MIOdMebrl6 insi nave tMOgbnd kaePMq aab arYntala wNnoUt du rtecessiry of aopsalwq to Ooarda d daadon d horrtsownsra' asaocmbro Id amntdrMras to tM CCBRs. t 5. Ths Covenants, Contlebm, and RsetrlabrN (CC81is) ant ArtldM d Incorporatbn d tM homeowners' Aasocytion ire sudleGi b tM appovW d !M PIeIYYIq 9rnd EnpbMrerp Divrobrts ant tM Cay Aaomey. TMy snaa os rsooNW owtamndy wttn IM FurW Map or pror t0 IM issuance d ouildn0 pertrNe, wftidrever ocats Ikel. A reodtle0 copy ehaN 1N providsC Io 1M City EngirNer. ts. AltParlcways, openareas,andlerldecapirpslNS wpMrterNrelymWSastW AytMpropsrty owrNr, Ibmsowvten' assacialbn, Or dlw msaM aocageoN to tM Cay. Proof d this lardsr~pe mailsenartu snag G wonese0lor Csy Plarwr and Cay tcrtpkNer rwNw and appoval Prot to iewana d buadrlp perrltee. t 7. Solar arias easKrterse shall W dWlcaletl Id IM Ptrrpow d atleuMrtp tltas each bt or tlwellktp unll sttae nave tree rqM b receNe wrlMpls atxoee ad~aoele bu W ur114 br use W a solo ensrpy system. The eeaertwres may a ooreaeNd h s DenJerMidt d Reetrktbns loi IM wCNvdbn wltiGl aheN W recorded odroun'KeM wMh ~ reoadslbn of tM IetM map o isatrartce of pMnss. w14CMvM OdrNf Ikq. TIN nsertNras sltY prohEa d» naalrtp 0 shadows W vepsUtgn, atnrdWM, Ihtures or any omK abpp, eapps for awry wires aril smalar ogads, Pu~~ b !)evebprtMd Cods SeWon t 1.0o.oHPC,}2. t e. TM Oroleq corssirN a ranlpnslW HletpksY lertdrrterk. TM ells ehaM W deHloped and rtuueaeNd at aooordenu with tM Hlaorlc tartdntark AaerNblt Perttw No. . Ally IuAMr mDdlticadofN b 1M sae bdudYq, Dul red Mltwetl b, esNAOr aIIKaYbne anNOr Inlerbr aNefatbrlew11k11ar1eOllle estMOrdlMDUStlMlpsor alnldtaee, Ie1110Va1d Ia11d111aM tress, demdabn, nboalbn, reoonslltrctton d Ousdirtps or slnlgtxes, actNtgee to tM she. snap :equity a maddltalbn b dN HNtorb Lardnyrk Merabn Psmat atrCjecl b HistorK Prssarvdbrt Cotmtiasion rNNw and appovy, :. Bull0lnp oeetpn JJ_ J-/_ JJ- J_/~ J_J_ JJ~ J~- JJ~ 1. An asemative eMrpy systems IequirW b provide OdrtteetlC hot wa1K br all dwsNStp unns - arb for Matbp arty swamm~p pool or spa, unlete dhK adrrNtlve eMrpy ggeme are dertbrlstraled to W d equmNnt tipeceY ant e1licNricy. Aa swemtwq pooh wNtawd al tM IRM d nMial dewbpntenl attee tN Nr(7pNmemed wM 701st Mallrtp. ONaile chap W rtbluded in IM Wrgirtp plans ant shall W wOrttelM IK Cay PlarlrNr revinv and approval poor to tM ssuance al purlONtq permee. 2. All tAvellirg7 shall nave 1M IroM, lt0e ant rear elWatlon6 upgratltld with aroMteclural IrealrMrs, tlatarhnq and increased delineatbn d wdau IrsalRNd sugea to City Planner revew and approval poor to awartG d hwlOinq pemals. sc.vsl 3ort7 II ~,~~ „ GuP e .~ q?' Irb s 3. SUnivd palb mvsr Ware for use bl tM ltonieownen' Associatbn shah f>e submitted Ice JJ CM P~ner atd Buibnp Cflkgl review and approval prbrto iseuanmd Widlrq permes. _ 4. M rool appurtenatess, intirdhtp avmnktbr»ra aId dMr rool mourned ewgmam and/or JJ_ Prolectbm, slWl Da Sobbed Irorrr view and the souM hollered Iron ad)aeem progenies and streets se reQtnred 6y eta Planrenp Division. Such sassnirtp snap bs erdlbeeturaNy integrated wNn iM buNdM desgn and mrwlructsd to iM satislaabn d the Clry Planner. DelaNs shall be nroNlded M W adirtp Warw. D. Parking and YMkular ACCaaa (IndlpN W WM on bWMlnp pane) _~ t. AN perkktp bt lerdscape blanch sMN have a mkllttLm ouleda dNnertebn d 81eet and shah J_J_ mmain a 12-N+ch wok atgaeent b iM padrkrp a4N (ktNrArtp pnb). X 2. featured paosstr4n pmttways and tsdufW wwnrra auou argaatbn abNa enaA be JJ- provided t tvougltout tM davelo Prnara b otexNq 4MNFgaAwN W buldkga wah o W n aparws/ plazae/recrsatbnat usn. 3 M PtaMln s aces sMA ba Oo bN trt d CN . p u s x px p y alaMYda aM as drNaway ebbs, J_/_ entrortees, and s.Na sMA W slrlpad par CMy staltdarda. e. AA uMa sMll ba provided wNh garage door opanan A drlysways ale IaN 1Mn 1 B led in J_/_ dagn nom track d skktsvNk 5. 7heCovenanls, CondUlorrand RaakkYbrta snaA raalWtMgorapadractaalbnalvMbNt JJ_ on IMA SAa unbss iMy aro 1M prkteipr aoulp d tlYgpOr1a11g1 br Uta owlrr and proMbll parkkfp oh IMarbr dreulalbn alsNS ditar Ulan M daagnatad vMNa padtYq aver. _~ 6. Pierre br arry saturNy pale sMl W St6nN0a0 Nor iM Cry Plalanr, CaN Ertpktasr, and JJ_ RartcM Cucahtortpa Fka Prolactbn Dletlld trrvyw aMapproval pdab taauanad buNQktp pemtilt. E. Lartdacaptrq (lor pWpdy tntMttlaMraO Yetdatap anM. tWar m 1lactbn N.) ~t. AdelaNed lardscapaaod hlpalbn den. iltcUAlq tUopapWttlnp and nbdatMme tardscaa -J_J_ inp b 1M tare d rr»idantlal dwebplnwa, allaa ba ptapan0 by a aen.ad tandecape arohNedand SUIMatladlof CayPtamar revNweetl approvM prbrb Ilta WoaltoedbuNtlkp parmMa a prbr Iktal map atsprovat b rite cra d a aabm bl attbdtvtabn, 2. E><bnnptrarrpukedrobeprarvadhplacaanMapaacladwtMaaortatnldlonbanlar J.J_ in axoroanuwMh dM Munldpal Code Saabn 19.gE.110, arttl bttdadontltapradlrgparo. Ths bdatbndtltoaatnrbba preaenedMplaca one new locasblr hxMSrrplartledtreea sMN be SlwwnontM MWIad 4ndaeapa plans. 1'M appAeaA ahaAtobw aMd tM atboMt's remmmattdalbna rapardkrp prarrvalbn, transpWttinp and IdmmUrp tMIMdA. 9. Amktkrumd Irarparpross scn,aom(xlaaddmabAaAtnp Sltr,sMAba provWed J.-/_ wshintMpo~aA: K-NE-inch boaOrlarpal, %-76Mtohboaorlaryer, _ % • 21- irtth bo: a hrpar, _ Y. • 15yabn, and _ % • S pabn. e A mrwttum d ,~D _K of traaa planted wiMin Ma pro~acY shtl W spaeYtrn aka ease - J _ _ 2t-irKtl boa or larger. i 5. WUMn parking ids, treat sMll W partlW at a rats d txta 1SytWSn trN br ovary three li ~ __ parkdg stalk, sullbienl t0 shade SD% of iM parktttp ur of sdv noon on /wpust 2 t, _~_ 8. TrNe sMa t>e pante0 in areas of Puotic view adlacem to and abnq suuqures at a rate of one ~v8°06~' uee par 30 rrrar IeN or buikarq. -J-J-- ~7. NpNma abpe baracsSlNlwlsashvartiealMghl antlor 5:l orgraatarsbpe, Dd bsa ltwn JJ- 2:1 sbpe, eha W, al mlfthsrm, impaled and W Wsoaped with epgopnata grwnd Dover br efOSlerl corarol. ~le~a pWahp la(~lNed ~y illb Section aMil IIIChIde a peRlgneM VrIpa110f1 system ro w eletaaed by the dwiopar poor b amKwncy. _,_~a, Nlprnatesbpeehexcessa5laM,DulleeeMan8lNt hvMkal rtaiphl aftda2:t wgreaur -~--~- slope snaY bs IardacapeC and krlpatW Iw eroabn corarol and to adten their appawnu as talbvq: oM t Sgalbn ar IafgN size trN per ead1150 a0. h. of SbIM wa,l9aiiM w larger stze ShNa per each t 00 aa. h. a sbp arw, and approglale ground Dover. In a6drlon, slope banks h ezuess a 8 rear h wnioal iwipta an0 d 2:1 a greyer SbPe elu4 also Yuktos one Sgalbn a larger size VN per each 250 sp. h. d slope afN. TrNS end etaubs anelt G planlsO h stoppered cWtero b adten and vary ebpe paM. Slope parahp reptif W by Mis sauYbn s1taY blade a Darmarrra krgatron syatam b hs heated Dy the develapaf Prbr ro >ry• 9. For sinpb ramlly naidefdal dvabpnaM, a1 slope ptieV aM MIpYM alter W caMinu• .JJ_ ousN mainaYted h a MaaM and MdvYprandabnby tMdewlop~Mtaareadl hdvldtal una h and ardoaxtniW bytM buyer. Prbrto nNtuhp oatapaf¢ylwgweufen, r YuOectbn srtaa d conducted W IM Harrrrtp Ohfiaion to dNemarw Mal Ory w in satldaAOry wrdabn. ~- tq. Foe muaFlamry rosldaMial and ron•mideMlal dewbpmafa, pnmparlY oeetets w reapwt• J_./_ stLN fw IM oortlwaral msirwrwlrw d Y IaMacaPed attics an•sae, a eiea a mrelpuow pantN area srahh dta p+NC rgMal•way. M landacs0atl wa alto ba kap rrN Irom weatle and dbrla and mainlahW h a MMhy am lMvYtY tsnttlrbn, am small recelw regular pfunirtq, 1Mlrzirtp, mowing, aM trMlerirty MY 411MOa4 dead, dWawd, or dcayhp pea masenal soar t» replaced eddtkt ao ors lrom me der d aanlapa. t t. Front Yard landcapaq sNr W rpuNW Oaf tM DevMOpnrnl Cade and lw J___/_ . TNe repukNlNe she W h adOrlon to tM n0uved sweet irNe and sbpe plaMhp. ~_ 12, ihs Ilnal daslpn d lM pMmNN pukways, ware, Irdacapktp, and sidewalu shall W JJ_ irclutlad h dte ragOMUt IartaacaDe pans and tthY ba MtgaC b City Plarntt ravWr and approwl ardaoorohalatl araorriaertcr Mhany pathway WdaoaDYq p4nwfadl may Da required hY tM EtgYNMYp DlvWOft. t 3. Spacial Wftdecapa palwN such a mOtNtMp, arwW rodt, tr7aCY1Mn elm Vans. muuttler• J_J_ inq sidawaru (wah horizOft41 cMrgal. and NaryY1W WtdaapYq, Y rapuMaO awflp ~_t<. l]rdacapirtpard krgMbn ayslamsraquintlb WhgaNW wMdntM ptWe npaq•waY On J_.__/_ tM padnwHf d ItW Prolul ana shah W rnraaaroudy nttlraahtatl hY tM tlawloper. _,~tS.ApwaWeMllWpmWdWwMhdewrbMlnmMN.IIbunNlnpubrcnWrtenanrwarsaa, J~l- tM dagn Mar W Nordauletl wah IM EnpinaaArq DMabn. 16. 7fN rturaanartcti uaarta abet W dvabpW and atiOnYrad for Coy PIaNMf revNw ofd J__J- approval prbr a iaatranca d WYdeq plnMa. ThaN anode she artoawapa tlta rWUral gftTNh tYlaraclMstip 01 Ma auagatl tfN aQeCNa. _,~ 17. Landxapinq ar10 Mrlgalgn Mar M aaaipntl IO OOfINNa Walaf tnratlph ItN pincgN3 OI -.~ ~ . Xenscapa a tlarirted h CMgN 19.18 d tM Rancho Cunrrtonga Murticpal Cade. SC ~ z/91 S of 12 11 y, • 7,r 11 WP ' P~m,° g2,lb F, Sgna _~,t. TM aIVnlMbaledonlMSUdninedplsrro are conceptualontyaM rolapaAd lhls approval. _/_J_ Arty sign proposed for Mh devebpmern shaA wrtpy wah the Sqn Ofdnaroe arM snarl require separate appncatbn and approval by tM Pbnning DNbbn prbrlo irbtallatbn d any sqn. _~, 2. AUnAOrtn Sign ProgremforlMS devebpmern shah lb wErnMed for Clly Planner revbw and J~/- approval prbr to issuaroe d Euiltarq pertnae. 3. Directory monumern slpn(s) shall be provNed for apanmern, condomMum, or IOwnhortya J_l- prlor to acaparvry and st>aM require separate appacatbn aftl approval by iM Plannirq DNbbn prbr Io beuance d 6uilding parmaa. G. Erwlroranatal _^~ t. Tns devebper shag provide each prospectWe dryer wrala notb d the Fwnn Skeet Rod J~/_ Crusher poled in a lnandard bnnat u datamwnd by are Cay Planer, prbr to aecsporq a caen depose on arty ProPeAY, ~_ 2. Tae devebper ihaA provde sadt prospeaWa tuyar wANn ndbe d do CIy Adopted --~-J- SpeWl SkrdNe Zon fa tM Red MM Fault, h a learNVd lorrrtr a dNerrtanad W lM Cay P4raNr, prbr b aaepirrg a aeh deDoea On arty propaAy. _~, 3. TM devebper abet! provide eacn proepedhN Guyer wrtlert rolba d IM FoothM Freeway ~J_ props In a standard lorrttat as detemwled by tM Cry PWatar, prld b llgCapAYp a ern depoeA a any pNpsrly. I. A nrul acoustkW report roan W suomlAed br Cny Plwtar revNw and approval prbr b the J._J- iseuaru of a,ibx,g permae. The anal apart sIW eacuea IM NvN d raerbr nobs aAanuatbn lOtMbw aSCNEL,iMbulkatq masnaNand oonelnrllbrltedtMgtras povbed. arN aapprgpAab, veraytMadequacydtM rrYtgalbn manrm.TM buPtllnp plan wal Ue crlecked br cordortnonce wiM iM rrWlpadon maasdea goraabW N IM final report. If M. Omar Aparblp 1. Emergency aecormaryaocsat ehNDe provNW baopotdartcawiM Raab Ctroarttangl Fire --~J- Prdedbn Dlelnd slandarda. 2. EmergerlcryaoceeaaMllWprovbed.rtulraenrtahaearotdar,amWmrmd2aleatwies J-l- at aM ItRN6 durY4 Nrl/lrtrQbn In aoco/darbe vAlAl Ranch Cucartbnpa FiN Prptoclbn OWrld rqukamems. 3. PMr t0 Wuartca d OundYq pemMt fd conEuatlOM oorrtnrttlon, avldertce sMlt M ~ _ _~ sudMAatl b IM Rancho Grnmorlga FlN Prdeabn DMirIG ihr lerrtporary wtlM supply for Ilro protedbn Y avaaabM, Mrtdkq mntpMtbn d nprWd nN prdagbn synam. !. The appanJN ihaa aordad iM U. 5. Postal SeMCe b dMarlrlkr IM appropAale typo and - bcatipn of maa oases. Mua4lanaly residannal dawbprNraa shau provNa a soMd overhead slnrcture for mail ooaae wiM adaputle MOhtA+g. TAN IYtal IooYYbrt d tM rasa oases and tr deegn d iM overhead a1NC111N shad be stAled to CMy Plartlw ravMw arts apgoval prgr to iM iaeUarlta d Wilding t»mlAa. 5. For propels usirlq seplb tank lacildies, wrtnen ceAMbalbn of accaptaoMky, inctudirlq an suppatfve rdormatbn, sash a odansd Irom tM San 8arnardkto Couray DapaAmarn of EnvnonmeNal Meallh and Aromated to Ina 8uildlrtg OMbW pAOr b tM faauarrw d Septic Tank PsrrrMS. and prbr to rawance of W iMktg perrrsla. APPLICANTS 9NALL CONTACT TIE WILDING AND 9AFtTY DIVISION, (Tt1) 99>f1a03, FOR COYPIJANCE WITH T1E FOLLOWING CONDITK)NS: I. SYe Denbplnerd ~ 1. iTeapp3carsDnaYCOnY7lywilhlMWtestadopedUnYwm&ilbkgCada,UniformMechani• J_J-._ ral Coda UnNOrm PtunWNq CoW, Na1brIW ENgrto CoG, and ao dMr aq>Ik:ade oodss, oNinancss, and requlatorw In ellett b iM tlrM d mauance d rolaWe Ixmvls. Phase cornaq the Buiklkp and Saley ONiekN1 Iw topfee d IM Code Adogbn ONkwae and applioaDle Mn0o1AS. 2. Prior to iseuana d Wildkp Pamela for a new nederdel drreYYp urYlp) or myor addYfon -/.-/_ - toexietkpunele),lM appYranl shaepaydevebpniemlea aldw ratabYenrq rne. Surillees may iriakrde, o1A are nor wrieed lo: Clly 8eeutlik:elbn Fee, Park FN, OrabuOe Faa. Syatams DavabpMnl Fn. Pertral and Plan Chetlceq Fep, yd Sdod Fep. ~_ 3. Prbr b iseueriu d buildkrp prmrwe far a Haar rnrlenerdsl or krduYdtl dmbprMnl or _J_J- aodlllon b an exipinp 0evebpnrrl4 iM appYUnl eIW pry developrrlere tea at tM estadNMd tale Sucn lees may kicUde, oIA an nd Nm11er1 b: Sywme DevebpMnt Fse, ,I Dranape Fes, Sefe)ol Fees, PemW ar10 Plan CheCkkp Feee. ___,Ll__ 4. SUeetaddresaasehallMprovidedaytMBuidYpOlllciel,allertrecYpereelmaprecordation -1-J_ and pbr fo iaeuarln d buadYp pemw. J, Ealeflnp StfDClYpe 1. Provide wrtpaarlcs with iM UrWOrm Bw1Ybp Cade br the progeny few dearanaes I ~J - oweideMq use, one, and Yre+seirlverra d edetep Wllarpe. 2. Exstlnp WYdkrpe sMll a made b auf4N Mdtlf forted wYdrq acrd sorlerp fepuWioru kk I J-~ - IM rnlerded uee a iM OYYOYp eflaY W dertaNYlwd. J. ExfwrgSewapedisposalladlYlesehaYwnmoved,IMdarapacappedbaortpywithtM I JJ - Urklortn Purtekrp Code am UrWam BuYOYp Code. 1. UnWrgnund onelt~ ulWee an b Oe bcalW arq Mown on OuYdnp pWq aupnWted for J-1 _ aurldkrp WmW appYrallon. K. GrWlnp _~ t . Grading d tM wgep progeny ensY 6e ~ aeaardrbe wYlr YM UNlatn BuNdinp Code. City J_J.- Cxatlep SlsrderW, erd aeaple0 padYtp prapicea The IYW psanp p4n afWl Oa m suoelanlw rnrrorltrerloe wI1A pr approved padirp plan, 2. A soYS roppl slrel be prrperW py a puaNlkNl rlrlgrleer MCNred py tM State d CalYOmia to J~ - perlortn eueh wok. 3. Ths dwebpmeds boded rvYflirl tM aoa eroebn o0eld Oourtderln; a SoY ONtwbance _J ~ _ Perm) k regrYed. Phase eonaa San BerrwdlraCaunly DepuDners a AprkUYure al (711) J8T-2ltt for PemMappealbn. Dowrrwreanonof ludl penny efleY be wenwletl tolM Cay i poor b IM iawarlee d ralrOtl padfnp perry. -_,~ 1. A geabgrcal fapon StgY W Wepafed DY a W iWled ertyrleer Or Oeob9let and wDmined al -- -.. lM IYIN d appkcalgn br graWrq plan cMedl. ~ V 5. ThelinalpradirgpWtesnaNDecortpleledandapprovWpbrblNUalleedbuYdrtppertnds '~ ~ -- i SC ~ 7/91 70f la 11~,~`n wr ' ~-~~~Z_'10 ~„~~.~ 8. Ae a grebmbl subdNisbn, the following reWiromerris shall M met: a. SUroy efldMOOatsdand an agroemem exerted guaraMeeMlg cdrobtbndan an-site ---~J- dreitrape feCeltleb neeeeeary br dewtlerlrq an parceb to IM stlMadbn d IM l3rribeq and Sauey DMSbn prbrto final mapapproval and pnorto me ivuarres a gradkq pemds. b. Aopmpryts eaasmems br sale disposal d drainage water mtl are oondwled orito -JJ- or over a0)eceM pareaN, are to W deanatled and recorded to rM stlylapbn d iM Buildhtg and Sahry olvlebn pnd to latuerpe d gradMq and buedrr, permits. c.On•sae drainage ingrovemems, nacaveary lordawtlareq and pretectN.p tM suhdNided JJ~ propenba, are t0 bs inetaaed prbr to Iseuana d dabaq pamiy br oontlruGbn upon any wretl mtl may ba wbbd b dralneq nave emerap, ynrMg, or wahln a parcel roylNa b whim a WikAng permit is requeded. d. FMaI predFq pyre for each Wrctl are b W subnYlled b tlu BundYq end Satsy -J-~- DHbbn for approvtl prbrto ytllence a OuAdMgand prdrq plmWs. (7}W m.y oa on an irlerarlleretl a mnpoeae W W.) s. All ebpa berWS b eKCaea a 5 yN b vMbel MIgM and De aeadad wan naava graaaas JJ- or pynlsd wah glourtld7verbraldabn taral0l upon oonplNbn d patllflg d Boma Omer aaertWlw mtlhod a aroNd, arorel shd W cdrpytedatM aatyleabna tlo euibing Oflbld. In addabn a parmanare wrgetbn system ahd w prwbad. TNS re4airemenl does not reyaea iM ~bper from oompAarce wtlI tlM sbps plarNYq requlremenb d saubn 17.08.1)•01 d tM DavebprMrr Cool. eVgJCANT SNALL CONTACT THE ENGINEEAMV60MSION, p7a)88F1iUt,fOR COMrWNCE 'NI'N THE FOLLOWING CONORIONl: ' ~ 'vdkatbn and VMIeuYr AecMe _ _ 1. Rghy-a-way and easameme ehd W dadlcale0 b tM CNy Ia d NlNrbr pWAc tlroeU, J_l- tomnuniy IreAs, puDMe paeea, puEAe Wttllcapa araaa, tlraN Ireea, aftd pubac drainega IaCYNys a, slgwn on tM pyM and/d tamanw map. PrlvMe suarMraa for rbngrENc IacilMNS (aou-bt dghapa, bcal laa0a11reW, ale.) talc a rasarNd at mown on ma pare anNa tamalNe reap. _,'~ 2. oedbalbn shall fH mach d 8ta Io10sMn0 rlOMSOfrray on tM parMntler llraats -J-J_ (measured Irom stretl urdedM): ~~Itar laat on ~!~ per. ptUG fir' L7 rtorr Nat on {~~'IU ~ l ~~ . 3 I taN feet on ~j,~1~N.lX MLA ~ . taal laat on _ -9. An irtevor,0le onerddaokallon for -Igd wbsloadwayaaamara lltaAW made I .J-'- IOr all privtle streaa a dlNtl. _ ~ e. Non-vehicular aot»sa sMA Da Oadkatad to IIN CMy la Uta blbwirq alraala: ' J _, S. Reciprocal access eassrMm! sIW qe provided anwritq sasses b an panaay W CCBRS . -. or W weM and snag Os rsmrded corcumnay wah tlta map a prior to IM hwana of buoditp pemMS, wMrs rb map b irrvohad. li 6. arNNe tlnNape aaaemenU ror croaa-bt drainage shallWprovged and 9ltallbe oeiinealed ar r>aal on tM flrW map. 7. 11te Ilnal map ehaY abady delNteale a 10.faa minimum building rostrlclion area on 1M niystdMtp bt adbirsn0 tM zero bt lino waM arq prsaln the toWwing larquags: 'lhY~ fters0y dsdcare n fM City of Rerrcfq Cucamonga fn ngM fo Pron.Ert ttra cvnsrrurxbn d (rosidsntialJ yuiMings (or otlrer swcrurosJ wdnin oass aroas dssgrured ~, on me mqo as Orritlirlp rosbidon oral.' A maintenance agraernent SIUY aNO W pamal Iron eseh M to tM ad(aced bt ttwgph tM CCBWe. ~8. All ezistirq easlmsnb yirgwilMnluhue rgMaot•wq stWlWquawmalNdeYnNal on IM Iknl map. _~ 9. Easenwrss for pubac sldewaers anNor WeN trace pNpd Oub10e IM public rlpM-of•way stwl W dalicatal to tln GYy wMrswr bey erluoarll orso prNaN progeny. 10. Addtbnal street r1gMo1-way a1ta1 W dedcalal abrtp rlplY lttm larlse, b proWM a minimum d 7 NN nleawral horn tM lap d ar1M. M Wrb agadre eNNwasr M wed sbrq tln riyrl tum Ian, a parWN1 sfrNt ono melnenarce sassmwd of W W pmMdW. ~_ t t. The devebpershNl melee a IloodfalM coon b attquW bN reprYal dl•eae pfaprry Naarerds necessary b oorlilnrrz tlN npulal publb krgloNmerYe. and Y Iteyhe eMrrW NY b do ao, tM Wvrloper shas, at Nast 120 mYs prior b wdtW W a tM MY my br appmvN. enter ino >n egreelMM 10 prrpMe tM artprovenwras purwrL b CiovsrrrMra Code Segbn 8BA82 atauchtllnastMCbala7uWalMproperryirselaasrepllkallorthsbtpovamerss. Such agreerrlers shall povide ror prymers by tM deveggrd a1 Cash trlaxred by IM CYy to artWire 1Md1-silo property iMmMerapuind trtcoraladlonwltlt the IarbdvlMOn. Sawmy for a podlon d tMw rsen enw W h IM loan d a can rleposY h bla emaar qNM n an appraisal report adatrte0 by tM Oevetoper, at rtwelopefs coM. TfN epprsueer sMll Mve Wen approval W tM Csy prior b pmmennmMM d tln appralw. M. Strati ImproverMrrta 1. M prAlic irrprWMNds (irpdor elreeb, dratrlape locales, gorlstsaYly traMs, paseos, IarWwped aroo. ele.) mown an Lr darr. sndar terltatM rrlap Nlas W cgWrudal t< Cky SNndartls. IMedW suety intpwrlrtwras shay MtCMlde, but aA rtd YRWed b, orb an[ gutter. AG pawned. OIM aDWOSOhas, aidawasu, street YpMa, and atnN trNS. 2. A rrirwnum d Za• lad wtM pavenlers, wYMt a ~0 and elide tNtllGital npLatitray shah bl corgtructad IOr aN haY~epbrt s1rNtl. J. Construct tlN IObwirtQ paMr1N streN InpbwrMrtla YIWdMp, bU rql YItWe010: SITtEGytlAS2 Ctllb• OI717Vt AC. Ptnrf smL WMJI DWVL APPII, SIHLtt UOtft9 Shay 71bLa COIDa. THAIL g1.tHD OTHER f tf~~ ~ c x f x JJ- J_J_ J___/_ JJ~ _/_/- J___I_ JJ_ JJ- J~- 9C ~ 1/91 a of 19 !; ~ A~31r . Nose: (s) McAan Ialand IncNdea Wndacapirp and krlpapon on meter (b) Pavsmerd ' retonatn;otbn and wenaya wdi bs Oelertnkred duAnq pan check. Ic) n so marked, side- wah enaa W Curvlkrear osr Si . fie. (d) N b maned, an irFlkn of cormtructlon tee snap vided for drJS Nsm. C ~. e.,t hue bRV ! lens r ~jy~y~ 1111 ~.fa r4.,rr.. ~ (lal..fi~ ~_ a. Inprovertrem Warn and ccrtalnxabn: a. Sheet irrpovemsnl pane Ircardkq atrsal ttsaa aM a1rrM aphta. Prepared by a rsgle- JJ_ feted Chid Engineer, strait ps awntNtw b artl appmwd M tM Clry 6gMeer. Secvrtry strati W poaled and an aprssmml sawnad to Nre aatWadbn d iM CNy Enpkusr and tfre Cly AndnNy guannteektp oerrylatiorl of Vre PtrtiaC aetdbr PrWaN meM Nryrws- msrsa, Prkrro wralmap aPpro'ral «ine tewance a tatlldlrq pemtq, wltlcMver oavre 1kat. b. Prbr b arty work belrtp parbmred h IarOac rgMot-way, tea enaa W paid and a J-J_ coretnrctbn wrrrMt snarl be otasared from tlw Clly ertpawera onke In aoAtbn b any atwr parrtila repukad. c. Pavertwn atdpkp, madtarp, frank, mat name etgrtap, arW Manbmea oondtdt JJ ltlaa W ktelaaad b tM arWaGllorl a are CNy EnpYUSr, _ d. SipuloortdtdlwehlaisboaaelrMwlrrtwdansnyrrawoorralnaxon«reoormtnpbn J_/ a nWa,seooMW«msedror Mresla wtrkh kaarapwan ontar rria)or, aaoortdary Or _ cossa« streets rot knot. tranlc aionw. Pw Ooaq shai a plaoad on lava, sides a nra atreetr3teraulettleaBCR, ECRaanygMrbalpnaapptgr.dpylMCNyErglnaar. Nda: (1) NI pua bean >hL W Nd. n laeea o1MrwYe apecaNd by Ina CNy Ettyrteer. J~_ (2) ConduN lhaA W J-krGr 9N'anized ral wNh puMOw. s. VrTNeI auir nnys ahY be kwtased on ad lour aorrwa a Maeraectbrr per Clly J-~- Stantlaroa «a dMeAed by tM City ErgNteer. t. Enhtlng CN road~.taQtitrkrp caMruotlon atd rerrraMr open b bank r tl tYrta wnh JJ- adaprraledelaxadurktpoorMnrt9«t. AaaM UOSUn penrll ttry ba raqutred. Awh OeweN sNta 4 tawaw b oowar the oor a aaarq sne patdrip, wNCh shM a relurrded won geny4lbh a tM rnrrnnsdton ro the ssdWaellpn a tM clty EnpMteer. g. c«tc.nvr.eawuo.row.awnaaaanew.aw. urwrald.wa~awr ahod a J~_ irgtaald b cNy SUrtlrda. aapt rot ekrgla tamlly bla. h. Hanacap aooaa tarry d.egn anti 1» a apadtled h tM clry Enpn.«. J~- i. sln.tnrrwanre.+yao„wwmaeNyPl.rn.rpnarowernNturor+katpunenack. J--- s. sveet inyrov.rrrn purr per cry surw.tw 1« at pMre atnets shoo w proMded rot J-/ _ rwMw aro spprovr W ttr clly Ertptrteer. Prbr ro any work laaktp perbmw0 on me pri- ~r. streets. lees etw a wa and aanan,awn permlle mall W obWrrd from me cny ErtgneKS Only n addllbn ro any outer pemtNS rewind. 8 Slr«t t . rees, a mNrntm a tsgabn E1Te «larper, stwl be nrailW per Clry Standards in ~ J- atxordance weh nN CNy'a street fns program. ~, r......ao. rh.. V 7. Iraereedbn area of sNe deserts shah De reviewed by the City Erpineer for wnlormance wren adopted poMcy. I ~_/_ a. On mNtebr a nrgar streets, Nnse of spM shad De pbned for aN Proied IrNersecliona, ulcludYq trNeways. Wab, sans. and sbpas shwa ba heated rwtsida the lines of sqM. 1-andeoapYq aM o11Mr obstrudbns wehin ttN Iinas of sqM srlaa be approved by Itr Crty ~rlpjrleef. D. Local reeWmlal street iraersttsbre stuN nave ttgk nolluaoilNY reproved, uaaNy W rrlovlf/a IM 2 t/-cbseal street trsason each she awaylrom the straM amt pyced In a street tree easemers. _~ 8. A pemvl ttas be )ootaw~ CALTRANS for arty wont wMlvn tM bttowgtp ripls-d•way: 9. AN publb irtprovemeras on dte bsowlrq straMa ehal W ot)eralbrWly oDllpleta Pdor to IM i9duartCa d buil0lnp parrrtilt: N. PtlDlk aYNSSarnrlp ArNa 1. A aepante set a nrtdsoapa artd ~D~ Pin DH Fltpanerlrp vtrbac wales StaMarde snaM W submatad 10 vn Cry fytpYntr br mrnw aM appowl prbr b NrW map approval a' 4suatce d buildYlp pamna, whkMvtr oocvra that. TM bbwtnp taft0ecapt parkways, merlons, paasos, sauments, veils. a otlnr areas art rspulnd b W amtssad Into the urtdxape Malraanarca Ontrbt: 2. A sipnsd constrr am wawerrorm to pNt arWaform tM approprltu Larldacapa and 6igMirq Ontrips shah W IlNdwiM IM CNy Erplrnar pAOrbtlnal mapapgovalor 4attartca d tariblrp permaa wlkchavar oowa IYp. FOf111Ybn OOaO attaa l>• bMM by dra r]avebpar. 3. AN repliradpuDNcnraacaprtoandkrtpalbnsyaama aMllaoarkwwtymaYttarndbYtne dweloper urI1N aoapad by tln CNy. ~_ t. PaMwq WMacapYtQ tlo lM tdlowlrp ranal(f) daa oorram b do raadla d tM raepaaiva Beautabatbn Mahar Plan: O. ~nlnapa and Flood Carrot ~. Ths ProNOt (or prsnbrn tfnrtol) b Mra1W wNtan a Flood Huard Zan, thartrora, lbo0 proradbn ttwtna aftal Dt ptpvidad a caANtad by a rapWarad ChM Ertpnaar and approved by do Cry EnpYnar. 2, It shad W tM davabpah ItaponalDiNy to Iwo Un Arrant FIRAA ZoM deeprtalbri rtrrbvtd from IM proNq area, TM dawbper't artpYwar ettaN prWara aN rnussary report, Wane. aro hydrologr/ttyWauac calwntlorn. A CrNtdNbnal Laver of Map Revnbn (CLOMR) sttaN W oDtaintd holm FEMA prbr b fYnl leap approval or issuarta d WildNtq permits, MlicMvaraaura Ilrtt. A lasard Map gaviabrt (CONK) sna t>• isaUed Dy FEMA prbr b oaupancy or inplovannM aCppnnG, w111GMVH OOLLrE IirS' J___/_ J~- J-/_ J-1~ JJ- ~J- _1J_ ~J- _J_J- J__J- 3. A final drairtapa study SnaN W glbrrntad b and approved by Ifn CNy ErtpinNr prior to final ~ -. map approval or tM usuana of buddirp parents, wnrcfyvar occurs Ilrst. NI dralnaga lacnaits shah ba insUNSd as replrrad by tM Cay Ergwrtr. SC•7/al Ilof 17 ll ~ ~~ II wr Pm~,.n gZ~14~ + ~. A genet hom IM Cwrey FboO Comro+ tAsulp is required for work within as rgMOf-way. ~ rJ- 5. Trey are proMDltad wiMn S lest of the ouUide Wameter of any prrbNC storm drain pipe measured ln>rn d+e outer etlga d a maturo tree trunk _/J- B. Prrblk sbmr droNt eaaemeas shah De graded to convey dvsdbws In iM event d a JJ- bbdrape In a sump nbt+ DaeNl on Me pudb street. P. UtllttNa _~ t. Provide separate utility lervlCea to seen Paipl N+cUdirW w+Nary sewerage system, water, JJ- gas, electric power, teleplar+e, arl0 cable N (ace uMergr«d+d) h aooordarrn wNh IM UMAy Standards. Easements shah M provided ae required. _~ 2. The dsvabper shall be rospoMibN for iM rolocalbn d s><istkp N1NNs as necessary. JJ- ~_ 3. Water and sewer p4ro snag W dsagned ar+d oonMNded b meet aN reprkemmae d IM JJ- Cucarr+onpa County Wa1N Obtrkl ICCWDI. Ranch Cudarnalga Fla Pro1WkM DlsirlU, and IM ErMromronlal Neaan Depatrtrro d 1M Com+tY d Sb+!lerrmo7rb. A latter d mrrefNanca Iron tM CCWD b regWrad prbrrolNgl map approval «WtrrbadpemlNa, whbMver owns INST. O. CMnaral Mqukarnana and Apprww _~1.Theseparals parulscoMakvedwMNn dte pro~aa OOUrrdarlaa anaaMlapaNy rsrtbinal Noo JJ- oM parcel prbr to laawna d bWCNq pemlaa. 2. M eaaamera br a pklt uw dMawry ahd W provtlal prbr b INW map appmvat « iswarlco d builoN,p pamWa, wnlaMVar aawn Mp, Ior. JJ- JJ J. Prror to approval d iM IkW map a dapbaM snag a posted wiM die CNy oo++M^D Ute sstknalad ooh d apponloNnO Ula aaaaaartrru urtdar ArrwaMra Dlatrbt anbrq IM r+ssry oraatal paroela. ~. Ethvandal5an SeNN'M Ma Heglorul MablaM, SemMary Hegl«rl, and MaaNr Plan JJ- Drainapa Few of all W peal prbrto hW map aDDrot'al «pd« b OutldMtp penal iswanca if M map is irlvolvad. S. Psmvla !tree W obUNNd hom It» b1aWp aparteMa kx work wltldn tltaN dpht•ol-wsy: ~ JJ- 8. A sgned c«rara and waMw torn ro W„ anN« brm lM law Err«cerrrara ComminNy J-J. FaaMln OMtriq shat M Mad with IM City ErpiMar prbr to anal map approval or tM issuance d WMelnp gentle, w1AGtawr Down hat. iormabon aoeb and ba tlorM W the Dsvsbper. ). Prgr l0 Onali=atlon d arty davaloprMnl phew. sultldara NnprovamMl pWM shall ha com• J- pklal beyond tM pnasa Doultdarlw ro atuun aacorldary aocaaa aro daittapa paaabn ro IM salelaabn o11M Cky Ergalaar. Phaaa bourtdarMa ahd oonaaapond b bt Nrlsa shown do IM approval IarttalNa msg. RESOLUTION N0. 92-151 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CZTY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING, WITHOUT PRE.IUD ZCE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 92-IR FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A COMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTER CONEISTINC OF A 75,000 SQUARE FOOT GROCERY STOREr TWO SATELLITE OUILOINCS OF 3,500 SQUARE FEET EACH, AND A DRIVE-THRU PA{7 OF 4,RD0 SQUARE FEET ON 10.6 ACRES OF LANG IN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (SUBAREA 2) OF THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED AT SHE NORTHWEST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND VINEYARD AVENUE, AND MAKING PI ND INGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 207-302-03, 5, 8, 15, 20, 21, AND 49. A. Recitale. (i) Smith'• Food 6 Drug hoe filed an application Eor the issuance of Conditional Uae Patmit No. 92-1R as tleeciibed in the title of thi• Resolution. Hereinafter in thin Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "[ne application." (ii) On the Stn day of December 1992, Lhe Planning Commies ion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticetl public nearing on the application and concluded said heating on chat data. (iii) At eha conclusion of the above-noted public nearing, the Planning Commission directed staff to propare a Reeo luClon of Denial for approval by the commission on December 15, 1992. (iv) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of Cnis Reeolution have occurred. B. Peso lut ios. NON, THEREFORE, it ie hereby found, de[erminatl, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the Clty of Reneho Cucamonga as tollowe: 1. This Commission Hereby epecif ically finds that all of Lne facto cot forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Reeolution are etue and corracC. 2. Based upon •ubetential evidence pteeenesd to this Commission during the above-referencetl public hearing on December 9, end eontlnued to December 15, 1992, including written and oral etaf[ reports, together with public testimony, ehie Commission hereby spec if ically finds ee follows: (a) The application applies CO property located et tAs northwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and Vlneyerd Avenw with a •c root f roncege of 770 teat along Foothill Boulevard end a let depth of 7B0 Ease. The propoeatl site Ls composed of ewsrel parcel and le proeently improved w itn a vacated roller rink and rest saran[, a tree-•tendinq vacated rostnu rant and associated parking lot with landscaping, and a one-story, wcod-framed ree idence; anA PLANNING COMNISSION RE50(.UTION NO. 92_151 CUP 92-18 GENIAL - SMITH'S Oecombsr 15, 1992 Page 2 (D) The propert lea to the north of the subj act •lt• ors pectially vacant and developed with two apartment buildinge, the property to the south coneise• of vacant property south of Poothill sou laverd, the property to the east ie Commercial east of Vineyard Avenue, end the property to the west ie the Cucamonga Channel; end (c) The application contemplates the development of a 75,000 square toot grocery etora, two ea tell lte buildinge (B 6 C) compziced of 3,500 square Eeet each, and a dive-ihru pad co ns Lsting of 6,800 equate feet; and (d) Ths applicat ion, ae proposed, would be tlettimental to the public health, saEaty, and welfare and does not comply with each of the applicable provisions o[ the Oeva:apment Coda end iM Poothill 0ou LVard Speclilc Plan foi the followSrg reaecns: (1) Ths arch itacture and related des lgn •lemsnb within the proposed project, ae rd leered Ln ULe eppllcat ion, era not consistent with tM goele, policies, and daeign guidelines of eM Foothlll Boulevard 5peclCic Plan which etatee the follow inq: 1) In Sect ion 4.5.1, that vehicular Graf tic through adj avant rss ident ial streets shall be minimlxed; 2) In Sset ion E.2.2, that Act iv Lty borer park log lots dominai log the etrNt scene era epscitieelly prohibited end auto-related fedlLtiu (i.e., working bays, storage, etc.) shall ba ecraened ar oriented away from public views, buildinge shall ba cited and designed to minimize pedestrian/vehicle cen[licb and evo id lover ing drlveweyc and eervlce araac which lnisrfete with the flow of Foothlll Boulevard pedcct[ian movements; J) In Eeet ion 8.2.5, that !n Activity Cencsr locations the parking areas shell De located to the rear of buildinge; and 6) In Section 9.4.3, that parking late between the Eront property line antl major etructure• are strongly discouraged. (]) Ths design of the 5m lth'e store, ae proposed, provides loading dock [acllit ise on the seat and west cidce of the stove which face Foothill Bau Uvatd end an, there[ore, in<oneistmt with ehs design of other major cupermarket• in Rancho Cucamonga which Eront onto major thoroughfares. The location and orientation of loading facil it lea are typically provided along iM rear elevations of grocery store and/or chopping cenGn to concul delivery act lv ity from public view, perilcularly In an eras which is cone ldsrsd to be a major gateway Lnto the wutcrn section o[ the C lty. (]) Tha location o[ the loading doeke create potentially dangerous vsAieular confllcte between truck and ear traffic within the perking lot. In addition, ouch a potent Lally dangerous and confusing Graf lie pattern within the parking lot sou ld be hazardous to pcdcctriene snterinq and salting tM store. (6) Truck traffic along San Bsrnerdinc Roed and truck ingrae•/agrees from end to this street which Ls proposed by the project alb dacign, is undeeirebls to exist inq ree idencee along both sides o[ the etreet. CUp 92-1e DENIAL - aM2TH'S December 15, 1992 Page 3 3. Baeed upon the su6etantial ev itlence presented to this Commies ion tluring the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of Yacte ee[ forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commies ion hereby firda and concludes ae folLowe: (a) That the proposed use ie not in accord with the Cenazal Plan, the obj actives of the Development code, and the purposes of the diaerict in which the site ie located. (b) That the proposed use, [o9ether with the condltiona applicable thereto, will ba detrimental to the public health, aaEaey, or welfare ar materially injuricu• to properties or improvamenb in the vicinity. (c) That the proposed use does not comply with each of the applieab le provisions of the Development Coda and Foothill Boulevard Spacif is Plan. a. Baaed upon the Eindinga and coot lueione eat forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commies ion hereby denies, without prejudlp, tM application. 5. Tha Secretary to this Comolaa ion shall certify to the adoption of this Rseolut ion. AP'P''R1O-VED AND ADOPTED THIS 15TH DAY OP DECEMBER 1994. PLANNING COnN yaSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CVCAMONCA // n )_ \. n 7. /MeNlal, Chairman ATTEST I, Brnd Buller, 5eeratary o[ the Planning Commieaion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby cart iEy Chet the foregoing Resolution wee duly and regularly introduced, paeaed, and adopted by the Planning commlaelon of the city of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commiaeion ha Ld on the 15th day oC December 1993, by eho following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CN ITI EA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISS IONEAS: MELCHER ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Mr. 9uller agreed It would be appropriate to remove all portions of the wall in that area because of the condition of the number of lots in the a[ea. ! Cha irman. MCNiel questioned if the City awns Lot C from the adjoining tYact. Mz. 9uller s[atetl the City does own the land and wi71 qu iC claim it to the lots being ere ated with the su bdiv ieio n. Chairman McNiel queer io netl the disposition of the area marked natural at the southern portion of Lot 19. Mr. Coleman noted [hat Engineering Condition 5 r~qu fires the developer to make a good faith effort to offer it to the owner of Lot 44 to the went bec auae of the difference in grade from the remainder of Lot 19. r' Chairman McNiel observed that the motion hatl been made and seconded to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the feeolut ior. approving Tentative Tract 14116 with mod Lf ieetion to combine driveways of• two of the lots at the end of Santa Clare Court. Motion carried dy the following vote: AYES: COMMI55IONERS:r CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERQ: NONE ABSENT: COM.M I55IONERS: NONE ~-carried i~ ` Chairmen McKie l.moted that the appeal process was available to the res identa of the comm~ytiy. He stated that an alternative of working with the developer wo/u ltl//al/eo~e available. ' eT'F Plann inq Cortmiseion recessed from 8:56 p.m, to 9;10 p,m. '~ I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL VSE PER. IT 92 18 SMITH S - The development of a commercial shopping center consisting of a 75,000 equ are foot grocery stare, two satellite build loge of 7,500 square feet each, and a drive-thru pad of 4,800 aquars feet on 10.6 acres of land in [he Community Commercial District ~5ubarua 2) o[ the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard end Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-102-0 J, 5, Br 15, 20, 21, and 49. Sta[E recommends issuance of a mitigated Nagat five Declaration. Beverly Niaeen, Aee oc late Planner, pzeae nted the staff report. Brad Buller, City Planner, noted the[ the City had received letters trom adjoining property owners expressing their concerns and those letters were in Front of the Commieeloners. Commissioner Toletoy asked if any lines of sight had been prepared to show the view of the Crack loading and ehopp inq car[ areas from Foothill Boulevard. Planning Commieeion Minutes -11- December 9, 1992 Exhibit `1D" He. Nieeen stated there had been sketches of the areas but they were as viewed from the site, not Erom Foothill Ooulevartl. commissioner Tolstoy asked if [here were any provisions Eor recessing any vending machines which may be placed in front of the store. Me. Nieeen respontled that the applicant had agreed co recess any vending machines but a condition had no[ been adtled. Chairman MCN iel opened the public hear in9. Larry Kiang, Smit h'9 Footl 6 Orug Center, 1418 Thomas Place, Fort Worth. Texan, stated their far ilit its are combination supermarket and drug aroree. He stated they had surveyed the trade area and selected the site as being the beet location- He ind is atad they had purchased arx parcels of land which represented a eubetant ial investment in the community. He stares they hatl been in the entitlement process for 18 months and ha felt their project woultl clean up a blighted entrance into the City. Ne requested [hat the application be approved because they were anxious to proceed buf they were concerned regarding soma of the conditions. He said their architect and engineer were present and would ask spec if LC questrona about the Condit ion e. Commissioner MelcheY observed the Commise ton had received Eour letters from property owners an Sen Bernardino Road indicating that Smith's had bean in eeerow et one rims but had since decided not to purchase those props re ire. He requested chat Mr. K1 ang glue Boma input on the matter. Hr. Kiang et eted that at one time those three propect tee had been under contract and smith's hatl put up a substantial amount of earnest money, but Smich'e decided to forfeit the earnest money because [hey did not feel they could get effective use Erom that much lantl in the development and meet the City's and Sm reh'a requirements. He said they could not get enough building area in the total pco)ect co justify the purchase of [hose additional properties. He said they had therefore decided tb scale dawn [he project. Prescott Muir, P[aecott Muir Arthicecte, 1744 Berkeley S[reeC, Santa Monica, thanked staff for working with them during the Design Review process. Ha Eelt conelderable changes had been made and the project had bean cone iderably improved by the procaa •. Hs remarked thet when they originally submitted the project [hay used a generic store size of 75,000 squera Eeat, but the actual footprint of the score had been reduced to 71,420 square Eeet with mezzanine specs producing a 79,551 equate foot store. tie statetl that Bmitn'a does not anticipate locating vending mach toes in front of Cha store, but they would be willing to enclose any machines iE they should decide to add Chem in the future. Na stated plane for such archit ec[ucally treated enc loeures could be provided error to pulling build rnq permits. He showed Che it proposed grey concrete tila to be used in place of Che originally propoaetl teal color. He proposed that she blue-green paint finish be used on the window mullions and the glazing tint also be blue-groan, but ea rd Choy would conerder changing iE the Commission Ee It that would be inappropriate. He said they had some roncerne wren rood it tons as out linetl rn cha proposed resolution. He Bard they uou ld irks to move the project forward and did nor want the concerns to ba an P18nnrng Comm rssibn Minutes -14- December 9, 1992 impel invent to the proce sa. He requested that the OniEcrm Sign Program approval not be requlr¢d prior to issuance of building perm it e, but rath¢c prior to is suan~e of a cart if irate of Occupancy, He observed that in their experience CalTrane is very slow in project review and ha requested that Planning Division Conditions No. 14 and 15 be changed to require CalTrana drainage acceptance and elope drainage acceptance prior to Certificate o[ occupancy rather Loan prior to issuance of grading permits. He remarked that the cedar tree they ware being required to relocate under Planning Condit icn No. 38 wov ld cos[ between 570,000-540,000 and theca would be a eh once the tree would no[ survive. He observed that 540,000 would buy a lot of new r.raee and ha felt L[ would De more rea eonabls to increase other Landscaping in lieu of attempting to relocate the tree. He felt they shculd not be requ itetl tv construct the 37 feet of pavement on the south aide o[ the Foothill Boulevard mad lan and asked that the condition ba changed to intlieate conseru ct ion wculd be that which Le requ iced by Callrans. He noted that Engineering Condition No. 2d orated the developer may request a ce imbvreemant agreement but there was no guarantee the request would be honoretl. Mr. Muir requested that Engineer inq Condition No. 4 be changetl to state that they would make a goad faith effort to negotiate with property owners [o gain rights of way but wculd expect the City tc offer the rights of eminent domain to proceed with condemnation if an agreement could not be reached. He notetl they were being asked to share in in-lieu [sea and re imbureeme nt fees in previous and yet-to- be-built improvements, and he did not feel chat sucrou nd ing properties were being asked to Participate in deferment of coete where Smith's was making the improvements, each a• in curb and gutter and right-oE-way improvemenie. He questioned why they would need to go beyond Cucamonga Creek Go underground utility poles and Eelt underground ing should De limited to rho project title of the creek. He felt it should be contl ie Toned upon the availability of ex lacing condo ire in [he bridge which could accommodate the beating of the unlit ice ae he thought the coat of ex tentlinq utilities through the ex Taring bridge would be excessive. He stated that where Smith's is being asked to pay for prey lout improvements, they would expect subsequent lave lop¢re to share in the coat of improvements being made in the public rLght of way. H¢ requested elimination of Engineering Contllt ion No. 6 because he felt [hey should not have to contribute in-lieu Eeea for improvements where they will be reconet cutting previous improvements. Mr. Muir stated their intent in making the improvemenie Co San Bernardino Poad was to accommodate truck traffic ao they could route delivery trucks to the center via San Bernardino Hoad. He objected to Engineering Condition No. 9 setting a 3-tan limit on the road and felt the limit •hould be estaDliehed based on the actual truck loads they intend to impaee on tM street. He requested that approvals from the San Bernardino County Nealth, Cucamonga County water Ois<ricc, end school diet ride be required prior to Certificate of occupancy rather than prior to ieeuance o[ building perm ice. N.e stated they were not trying to avoitl compliance with rood it lone, bus merely trying to ex petlite grad inq end construction. He observed their landscape architect and civil engineer were eve ilable to answer quectione. Calvin Heed, 73fi Sente Victoria, Solana Beach, st atetl he is a part owner of the apartment building at BB67 Ban Bernardino Hoad. He oboe rued that hs had euDm fitted a letter to the Commission requseting that 8mit h'a develop the entire area es a single project. He felt the changed use would make iL Plenn ing Commission Minutes -15- oacembec 9, 199] difficult to refinance or sell the apartment builtl ing. He requested Chat the City work with Smith's to make the project work on the entire corner of land. He noted that Mr. Klang had mentioned that ie seemed impoeeib le to meet the City'a tequ iremente and still include those parcels. He felt the development would be nicer Looking without the aging apartment Du iltlinge overlooking the center. Richard Raichelt, 1846 North Vallejo way, Upland, stated he is part owner of the apartment building at 8863 San B¢rnardino Road. He provitletl pictures of tna development on the ea et aide of Vineyard and the apartment buildings. He noted that he has submitted a letter dated December 2, 1992, and asketl if chef would be part of the record. Chairman McNiel assured him ii could be part of the record. Mr. Reic halt et at ed that in Juno 1990 cosy had been co niacted by Smith's agent regartlinq Bale of [heir property. Ha said a price was eetabliehetl antl they agreed co sell. He said no Eu rt her nagociatione had taken place and 5m ith'e had never contactetl them regarding any problems uieh pricing. He felt development by one owner woultl be a benefit to the City, Smith's, and [he taxpayers. He ea id they were introduceA to the Foochill Boulevard 5pecif is Plan Ln 1990. Ha [nought the Foochill Boulevard Specific Plan intends chaC a Bing la party develop the entire corner under a master plan. He said Smith's had now coneiricted the plan to allow themeelve• [N privilege of a prime tlevelopmenc spot with the concurrence of the City Planning commlaeion whicA will leave a bl ightetl area for the City with limited future development. He ee id the remnant parcel was to ing pictured for future development with two bu ildinga end a parking lot but hs Ee It it would not be poaeibla eo develop with iw0 2,000 square foot Du ildings and make a profit. He Ee It the blighted area could remain unle9e it is condemned, torn down, or burnetl. He also felt the increased traffic and limitetl perking on San Bernartlino Road woultl be a conatreinC foY iho apartment building e. He did not feel the remaining parcels are economically developable parts la singly. He said if the three remnant parcels were consolidated, it would mean they would need to meet new development requirements including poaeibly looking for Indian bones and a poet office and paying Eor a street light, curbs, etc. He tlitl nor Feel a small investor could afford those conditions. He observed that tenants are Leaving the apartment building and he fe le chat Smith's currant plan would eau as Aim severe fin anclal lot ee e. Ne et eCed the FooChlll Boulevard Speclf lc Plan calla for a minimum parcel of Cwo acres, 200 fee[ wide and 1)5 fee[ deep. He said the combined frontage cf the two apartment hou6ee only equals 140 feet and would not meet the two-acre minimum. He felt the remaining parcel• woultl be a small extra expense for Smith's to absorb and would make a better project. Ha notetl that he had talked with the Planning Oivieion antl e nay had ¢mphaaizetl the fact gnat the City cannoC Eorce Smith's to purchase their proporty. He stated that he admired smith's for their orig lnal proposal, but ha was now concerned about the residua left for Rancho Cucamonga. He queecionwd if Smrth'e proposal follows the Foochill Boulevard Specific Plan. He remarked Lnat hie Cenance would have to view an unplannetl rear view of the development with a steep embankment and n0 61ock call. He feared the chlltlren from the apartment house could fall dawn the embankment. Planning commission Minutes -16- December 9, 1992 Marie Reicnelt, 1846 North Vallejo Way, Upland, part owner of the 8863 San Bernardino Road apartment building, stated they had lost tenants who had been there for seven years because they feared trucks would be using San Bernardino Road and they did not wish to live there because they had children. She ae ked that the Clty do whatever could be done to have her property purchased or condemned. Patric is Mej ia, 409 South Dalesfoctl Drive, La Puente, pa et owner of the apartment building at 8851 San Bernard Lno Road, noted that the Foothill Boulevard Specific plan calls for a minimum of 2 acres, 200 feet wide and 175 fast deep, far Community Commercial development. She noted that Che plan also calls for internal circulation patterns to direct traff ie away from surrounding rea idential neighborhoods. She felt their property would be negatively impacted by the Smi<h's driveway. She remarked her father had had a stress attack because of the problems associated with the proposed Smith s development. She stated they had loot tenants because of the development. Ed Combs, 4 P North C¢nt ral Avenue, Upland, owner of 8008 Vineyard Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, noted he had prow id¢d a tour-page letter. He felt the development of Smith's will ba a great asset [o the Clty. He said he hatl been approached 1n 1990 to sell the parcel and he informed Smith's that he had an approved project and nod pulled building permits and pa ld aeeocleted fee e. He eaitl he rejectetl the offer and was informed by Smith's that unless they were able to tie up the Mej is and Reichelt property as well as hie, they would walk from the project and choose anotner site. He said Smith agreed to purchase hie property at a fair and reasonable price and he Ee It that the beat Ching to do far bath himself and the City would be to integrate hie parcel into the smith's project. Ne then remarked that iE the Smith's project were approvetl as eubm fitted, he wanted to get hie previously approved, but now expired, project underway agein, but he did not see how i[ could wock because the dif Eerence in elevation Erom the access to Vineyard to hie property fie 16-18 feet. Chairman McNiel questioned why Mr. Combs had allowed his permits to exprre. Mr. Combo responded Chat he had met with city Manager Jack Lam, antl even though the Ci[y had extended the permits as long as legally possible, the permits expired earlier [his year. He said he had been under contract to Smith's at the time, ao he could not sell, encumber, lease, or refinance the property. He said thst ae of Live days befo[e the escrow was to cloea, Mr. Klanq had find Lcated he did not know if they were going to buy the property. Raul Mej ia, 409 South Dalesford Drive, La Puent a, elated he is part owner of the apartment bu ilding at BBB1 San Bernardino Road, Rancho Cucamonga. He as id he has been under a lot of stress and nod been doing well until Smith's e pproached him to sell hie property. He noted they had negotie red and Smit h'a had agreed to his pricing. He said that after opening escrow, hie tenants moved or stopped paying rent after hearing about the Smit h'e development. He ea ld he had a hard time re-rent tng units because he had to tell prospective tenants that the building was in sec row and would be torn down. He said his property fie be Lnq destroyed and he cannot afford to keep rebu iltl inq. He observed [hat Smit h'e hod never contacted him to renegotiate the price, but instead just pulled out of escrow. He hoped something could be worked out so Pla nn inq Commission Minutes -17- December 9, 1992 L hat Smith's would buy hie prcoerty because he feared his parcel is too small for any other development. Chairman NcNial quest coned Mr. Mejia's vacancy rate. Mr. Mejia stated Chat currently all four apartments era filled but two tenants may move by the entl of Che month because of the situation. He eaitl he had typically hatl all Eour unite rented; bus since the property had entered escrow ha had experienced people moving in and our and not paying rent. Chairman McNlel noted that part of the problem may be the general economy. Bill Hart aq, 8837 San Barnattlino Road, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he lives on the northwest corner of sae Be rnartllno Road and Vineyard Ave nun, acrd e• the street. He felt that if the Smit h'e project as approved wit E.ost the three parcel e, the corner lot immediately ac rose from him would be zoned for a convenience market and he did not want to live across the street from a small market. Na ob}acted to trucks using San Bernardino Road 24 hours a tlay. He stated he did not want to pay far improvements to San Bernardino Roatl. Chairman McNiel asked if Mr. Kiang or Mr. Muir would like to address the public comments. Both Mr. Kiang and Mr. Mu lr responded nagat ively. Nearing no Further tact imony, Chairman McNial cloned the public hearing. Ha asked if the Smith's project meats the requirements of the Foothill eoulevartl Specific Plan. Mr. Buller stated that in staff's opinion the project ie in full compliance with the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan ae related to master planning of the area. Ha eatd that some of Che adjoining property owners had alluded that the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan required the entire property from San Bernardino tlown to Footh111 Boulevard be developed as one unit at one time and that was not true. He noted ChaC a gootl example was the approval of Mr. Combo props try, ae which rims Mr. Combs wan as kad to provitl• a master pl en Co show that the sej oining prbparty could ba developed harmonrou sly in the future. He noted chat the master plan from Smith's did not preclude development of the property to the north. Chairman McNiel asked the City Attorney to eleborace on the City's limitations or abilit iee to require Smith's to include the three remnant parcels. Ralph Hanson, Deputy city Attorney, stated the city looks at plane which are submittetl to nee if one plan meets the needs, recommendations, and expect at ion• for the area. He indicated there would ba auEf iciest grounds for tlaniel it the sie9 plan ie not appw pr iota Eor eh• prcpoeatl development. Ne •eid in Chia cane iha City wan being asked oy ad}o inirq property Owners to look at adjacent property which Le not before tea Comm ieeion. He stated Lhe City use being asked Co remedy a failed bu eineee deal by inclutling a condition of approval which wou ltl force acquisition of atltltc tonal property and the City cannot do that, He Bald the City muei look at the site plan and not consider Planning Commiealon Min utee -18- pecember 9, 1997 property valuations or negot iat :ons which may have occurred and the City could not resolve issues between private parties. He observed [hat a co nd pion oC approval raga Lring purchase of the adjoining properties would not ba valid because the Commission moat tletetmine only if the presented ells plan ie adequate. He acid iE the site plan as presented is inappropriate because of the lack of those propert lee, then it would be appropriate for the Commission to deny the project, but Che City moat deal with the project a• presented to sea if it ie valid. chairman McNiel asked if the teat imony presented was more of a civil matter. Mr. Hanson stated that would possibly be true dependent upon the contraetuel agreeme nt e. Chaizmen McNLel asked that staff respond to Mr. Hartag'• question aDOUt tM poeelbiltty of Doing assessed for lmprovementa made to San Bernardino Hoed. Den James, Senior Civil Eng:Hoer, observed [hat if Nr. Hartag develops in the future, he uou ld have to reimburse Smith's for public improvements along hi• frontage. Chairman McN iel suggested the Commisa ion attempt to get ataEf's input on the questions ra load 6y the applicant. Mr. Buller noted shat a majority aE questions ra Leed by the epplleanG ors a matter of policy and auggeated that the Chairman review the condo lon• in 9u ee[ion with the full Commie lion. Chairman NcNiel noted one request was to have <ha uniform sign program approvatl prior to the iceuence oC a certificate of occupancy rather than prior to the issuance of Du ilding perm it e. He recalled that there Dad Deen problems on other projects in those in et antes where the adoption of iha uniform sign program had been delayed. Commissioner Ch it Sea agreed it would be inconaietent to delay atlopt ion of th¢ uniform sign program. Mr. Buller felt that a sign program for this cantor would not be dLf tiro It because theca ie only one mein building and three future pad bu Lld inge. Chairman HcNlel asked for Engineering Divlalon'9 input regard Lng Planning Conditions No. 10 and 15 raga icing calTrana approval Eor drainage acceptance and the elope drainage acceptance letter prior [o ieauance of grad Lng permits. Mr. James noted that the Building and Safety Div ie ion could not sign oCf On the plane without en approval fr. om CalTrane. Mr. Buller said staff would not recommend any change to those cond Ltione. CDeirmen MCN Ul agreed there should be no changes. Commies loner To letoy agreed Chat there could be a lot of problems L[ the Clty allowed grading co begin prior co CalTrane approval. Planning Commission Minutes -19- December 9, 1993 Chairman NcNiel noted there had been a question ra iced regarding replanting the cedar tree. Mr. Huller said the Commission had discretionary action [o allow the applicant to improve the quantity or size of other vegetation on the property in lieu of relocating ehet particular tree. Comm ie sinner Chitiea asked the age and size of the tree. commieelonor Toletoy felt i[ would be better to enhance the remainder of the landscape plan because the tree may not tutu ive if it is moved. Me. Niesan stated the tree ie 60 Eaet tall and 30 Eeat wide with a 64-inch trunk circumference. She stated the arboriat'a report states the tree ie healthy with a 76 percent chance of au rvival. Hr. Buller suggested Smit h'e may wish [o look at donating the free if it was found accepcable to remove the tree from the site. Commieeioner Me LCher noted chat the applicant was not teetering relocating any of the other trees and he felt the chances of lose should be considered. xe agreed with Commies inner Toletoy. Chairman McNial agreed. He noted that the applicant had also objected Co con et rutting 37 feet of pavement on the south aide of Foothill Hou levard and had requseted chat the eondit ion be changed to require construction would be ae required by CalTrene. Mr. James noted that the roost ruction requirement wee listed ae being [object co modification and approval by CalTrene. Ne ea id that, based on experience, staff felt 32 Eeet would be the CalTrene requirement. Chairmnn NcNiel noted the developer nod a question regarding Engineering Condition 2d. Mr. Huller orated the developer's question had been whet he[ the City would honor a reimbursement agreement request. Mr. James stated Engineering would agree to that request. He ea id Engineering ha• not dented any each requests for permanent improvements which have been installed. Cheirman HcNiel remarked the developer also had concerns about Engineering Condition No. d. Mr. Jamee stated that Engineering Condition No. d deals witn the poecib la need eo acquire rLght-of-way on the Gout hwest cornet for the Vineyard Bou lavard transit inning. He noted Lost Standard Contlit ion Nc. L11 provitlee for the dove lops[ to ants[ inW an agreement with the City to complete the improvement• following the City'a acquit it ion of the land it the dove lopet'• good faith e[torts to acquire ens Land should fail. Plenning Commission Minutes -20- Decembe[ 9, 1992 Chairman McNiel observed that Mr. Muir had questioned the requirements on undergrounding. Mr. Buller noted Gnat the applicant hatl requested that Engineering Condition No. Sai be changed to require undergrounding only if there ie existing conduit in the bridge because he was concerned with the potent iai expense of undergrounding across the channel if the conduit tloes not exist. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if that would mean conduit under the bridge. Mr. Buller said it could also mean along the aide of the bridge. He said the Commission had not addressed such a situation in the past. Shintu Boee, Deputy Clty Eng iree r, et aced the applicant would Da able to hang some conduit an the aide of the bridge. Commies inner Melchet requested clarification Uat there was no thought that the undergrounding would need to go untler the channel. Mr. Boee confirmed that was correct. chaleman McNiel Baked if the Commiasionete were in concurrence that the undergrounding condition ehou ld remain ae written. It was the conaenaue of the Commissioners that it should remain. Chairman McNiel stated the next area of concern was with Condition No. Sb. Mr. Buller remarked that there had bean a request for elarif is orlon of the neighbor's reepon•iDility Eor reimbursement. Ha said that LE the other propert lee ac ro ee the street develop, [hey would be reepone ib le for raLmbureing Smlth'a .'or a portion of those lmprovemente completed by Smith's. Chairman McNLel fe Lt roar Mr. Muir's question had been if a reimbursement agreement exists eo they could get some of Che money back. Mr. Buller noted that Eb refers to in-lieu fees. He said the ns Lghbor uou ld ba required to contribute the other half at the time of development, and the work would be done at Ghat time. Chairman McNiel noted there had been remarks aDOUt Engineering Condition No. 6. Nr. James et aced Cnat 5mit h's would be obligated to re Lmbu ree the project developer on the east aide of Vineyard Pvenue Eor any improvements made to tea west Bide if the developer on [he cast side eubm ire a reimbursement eg reement request. He said at the present time the developer an the seat •!de ha• not su Dmit bd a re imbureement agreement. He said that Smltn's would not have to pay the oehar developer Eor any of the improvements that they have to reprove and replace. Chairmen McNiel thought there had been questions regard inq Eng ineetinq Condition No. B. PLnning ComnL•lan Mlnutu -21- December 9, 1991 Mr. James etatad the local storm tl[ain is being requiretl to be conetruCtetl at Focthill Boulevard from Vineyard wearer ly to the channel. Ne said that normally the first patty in installs the local stn cm drain. He said if the City were togrant reimbursement to Smith's from future development along Che south aide oC Foothill Boulevard, Chen it woultl also 6e necessary to require 5mith'e to reimburse Thomas Winery for the local storm drain work they conaxructetl in Vineyard Avenue. He ea id typically mere ie no re imbu[sement for local Storm drain cone[ rust ion. Chairman McNiel noted the applicant had objected to the 3-ton limitation on San Bernardino Road. Nr. Buller stated that the applicant had indicated they would want to reeonetruct San Bernardlno Road to epecif icatione which would handle heavier trucks and would want the lim it ax ion bawd upon the epeclf ieatio ne, rather than limiting to 3-tone. Commieaidner Welcher Eslt the applicant was cone idering running aemie on the street which would be many Iona over the suggested 3-ton limit. Commies inner Valletta noted that the street ie et ill residential antl one telt it would be inappropriate for larger tru cke to uea the street. Mr. Buller noted there would be Crutk acceee from Foothill Boulevard and Erom vineyard Avenue, but chat Smith's dee fired truck access from the north. Chairman McNiel noted there are nu deliver iee at the beck of the Du ildinq and the uea would be to acceee the docks on either title of the building. Mr. 8u llet felt the applicant preferred acceee From San Bernard i.no Raad for teat of ingreae antl egreee at a signalizetl intersection over a less-craveletl public at reef to the alts. Commieeloner Me Lcher felt the uea of San Bernardino Road would 6e co the apparent detriment of other propert iee. !la said he understood Smit h'9 desire for the opening but he also would undaretand the neighborhood's oppoeit ion. He qu eationatl why end when the 3-ton limit was introtluced and wnen it DBCame apparent to Smith's. Mt. .lames stated Chat the J-ton limit was suggested by the City's Traff is engineer. He said the applicant had Deen advised of the limit during Technical Revisw. Commies inner TCletoy felt that semis should noG utilize San eernartlino Road. Mr. Coleman aCated a similar lim ii at Lon had been planed on [he Nu West shopping center at Foothill Boulevard and Hellman Avenue regarding acceee down Halms. commies inners ch itiee and Valletta agreed that semis thou lO not use Ssn Bernardino Road. Chairman McNiel quest finned iC there would be a need for any acceee to San Bernardino Road if truck acceee were eliminated. Planning Commieaion Ninutse -11- December 9, 1991 Hr. Buller et aced Chat the site plan had been reviewed by Fire, Sheriff, Planning, and Engineering Divisions and it was felt that access to the north along San Bernardino Road ie des iretl. commies inner Toietoy felt the access to San Bern artlino Road ie easent ial but he did not think Lt is eseentlal for semis. commise inner Valletta et ated she had an issue to bring up later after the Commission hatl reviewed the conditions wn ich may affect the Commieelon'e feelings on the matter. Chairman HcN Tel noted the applicant had requestetl that Builtling and Safety DLv ie ion Condition No. 1 requiring approvals from San Bernardino County Health, Cucamonga County Water Diatriet, antl Che school diatcicte ba tied to certificate of occupancy rather that issuance of building permits. Hr. Ruller etatetl that et aft recommended that the contl It ion remain act wr SCten. Chairman McNiel agreed that if the contl ition were changed and the project were later tlenled by the school district, there would be a zeal problem. No felt approvals should be obtained on the Er ont end. Commissioner inlet oy stet ed he would like an atldit TOnal requirement providing for recessing outdoor vending machines. Mc. Buller elated that eta tf would support adding that cond it Tan. Commies TOner Valletta stated that the side loading tlock areas are incona intent with what hoe been required in the teat of Che City. She as id other grocery stores have all been required to hove loading to the rear. She seated •he had recently observed a truck Crying to pot It ion itself for unloading at the Rialto smith's store. she se id it's backing view was obscured because of vehicular parking in the area, as would exist on the east sitle of the building. she noted there is no dlcecc access straight into the loading area and it ie only 12 (eat wide. she observed that Che trucks would have to maneuver a[ a right angle from the font of the store, backing up on the blind aide trying to get into a 12-Eno[ area. She said she understood the [rucks are generally about a feet wide, leaving only 2 feet on each side. She Bald at the Rialto store the had observed that a 48-Loot truck Cook eaven attempts to maneuver into th• dock erect cabers it was not even a[ a right angle. She also thought the view from Foothill Boulevard would not ba aesthetically pleasing and noted the inte[eec ti.on is one of the Clt y'e mayor antrancee. She commented that the set it h'e store in Fontana nee a rear loading dock. She thought cone iderat ion should De given to reconfiguring the loading tlock to the rear of the building even though she notetl [het may require the purcheae of additional property [o the north o[ the site. Commissioner Ch •[tea felt the site is currently blighted and the felt it should havs appropr Tate Oevelupment, she said the did not mean to Oieccurage retell bu lid inq Dut eha [el[ the design of [he tenter should meet or exceed what ex Tate in the City. She notetl that during the pre-application review the had axpreseed ee[ioue concerns about the Bite plan regarding bu lid inq Planning comet lesion Minutes -2J- December 9, 1992 orientation, circulation, truck access, massing, and architeetu ral elements. She did not feel [hoes issues had been ode quae sly addressed. She did not think the design of the activity center at the Foothill Sou levard and Vineyard Avenue inteteect ion meets she intent of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. She felt the project should be redesigned. She concurred with Coauniesioner Vallette'a comma me regarding the loading docks. She did not think there was any other location in the City where a Eront or aide toaE ing dock is pecmrtted and she part icuLarly opposed one at such an important intersection. Sha felt the Bice hag enormous pceential which was not being realizetl with the design of the project. Comm iea to ner To lecoy stated chat was one of the reasons he had asked about the arts line because he also hatl a problem with the srde loading area a. Comm iasioner wallet Ge noted there hatl been a pre-application workshop ac which rt was et at ed that aide loading tlocks were an issue. Cnarrman McNiel stared there hatl been objections from nll the Commisa'_oners and Smith's had main[ ainetl that aide loading dot ks were consistent with what they typically do and ens concerns could be mitigated. He notetl that in the Design Review pcoceae there hatl been attempts to mit igace the irt~pact of the aide load rng doeke through design- He said he waa taken aback by Commies io ner Valle[te'e witnessing [he difficulty of maneuvering a truck into each an area antl ne wee less comfortable with the design in light of the entrance off 'lineyard Avenue at that location. Ne felt there may be traffic problemn along Vineyard Avenue ae a result of a truck Crying to enter eha loatl ing dock area. He noted the Commiaeion could condition the times of day char [tucks could ass the dock area, but he felt coat would be extremely difficult to polrce. Commissioner Chitiea felt toot limiting the hours of delivery would nor addreea the seat hetic concerns. Chairman McNiel stated they had atcemptetl [o mitigate the visual impact at Descgn Review be roues that ie woof the developer had requested. Commissioner Me lcher stated he was also concerned about Commissioner Vall et te'n comments regnrtling truck maneuvering. Hn stated he Boas not personally opposed co front-facing truck docks and hs felt they had been properly addressed, but he queer ionetl if a truck maneuvering diagram had been prepared for the ai[e antl, i[ so, if staff was convinced that it works. Mr. huller ec ated that one had been prepared and at aEf felt shat it would cork. Conan reeio ner Melc her asked rE the truck maneuvering diagram was ba ead upon ue in9 San Bernardino Read for trucks in excess of 3 tone. Nr. Coleman stated the dragram deputed acceae Erom both Vineyard Avenue and Foothill 9ouleva rd. Xe recalled cnac Sm ich'n had described the eastern loatling area as to be used by smaller trucks, such as brsatl true ke, and the main dock area would be on [he Neat eitls of the building. Plannang Comniae ion Mrnutee -24- December 9, 1991 Commissioner Valletta stated she had observed a 48-foot truck Mt. Coleman thought that would be the normal sire of a semi. Commies inner Valletta indicated Ghat stores also use double semis for deliver ies. Commissioner Ch itiea observed that in other projects throughout the City, •ven in the indu atrial areas, measures era taken to orient trucks away from the automotive traffic areas. She did not think the project is an appropriate day ig n, particularly at one of the major intersection entries into the City. She also felt it was a safety issue. Commies Toner Valletta agreed it was a safety issue. Cnairman McNiel acknowledged that it was a matter of concern. He said they nod attemptetl to maaaage ens design based upon wnat natl Deen presented by Smlth'e. Commies ionsr Ch it ies felt the[ the Design Review Committee should not design the project, but to try to help an applicant meet the needs of Che community ae Daet av possible. She did not feel that it meant that the entire Commission hatl to accept the application. Commissioner Tolatoy asked if it wou Ld be proper to hear from the applicant regarding the design of the Fontana eto re with itv rear dock. Ma recalled t het et the pre-epplic at ion review, the Commiaeion had raga eetetl tear loading and Smith's nod replied gnat all of their stores nave front loading. Commissioner Ch it ies felt there were greater problems than just the loading dock. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, to direct eta Ef to prepare a reaolut ion of denial for the next available meeting. Commies Toner Melchor seconded the motion for purpoaee of diacuaeion and indicated he might vote against the motion. He suggested the applicant ba consulted to see if [he applicant would prefer the Commies ion move forward with each a motion or request a continuance to allow time to possibly addreae soma of the commence heard tonignt. He observed Ghat the applicant would have the right to appeal to the City Council and he auggeated that the Commiesionece consider what set con [ne City Council might take. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing [o gain input from the applicant. Mr, Nleng stated the Fontana score has va et ly different property dimensions, conE lguration, size of total project, and ground elevation which permitted rear loading. Me said ha is working on other projects in Northern Callforn is which are not tight with no grading problems and in moat cease they ten utilize rear loading docks. He felt the grade slaver lone and length of tAa parking etel le in front precluded rear loading. Ha ae ld because of Che diEf lcu lty in securing large enough parcels, 5mit h'e hoe had to uea front Planning Comm ieeion Mcnutee -25- December 9, 1992 loading with imaginative screening treatments to make the scores Look good and work. Ha stated [here had been a study on truck Graff is patterns and Smith's engineers aeeuted him it would work. He said there had been 18 moot hs of good faith effort on the part of Smitn'e and City acaEf to arrive at a plan chat was acceptable to everyone and Smith's was now in virtual agreement with what had been proposed. He notetl that she cost of carrying the project is almost $10,000 a week and he queetic ned how long smic h's could carry the project. He was concerned about general statements that the plan tloea not meet someone's conception. He said he was nor comfortable saying they <oultl negotiate further and that he wou Ltl like to tliscuss the lcatl ing dock question with the architect and engineer. He thought it may Da better co take the project on through the arhninis[rat ive process to see where the bottom line ie. He said he heard the Commieeion'e concerns and ha was now concerned about smleh'e position and investment and where they would go from this point. He ea id their goal i• to open a store in the community antl provide 350 jobs and ac least $250,000 sales tax. He noted their project would be cleaning up an admitted blig nt ed area and he Ee It i[ would be one of their moat beautiful projects. He said he now Eelt some of the Commies ionare nod ezpceae ed concern that the cite was not even a proper place for them. Commiae inner Valletta stated that her concerns about the site planning and loading areas in nc way repreeante an attitude that sm ith'e Ls not wanted in the City. She felt it will be a good project. she notetl Lhac the load Lnq area had been an iaeue with all five Commieeionera during the pre-application uorkehop. She noted that two Commieeionera had served on Che Design Review Committee and now before the full Commiae ion the loading area is still an iaeue. She hoped the applicant and City could work together to relocate the loading areas. Mr. Kiang said Chat made him feel better. Commie eioner Tol atoy scaled there had never been any comments about the deeirab ll ity of smit h'a •n the City, but the Commieeionera had expreaeed concerns about safety matters and seat het is e. Mr. Kla ng et ated he did not personally believe there should be truck traffic on San Bernardino Road. He acid the loading docks on the scde of the afore are tied into their merchandie ing plan ins ids cha store. He ea id that ie all very carefully planned. Xe said that it Che loading tlock area is changed, it creates severe operations problems. He suggested Nr. Muir talk about the loading erne. Commiae icner Talatoy recalletl that at Che pre-application review, the Comm ieaionere had been told Chat the store configuration could not be changed and there could not be any other lot ac ion of the Loading dock. Mr. Klanq re epo nded that Smith's had learned a lot since coming to CaliEo rnia. Xe elated chat •n oc oar areav of the country, they hatl been inflexible becauea the land ie pretty flat, [here are grid traffic patterns, and coat eav ing[ are obv •ou a. He said Ghat upon coming to California they have tlev iced dif tarent plane and have scaled down the size of some of [Heir stn rte Co bettor fit on available propert iae. Planning Commieeion Minutes -26- December 9, 1992 Chairman M<NLal at ated that during all of the meetings with the epplieanG, d iacomfort had bean expceased regarding the Er ont-end loading. Mr. Nvlr stated that Che Fontana store configuration is completely different and not viable. Ne said that Smith's had built numerous stores with the contigvrat ion proposed for Rancho Cucamonga, including one in Yorba Linda and one in Nleb ion Viejo. He said they had not matle the scope of cosmetic modif icatione on any other store and the proposed store Eor Rancho Cucamonga could very well be tae moat expensive store in the chain, with theLr estimates be inq $3,500,000 over their typical dews lopment.costs in Bite and building coematle improvements. He said that typically they have five to six tleliveriea per week by eem ie which ate no[ generally Larger than 40 feat. Ne said ouch de llverlee ace typically in the early morning. He et at ed the Bite has a steep grads transition between the front antl the rear of the store. He ea id if there were adequate street acceee, rear-loading docks would require a high retaining well on the back aide o[ the store and create a bLgger visual impact Chan what ie currently propoeetl. He said the proposed docks are buried on both aides of the store and they would be glad to provide cross-eect Tonal sits studies showing the relevant elevation of the docks to Foothill Boulevard. He eaitl they had made a enange to flair the western tlock. He aald troll tees ware proposed along the dock wall and over the tlock bay e, eo that vines would soften the effect across [he front of the bays. Ha ea id Chore Ls typically a 50-foot romp into the bay, so the trucks era Dack from the throat of the bay. Ne s[ate0 the dock on the west aide ie flaired completely away from any visual lines Erom Foothill Boulevard. Ne said tact Lt would De necessary to have acceee Further norCh on Vineyard in order to have a direct acceee into rear-loading docks and it woultl be eaaentially impossible to gain the ramp down ineo the docks because of the elevation increase along Vineyard. He said Chat the nature of the site and the limited acceee Crom Vineyard and Foothill uou ld ne<esele ate truck meneuverinq in Cront of the store, particularly if acceee from San Hernard ino Road were limited. Xe felt that the configuration desired by the Comm ieeion would preclude any grocery store on the Bite. Commissioner Valletta asked the width of the loading area on the western aide. Mr. Muir stated It is a double truck bay, so it would be 20-24 feet. Chairman McNisl ae ked if Mr. Muir would eoneider working on with the Comm ieeion or if he would prefer the Commies ion proceed with the motion ae voiced. Mr. Muir asked chat could De gained by referring Che project back to staff. Comm iseioner Nelche[ et aced it would be neceesa[y to return to staff because Lha Comm ieeion did not have a resolution of tlenial for adoption. Mr. Muir asked i[ there would not be en opportun icy foe Eur[her design issues. Commissioner Chlt tea stated Che elternat ive would be to qo back end cedes Lgn tae project end she felt Lt would raga ire major design changes. $ha felt the entire site plan •hould be reviewed. Planning Commission Minutes -27- December 9, 19g2 Mr. MuiY felt Chat bringing the issue to a vote ac the Commission level would not preclude that from Happening. He was not sure what was to be gained by going back to staff if it was not an opportunity fur further tlesign changes, Chairman McNiel et aced the Commission ditl Hoc have a reso lux ion of denial to atlop^_ and the motion on the fioor was Lo direc< staff eo prepare a resolution of dania 1. Mr. Muir asked if the Commission could not vote on the project without [hat recommendation. Chairman McNiel stated that was the motion on the floor. He said the reeolut ion of denial wcu ld be adapted at the next meeting. Mr. Heir asked if there were any other avenues available. Chairman McNiel et ated the applicant could also consent to a continuance iE the motion ware to be pulled. Commissioner Valletta euggeated that if the applicant was willing to do a major cadet ign of the site plan, the motion may be pulled. Mr. Muir asked iE he could dlecuae the matter with hie client. Commissioner Chitiea euggeated a short retest might be taken Co allow the applicant to diecuea the options. Mr. Combs ae ked iE tna public hearing was still open. Chairman McNiel stated it had been opened only to gain a responea from the applicant co a epee if is question. He said the Hearing was not open to take any additional testimony. The Conuniealon recessed from 11:15 p.m. to 11:20 p.m. Mr. Muir stated the dock ccnf igurat ion netl been cons ideted and Chey did not Eeel it Could 6e designed in any other way because of the configuration of the site, the slope, and the limited attest. He said they were Hoe trying to force the iaeus with the Commieeion, Dut Chay did not feel it could be reconfigured. He also statetl it was not a matter of acquiring the property to the north. Ne said ensir circulation plan had been reviewed by ant of the moat tepuCabl• ccnf tic engineers in Southern California, who indicated it would not treats an unsafe eLtuat ion. Ha saitl Smith's also hat had experience in such dock configurations and they would not create a liability for the scare, He requested that if the matter wars returned co staff for preparation of a reeolut ion of denial, [haG a special meeting be held on December 15, 1992, in order Hoc to delay cheer abilu y to initiate an appeal. Mr. Buller stated Gnat if the motion were to pate, ct could be preper¢d foc e special meet inq and he euggeated December 15, 1992, ae a possible date. Commie ionsr Chit iea aC aCed the woultl like to reiterate that her opposition co the project was not to Sm it h'¢ ae a user, in fact ahs would Ixke to welcome Planning Commieeion Minutes -28- DecemHSr 9, 1992 them to the community. She said het concern vas the specific location of is project. She fe 1L the concerns were greater than just the loading dock, b~^. also the entire conCigur at ion of the property, the ingress and egress, the design of the aatelli[e builtl logs, the orientation to adjacent properties and the corner, and the activity center at Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue. comr,.i se io ner Melcher stated he wag no[ convinc etl it would be impossible to locate the docks in any other configuration, He st atetl there is also a grade d if Eerence at the shopping center at Milliken and Highland and that loading dock ie to the rear. He noted that through the use of landscaping and retaining walls it was pogeib le to create a drive access all the way arountl the rear Bide of the shopping center and create a pleasant appearance to Highlantl Avenue. He thought i[ eoultl be aged at this Bite but it would probably mean that ac rest to San Bernartl inn Rcad may have to be ebantlonetl. Comm ieeioner Chit lea noted that at Base Line and Haven and Lemon and Haven there were aimilac situations with grade changes where appropriate des igna have been employed. She noted that the PLann ins Commies ion Eirat taw the project eight moot hg ago at a pre-application review and all of Chose concerns were voiced at that time so Chat the applicant had early input Erom the commission. She grated that her motion stood. Cammiseioner Melchor stared that hle teen nd stood. chairman McNiel restated that the motion uas to direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial. Motion carried by the fol low log vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHIT IEA, MCNIELr TOLSTOY, VALL ^eTTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: MEGCHER A83ENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried it wag the coneensug of the Comm iga ion that the Comm isaion would convene a special meeting at 4:05 p. m. on December 15, 1992. Motion: Moved by MeN Lal, seconded by Tolatoy, carried 4-1 (Melcher no(, continua beyond 13:00 p.m. /' /~ J.• ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIV TRACT 14005 i"HU ~regident ial subd iv ie ion and deei9n tav iew for the developm,~e~ f 20 single family lots on 4.79 acres of land in the Low-Medium peeiC6nt ial Distr ut (0-B dwell inq units per acre, located on the no reh ae~e of San Bernardino Road, test of Vineyard Avenue - APN: 208-091-.0/R .i'.R+b laced File: Variance 91-11. Staf[ recommends issuance of a Nega[~v2 Oeclera t'LOn. ~-~zr N. VARIANCE 91-11 - HU /d request to reduce the required minimum rear lot depth from 90 to 65.4eet for 1 lot within a proposed 20-10[ subdivision in rho Lou-Mod ium •itl antial District (4-R dwelling units par sera(, located on the nu~t~de of San Bernardino Roatl, east of Vineyard Avenue - ~APN: ZpE=~O91-08. Rel aced File: Tentative Tract :4405. .. PXannin~ommieeion Minutes -29- December 9, 1992 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAHONCA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meet ing December 15, 1992 POLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Suzanne Chiiiea, Larry McKie 1, John Matcher, Peter ToLetoy, Wendy Valletta ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan CoLema n, Principal Planner; Rick Comez, Community Development Director; Dan Same e, Senior Civil Engineer; Bover ly Nieee n, A99oc iate Planner; Gail SancheY, Planrtinq Comm ie aion Secretary; Tarty Smith, Park Planning development Superintendent ~touz only; TOUR OF SPORTS COMPLE% The five Planning Commissioners touretl the sports complex beginning at 3:00 p.m. on December 15, 1992. Tney were accompanied by Community Development Director Rick Comez, City Planner Brad Bullet, and Palk Planning Development Superintendent Tarry Smith. The Cour mncludetl at 4:15 p.m. and the Planning Commission receaesd until 4:45 p.m. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PE AN IT 92-18 - SMITH'S - Tne development of a commercial shopping center coneiet ing o[ a 75,000 equate foot grocery store, two aetellice buildinga of 3,500 equere feet each, and a drive- thru patl of 4,800 square feet on 10.6 acres of Land in Che Community Commercial Dletrict (Subarea 2) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 407-102-03, 5, 8, 15, 40, 21, and 49. Staff recommends iaeu anee of a mitigated Negat Lve Declaration. Chairman McNiel called Che Adjourned MeeC inq of the Cicy of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Cnnsn legion to ortler at 4:45 p.m. The meeting was held in [he Rains Room at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 1050D Civic Center Driver ftanc ho Cuc amonga, Ca lifornca. Chairman McNiel then led in the pledgs of allegiance. Brad Buller, city Planner, gave a recap of the history of the project. He nosed that the protect had gone through a pre-application review and several design review meatinge. He scacetl Coat during the process the applicant Aad been advised of the issues and concerns of the Planning Commission and staff and the appl lcan[ had matle soma cnengee. He said the[ following the last Oeaign Rev ieu Commtc[ee meeting the project had been forwarded co the full Ex-,', b ; t ~~ e „ Planning Commlea LOn with a recommendation for approval. He at at ed that at the and of iha public hearing the Comm ieaion directed staff to prepare a reaolut ion of denial. He said that if the Planning Commission allowed additional testimony, that it could only take teat imony on issues raisetl at the public hearing on December 9, 1992. He also indicatetl that staff had prow itled the resolution of denial as requested by the Commission ae wall as the reeo lotion of approval if the Commission shoo ld feel that today's testimony indicated the applicant had made e[for<e to address the issues which had been raised. He turned the meeting back to the Chairman to determine if the Commiseio~ar~ wished to open the hearing for public teat imony. Chairman McN iel stated he had talked with the applicant's architect following the December 9, 1992, meeting and the architect had asked what they could do to salvage the project, Me said he had told the architect they could make a short present at loo to address the ie ewe of loading dock placement and its of Cect on clrculatlon and vineyard Avenue and the aesthet is issues of front loadtnq doeke. He ea id they had not disco seed further architectural is suet. He asked if the other Commiseionere would like to open up the hearing to see if the matter warrantatl returning the project to design review or review by the full Commlea ion. Commissioner Tolatoy etatetl that he would like to near from the applicant if any new informer ion was ova ileb te. Chairman MtNlel opened the public hoer inq. Prescott Muir, Prescott Muir Archit ec[s, 1704 Berkeley Street, Santa Monica, stated they had looked at the poeeibi lLty of movLn9 the dock to the back of the bviitling, but Smith's felt that would be unworkable because it would create a blind corner for ens trucks to maneuver into the back and would require a rear yartl setback varLance because of the existing rea idences. Ha ea itl it the property were convected to commercial, ae shown in the General Plan, a zero lot line would be sufficient. Me intl icatetl [hey considered eliminating the acre ee Erom San Bernardino Roetl, creating a retaLn irg wall, and lowering the grade to dock elevation to allow trucks room to maneuver, but that would also need the variances on the setback and pecking. Na said they felt [he proposed configuration was the only possible one without requir Lng a variance from the Commission. He stated there were other oppo rtunit lee to massage the prof ec[. He suggested the eastern tlock could 6e eliminated by treat Lnq a corridor in back of tho building Eut that woo ltl mean losing the trelLie element oc approximately 12 parking spaces. He thought the project did not have excess parking available. Mr. Buller asked if the lost parking sparse could not be regained on the east e ids of the building in the area from which the loading tlock was being moved. Hr. Muir aq reed it uou ld be possible to slim Lnete the east dock, shift [he bu iltlinq forward 6 feat to ma int aln en int •rlor cc:rid or, malnte in Cho setback, and place double loading parking on the east side cE the building. He said they would not need any varLe ores. Commleeloner Toletoy (e It there may be a grading problem with such a shift. Planning Commission MLnut ee -2- December 15, 1992 Mr. Muir esitl there fie a ] percent slope in ehe area. He said the back of the 6ui lding woultl not change. He st ai ed there is a 14-foot gratle elsvat ion difference between the first finished floor of the apartments end the floor of the score. He said rhea was why they hatl felt a rear tlock could be hitltlen with an effective greenbelt separation. Commi6eionar Melcner thought the larger fccepr rnt area of the building may mean more parking would be required. Nr. Muir agreed that may be true. Commissioner Melcher asked if the additional floor area would be allocated for handtrucka to service the seat aide of the store. Mr. Muir agreed it would not be sales space and wou td not generate any additional perking demand. Commissioner Melcher asketl if the additional square footage could be factored out of the parking calculation requ iremente. Mt. 9uller thought a minor exception process could be ueetl. He said that would require a notice to the neighbors. Commissioner Chitiea noted that would still leave an exposed tlock on the user aide. Hr. Mult tale the wu tern dock would not be exposed. He et ec ed they could tlevelop a Bite model to show how the tloek would be concealed. Ha noted it is flaretl away from the main view corridor. Commieeioner Valle[ce asketl for an explanation of how the sear dock woultl use berming. Mt. Muir showed where the rear dock would be located and stated a 12-14 Poot retaining wall would be needed in addition co closing off the acce6s to San Bernartlino Noad, Commissioner Chit lea asked if a variance would be requ fired for the rear dock. Mr. 9uller felt theca ware findings that could be made to grant Lhe variance because of the lot configuration and the grades. Ne felt [hoc a minor exception might oleo be available. Comm ise loner Chit lea asked if a public hearing would be heltl. Mr. Buller et aced a public hearing could be held only if a variance were required. Commies inner Valletta atatetl Chat at the pre-application review workshop direction had been given co have all docks In the rear of ehe building. she asked why the applicant had not pursued the r. avenue. Planning Commie aion Minucea -7- Oecembet 15, 1992 Mr. Muir st aced they had planned Bide do<ka because of a combination of t[y inq to maintain the minimum parking required and Crying to accommodate the goals of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan in creating an activity center, Ne said that Smith's felt they would need one outlying drive-thru pad in ortler to make the project economically feasible. He said that in order to accommodate the rear dot ka they would have to buy the adjacent property and they had received direction that en additional Ea at food drive-thru pad would not be palatable. He orated smit h'a felt that the project would not be economically f.eae ib le to absorb the co et of the atld it tonal property to accommodate rear docks. He felt it would oleo require a 16-18 Eoot retaining wall. Mr. Bullet ea id that staff would prefer utilizing only the western dock antl expanding the building footprint rather than eliminating Che access eo San Bernardino Roatl antl elimination of the rear parking area. Chairman NcNtel asked if the western dock could not be moved north to be more hidden Erom view from Foothill Boulevard. Nr. Muir ea id that may be poeeib le. Mr. au liar ea itl that iE the dock ware moved nor<h, the grade may be more d ifEicu l< Eor maneuvering the trucks. Ne said chat during the site plan rev ieu the [e had been comments about t[afEic flaw and there had been disuueaion that it woultl be easier for users who wished to travel north on Vineyard Avenue to exit to San Bernardino Road becau ee mere would than be a eignalited intersection to enter Vineyard. Ne said he would be concerned about any designs that eliminated acceee from she project to San Bernardino Road. Commies toner Tolstoy stated that there is often a line of cars going south on Vineyard Avenue attempting to cro se Foothill Boulevard and ihoae care would conflict with anyone attempting tc make a left from the eastern drive of the center onto Vineyard Avenue. Chairmen McNiel felt Che changes proposed care very dramatic and would require that the project go back through design review, He ae ked if enough information had been presented to allow the applicant to process through tleaign rev ieu. commies toner Tolstoy ai ated he would like to give the applicant the opportunity to return to tlaeign review. Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Chit tea felt the iaeuea ware major in terms of circular ion inc lud inq acceee Co San Bernardino Road, moving the docks from exposure to Foothill Boulevard, bu Lld lag articulation in front and rear, the need Eor additional bu iltl ing movement, relat icnahip to adjacent reeldencee, and appropriate tleeigne Eor the satellite bu ild inga. She said Coat if those th inga could be achieved, it would ha appropriate to go beck through the design review proceae. She was not sure the project would Eit wit hoot acquiring additional property. Planning Commission Minutes -7- December 15, 1992 Commiaeioner Malcher afar ed he understood chat the pad buildings would be part of a separate application. He felt that iE 5mich's warn ~,_ll :ng to examine the ideas pcopoaad and show the pose ible reau lt, coat woultl be a more roc tonal approach Chan Co deny the project. Commiaa io oar Tolatoy a[atad ne had nothing co add. Commieeio ner Valletta ntacetl these when the pro7ac< use initially reviewed at the pre-appl is at ron workshop, the main concern atldreaeed was the dea ire of the ma7 or icy of eha Commies goners m have rear loatling dot ke. She felt the Commievion nad bean cone iatenc •n cne original direction a[ the pre- application [eview and in their denial of the propaeal in expreaaing a dea ire Eor the rear dockv. She thought it is mainly a safety is eua. She felt mere waro still aeriou• internal eirculat ion problems. She chouq ht there era potentially haxardou• pedutrien croaai ng areas in [he current proposal. She did not favor approving the project a• preeeneed and felt that major changes were needed to the etc• plan and circulac tan plan. Commies io ner Chit tea asked iE Commieeio nac Valletta wag aatief ied with the archi[ectural elemanta of cha building. Commies ionar Valleete acid eha had vome concerns ragarding the architecture Dut her aeriou• concarn• ware with the loading dock and the ax Latinq internal circulation. SM recalled making etaeemants during ins pre-application review that exivC ing 5mith'e markets have very Little movement and relief on the front of tM buildings. Sha Le lc eM Oeeign Pw iew Consnittaa nad done cne beat they cou ltl with what had bean proaentad by the applicant but intlicated one did oat foal at i• up to tM a<andard of other projeet• withan the City, She stated there ie not a commercial project located anywhan in the City with front loading. Chairman McNial felt chose ieeuea could be readdrasaed at doe ign review. Ha suggested cM project gc back through the proceaa. He felt the major issues could be reaolvatl. Mr. But Lr asked what tM Commission wa• axpwtinq the applicant co cMnga. Na as id Commie toner Chitiaa had indlca ud there •huu ld ba significant changaa in Che alts plan and arch itectun and Commie ionar Val Zits had ind ica[ed theta should be major chengu in she aito plan and soma changaa cn arcniCactu [e. Commiasionar Valletta felt theta ehocld De mores amphu ie on movement oL Lhe Du ild ing. SN asked it i[ would be Oetcer Co workshop the item rather than only having two Commi a ionar• ac do lgn review. Commies ionar chiciea felt that would be beat. Mr. Buller agreed chat all five commlaaioner• should be parC of cha procau. He qw stioned if it would ba accepCeDla if the applicant slim co seed tM eaeurn dock and provided a plan ahowang all accaea oE( the weacern dock without making ac Mr changes to the aiu plan. Planning Commission Minuta• -9- December 15, 1992 Chairman NcNtel felt thae wou Ld not be acceptable commieaioner Valletta stated the City implemented a pre-application tleeign review proce ae to allow applicants to recerva early direct ion from [he entire Commies ion. She said direction had been quite clear at the pre-application workshop that there should De no front dock areas visible from the street and she did not feel the City should try to massage the plans au bmitt ed. Mr. Buller requested clarification if it was the position of the Planning Commission that there should be abeolvte ly na Eront dock doors no matter what. Na said LC that were the case, the applicant could then decide whether to pu taus additional design review meetings. Chairman McN1e1 stated he felt that Commiseionera Chit Tea and vallette were firm in their oppoeit ion to franc docks. Commiaeioner Toletoy stated he also hoe a problem with front loading. He as ld the Commission had been taltl at the pre-application review workshop chat Smith's could not operate a store unless they had the loading ae dap feted on the current site plane, out aftecwarda the Commisa Toners learned there are stores wh ieD are back loaded. Comm Seeioner Valletta stated she dtd soma further checking and [ound there are stores Ln Glendora and Riverside Ln atltlit ion to the Fontana store with rear loading. Chairman NcN Tel felt that rear Loatling would be [he appropriate direction to pursue. He agreed a full Comm ies ion workshop should ba held and additional attentton should be paid to building articulation. Mr. Buller recommended reopening the public hearing Co allow the applicant to address if they would be willing to cone ider a tleeign that would eliminate all front loading. He evggeeted that if the applicant were willing, the Cemm iaeion may wish to set a workshop date in early January. Chairman McNiel reopened the public Deering. Mr. Muir stated they felt they had already gone through the process. He said their understanding at the last Deelgn Review Committee meeting was that hiator Trolly the recommendations of the tleeign review process carried considerable weight at the Planning Commission and would not require su bsegv ant design review procesuae. He felt to go back through the design review process would be a six-month step backward. Ne indicated that Smith's antl the it legal counsel would prefer a vote on the project at this time, even iE i[ were a denial, to ell.ow them to pu taus the matter through an appeal. Ne apo loglzed fot the mieu nderatanding that the Commissioners [e It Smith's does hat have rear-Esc ing dock configurations, Ne ea id a majority of their stores do have rear-[ec ing dock configurations, but they felt aha site con[igurat ion demands aide-loading docks. Ray Lavange, 612J Pe ntlot[, Rancho Cucamonga, ae katl about [he cor[idor. Ne said it is a heavily congested area antl he feared there may be a problem i[ Planning Commission Minu[ee -6- December 15, 1992 mere ie only a little turn-in going south on Vineyard and people may back up into other intersections. Chairman MeN iel again closed the public hearing. Commie aioner Me lcher asked if it woultl be necessary to go through the denial pr oc sae iE the applicant was willing to make r.he changes Mr. Muir had auggeaced,. cha rrman McNrel reopened ens public hearing. Mr. Muir stated they woultl be wiiling to make the cnangee they had tliscuesed bus [heir carry coats are so expensive that time is of the essence and they did not wish W in is iota a long and extenatve design review process re-examining every facet of the project. Me Ee lc if they could limit cha tleb ace to strictly the dock configuration and cosy race ivetl enough feedback chat one of the two or three proposed schemes woultl make Che project acceptable, they would be willing to work with [he Commission. Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Ha felt that if the tlo<ks are moved, it dramatically changes the fooeprint of the Dui ld ing and creates a problem with re epees to arcnitec[ure char woultl nave to be atldrasaed. Motion: Moved by Chit iea, seconded by Toletoy, ca adopt the resolution denying Conditional use Permit 92-18 wichaut prejudice. Mac ion carried by the fo Llowing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES; COMMISSIONERS: MELCNER ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Mr. Buller et at ed if there were an appeal, the matter could possibly be heard at ens second City Council Me acing in January. ADJOURNMENT Moc ion: Moved by Melchor, seconded by Chit iea, to adjourn. 5:75 p.m. - The Planning Commrssion adjourned co a workshop ac 5:00 p. m. on Januety 6, 1993, at the Toletoy residence regarding Planning Commission goals and pr icrit iea. Reepectfu lly submitted, s Rratl eul er secretary Planning Comm ieaion Mrnucea -7- DncemDer 15, 1992 RICHARD 6 MARIE REICNE LT 1846 N VALLEJO WAY UPLAND CA 91786 (909) 985-8330 December 2. 1992 City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Dr Rancho Cucamonga, Ca 91770 RE: Conditional Use Permit 92-18 - Smith's Foothill Blvd & Carnelian/Vineyrd Dear Planning Commission Members: We are writing as owners of our parcel of property that borders the Smith's project to the north on San Bernardino Rd. We wanted to express our concerns for a better quality development of that corner if all the parcels from Foothill to San Bernardino Rd were to be included in the project. we were originally contacted on June 19, 1990 by agents of Smith's who wrote that they were vjery interested in acquiring our parcel of property for their project. We negotiated a price with Smith's and soon after opened escrow. By agreeing to sell, we believed at that time that we were acting in the best interest of ourselves, the city of Rancho Cucamonga's Foothill Specific Plan, the immediate neighborhood and of course Smith's progressive development. It was our understanding that the Plan called for one developer for the entire development. We were made aware on April 8, 1992 that Smith's site plan now did not include our property and they would not be acquiring our parcel. This was several months after they had notified the city of their intent to exclude our parcel. After a meeting this morning with staff from your planning dept we learned of Smith's new master plan which shows "some future developer" be left to develop our remanent parcel. we can show where it would not be economically feasible to build on or market it in the near future. Indeed it creates a hardship on us as present owners and severely limits our opportunities. We are concerned that the City's "gateway project" may be left with inadequate parking, inadequate traffic lanes and conditions, and two apartment building structures nearing the end of their useful economic life. ~. .r..... r.~ il.. ll There exists for all parties concerned, a window of opportunity if Smith's develops the complete parcel at a the small proportionate cost for them. It seems highly improbable that a quality development would ever be economically feasible in the foreseeable future on the small remanent parcels. We understand the city's ethics preclude "forcing" Smith's to purchase our property as they originally intended. however we trust with vovr encouracement and more in depth review of the project, all parties concerned can be equally enjoined. Respectfully, l ~l- RicharG 6 Marie Reichelt me me .ion u:c 31992 °'1 H F_~~~ ~._--- 71. 7tlgt117, 9 „., r. 1 l ]I<] 1 ~. r ~~ a Q City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division P.O. Box 607, Rancho Cucamonga, C.n. 91729 Re: Conditional [Ise Permit 92-18 - Smith's Dear Planning Commission Memhers: In view of the fact that this commercial development comprises the major qa teway to Rancho Cucamonga from the West, we feel that a better quality development for Smith's corner should be entertained from them than what is presently under consideration. The three parcels beginning at the Southwest corner of San Bernardino and Vinyard should be included and made part of Smith's plan. These parcels were in fact under contract by Smith up until September of this year. Not only that, but Smith's mitigating plan for the development of these parcels as required 'by the City, are not economically feasible! Their plan fur this area really does nothing more but assure the City that two already aging apartment buildings will blight the appearance of this attractive development for years to come. What could be built on that small parcel that Would generate the income necessary to provide a return on not only the cost of combining the three parcels, but pay for the expensive offsites the Engineering Dept. feels are necessary? Some of these are: Extending Smith's right turn lane North to San Bernardino Rd., relocating the traffic signal at that corner as well as installing the usual underground utilities, sidewalks, etc. How much better it would be if the Commission would decide to maintain the city's integrity to the Foothill Specific Plan that envisions one entity developing the entire corner. We therefore urc~~ the commission to suggest to Smith's that they submit a plan that includes the development of these parcels by them. then the concerns of your Engineering Dept. could be addressed as to the needed extension of that right turn lane and the signal. relocation associated with that. Sincerely, Calvin & Mary Reed, part owners of the apt. bldg. at 686 S.B. Rd. 776 Santa victoria Solana Beach, CA 92075 (619- 92-6058) ..sir. -~, i.CBOi u:C 81992 YM !1C!::;.:!1s21314t5t~~ ll r ~y~v December 3, 1992 ~n~ ~, ~,,,YCHO c .~ ,;n~a~~a n. ~. ~ ..,, `' City of Rancho Cucamonga clo Planning Department -Planning Commiss(oners -~~ Deb T199? Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 ry,l3,,1)ullll~i1j2t'~14f$ 6 RE: Development Qf rgi3l Drop2rtv ~ Foothill BNd.. Vin r Avenue ~1 ~n Bernardino Roads. Pnmarv v I r _ mtth' Food Dear Planning Commissioners: I am the property owner of 8008 Vineyard Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga (Southwest corner Vineyard & San Bemardino Roads). Cher 1 1/2 years ago Smith's Food contacted me about purchasing my property. Smith's was going to purchase my property along with all the other Dr'ODE;rtIEK in the block for their own use. Until just recently did I become aware that Smith's was not going to close escrow on my parcel along with two adjacent properties to the west of mine My property was scheduled to Gose escrow on September 1, 1992. I apologize for the length of this letter... but a lot has happened the past couple of years. In case some of you are not aware I had planned to develop my corner parcel prior to Smith's coming along in early 1991. I rexnred approval from your committee, the planning commission and the City Council. I paid all the necessary fees and secured the building, grading and engineering permits for construction. I had paid almost $60,0017 for these fees to the City. Then Smtth's came along. (Note: I was a 1/3 owner of the parcel directly South of the corner - app. 2 acres). Smith's had signed contracts for all the other parcels in the block with the exception of mine and one of the apartment complexes. I informed Smith's that I did not want to sell the comer because I was in the process of beginning construction. Smith's informed me they would stop the whole project and look for another location... 'rf they could not tie up All THE PARCELS IN THE BLOCK. Since we )jg(Z IS2 ,~ the 2 acres to a primary developer for the whole block, I agreed to sell my corner to Smith's. Sometime in 2986-89 me and my partners submitted a development for the 2 acre parcel; however, tt became very clear that the City warned a SINGLE developer for the emirs block. In fact, it got very difficult to proceed w8h our proposed development (2 acres) and we abandoned the project. Later on I began to see the benefits and reasoning why the Crty of Rancho Cucamonga was looking for a single developer for the entire block. There were several properties in the block that had older buildings with little useful economic life in them; some vacant properties and the flood control district property at the west end of the block. It did seem to make sense to have a single major developer that could rectify and clean up the whole mess. In early 1991 Smith's had every parcel in the entire block under contract which would satisfy the Foothill Specific Plan. The roller rink, restaurant, apartment complexes and vacant land would all be untler the control of a single major developer. The Foothill Specific Plan would be satisfied, the City would get a quality development and the blight would be totally removed from the site. Seems like everyone's needs would be met! Unfortunately, everything did not work out as planned. Three parcels consisting of approximately 38,000 sq.ft. (less than 1 acre) are now being pulled out of Smith's development. Smith's development consists of something in the range of SOO,000 sq.ft. The three property owners are now being told by Smith's the reason for this is: (1j does not make economic sense, (2) City of Rancho Cucamonga led Smith's on about receiving Redevelopment Funds and was subsequently turned down by the City; and (3) the Ciry of Rancho Cucamonga would not allow Smith's to fully develop the property as originally planned. It seems (accortling to Smith's representative) that Smth's met all the standards with a larger development (first submittal), but the City cut down the number of leasable square feet. These are the reasons I have been given for not proceeding with the purchase of my parcel and the two apartment complexes. If Smith's plan is approued as currently submitted, it will be going against the guidelines of the Foothill Specrfic Plan and the blight in the neighborhood will remain. The two remaining apartment parcels will virtually be left "undevelopable' because of their size and location. The owners were aware of the Foothill Speck Plan and knew someday in the future a single major developer would come along, pay a fair price and remove the old buildings. My problem (corner lot) is a little bit more unique. We believe if you approve the plan and leave out the three smaller parcels at the north end of the project; (1) R will be going against your own plan for the site, (2) not remove the blight already on the site and (3) not allow smooth traffic and pedestrian flow for all the possible developments for the site. In addition, we believe we are the victim of circumstances between the City and Smth's Food King. First of all, Smith's agreed to purchase all of our properties at a price Smith's felt was fair and equitable, then Smith's told us they couldn't buy the property because it was to expensive and the City would not let them develop k as they were led to believe. Smith's thought they could get redevelopment funds and/or build a larger development...and since nedher one happened Smith's claimed they could not use our properties for economic reasons. Smith's knew about the City's Foothill Specific Plan antl the wishes of the City. Evidently Smith's now believe, very confidently, that they can now proceed with their development wRhout having to honor their commitment and purchase the entire block as per the guidelines of the Foothill Specific Plan. The losers will be the Ciry, its citizens, the immediate neighborhood and of course the property owners who were led to believe in Smith's and the City guidelines as approved in the Foothill Specfic Plan. This whole block is the western gateway to the Ciry of Rancho Cucamonga and if this protect is approved as submittetl, it doesn't seem to meet the standards (Foothill Plan) which took several years to study, review, revise numerous times and finally Y 2 II ~_~ receive the stamp of approval by all the citizens and staff of Rancho Cucamonga. If Smith's plan is approved without incorporating our three parcels we believe the following will occur: (1) Smith's will not be meeting the standards and guidelines of the Foothill Specfic Plan (2) According to Smkh's they now do not have to complete the purchase our property... because ft is too expansive and the Cfty feels their project is acceptable m light of the Foothill Specfic Plan. (3) The three property owners gave the City and Smth's the opportunity to proceed with the developmern for the site as THEY WISH... we allowed Smith's to "tie up the property" for over 1 1/2 years (4) Smith's telling three property owners the City is at fault because of their unreasonable resVictions (5) The blight left after the Smdh development will probably be there forever (6) Very difficuR to effectively develop remaining parcels and incorporate them with the Smith development (?) All the other property owners were able to sell and close escrow with Smith's because of them. The City will get a major developer for the site. Remaining property owners are the real losers. They're left with trying to develop a commercial site that even Smith's say is not economically viable. Ii Smith's does not think k's worth tleveloping, then who will. The blight will remain IRerally forever. 15 that what the City wants? IteaarrJlna Prlor Aoorovaf Q southwest Corner vine ~ S,~t Bernardino ROatls I personally feel betrayed and Vicked into entering into apurchase/option agreement with Smith's in early 1991. I ~I ~ want to sell the property as I spent untold hours and a lot of money to begin developing the sfte. It was made very clear to me that if I did not enter into a cornrad wiV; Smith's for the corner...they would look for other ekes and would not buy the two acre parcel which I was in partnership wRh two other investors. I did receive a fair offer from Smith's and decided to sell the comer. After attending numerous meetings with the City regarding the Foothill Specific Plan and realizing the City's wishes and desires, I feR the only viable solution for the project bounded by Foothill, Vineyard, San Bernardino and the Flood Control District... would ba to find a single major developer. Smith's seemed to be the perfect answer for everyone, including all the property owners. I knew if Smith's was the single developer for the whole site everyone would be happy and satisfied. When I first pulled the building permit for my corner site I had several se~'ious buyers who would purchase the property and move their business onto the site. I had a couple of retail outlets looking for a long term lease (10+5+5 years) which would have been gootl for me. Prior to signing the final agreement with Smith's I met with City officials to make sure that my building permit could remain active until the decision with Smith's occurretl. The City was extremely helpful and assisted me while at the same time allowing Smith's sufficient time to do their studies on the site. It was in the best interests of the City, Smith's Food King and myself to see that the Smith project goes forward. In the early part of 1992 my building permit had expired and I was not able to proceed with construction because of my contract with Smith's. I was assured by Smith's everything was going along okay and escrow would close as scheduled. September came and went without escrow closing. To this date t have never received a letter from Smth's indicating their desires not to purchase my property. Just prior to September t, 1992 I was intomned by Smhh's reahy consultant...they didn't know what Smith's was going to do. No one would give me a reason or talk to me about my property. I called SmRh's Food King several times for clarification. No one at Smdh's would talk to me. They kept referring me to a consultant in Texas, Mr. Larry Kiang. Mr. Kiang has always been very nice and would talk to me, but he didn't have the final say so. I am now left with my original parcel, lost two years of marketing and at least three potential sales, all permits have expired, and I face another possible uphill battle to reinstate my original project with plans, reviews, add'Rional expenses and public hearings! This is not what I had in mind when I agreed to contract with Smith's. As indicated early everyone, except the leftover three property owners, gets what they want...SmRh's, City of Rancho Cucamonga and the other property owners who were fortunate to have their property included in a specific plan that called for the entire tlevelopment to be w-tder the control OF A SINGLE DEVELOPERI I am requesting that you adhere to your previous goals laid out in the Foothill Specdic Plan, antl whoever develops the site include ~ QroDertl@S Wlthlrl ~ 3fOt ellfefltl0nt3tl !?OUfltlBrl@S. It makes for good sound planning. Smith's has already indicated they do not want the three properties because it will not make any economic sense. Why is that? Together (City, SmRh & Property Owners) we need to resolve the matter for all concerned. I look forward to your comments and will be a! the public hearing on the 9th of this month to answer any questions you might have regarding this letter. Sincerely yours, Edward R. Combs, Owner 8008 Vineyard Avenue (714)-985.5994 residence y --,-/~ ~ RESOLUTION NO• A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CVCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 92-18, THE DEVELOPMENT OF A COMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTER CONSISTING OF A 75,000 SQUARE FOOT GROCERY STORE, TWO SATELLITE BUILDINGS OF 3,500 SQUARE FEET EACN, AND A DRIVE-THRU PAD OF 4,800 EQUARE FEET ON 10.6 ACRES OF LAND IN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (SUBAREA 2) OF THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND VINEYARD AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 207-102-03, 5, e, 15, 20, 21, AND 49. A. Recitals. (i) Smith's Food 6 Drvg has filed an application for the issuance of Conditional Vse Permit No. 92-1R as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "fje application." (ii) On the 9th day of cecember 1992, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed pu611c hearing on the applica tlon. On December 15, 1992, a subsequent public hearing was conducted and following the conclusion of said public hearing, adopted Re so lotion No. 92-151 thereby recommending to this City Council that said application be denied. (iii) The de ci sicn represented by said Planning Comma salon Resolution was timely appealed to this Council. (ivl On January 2C, 199], the City Council of the City of Fancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. (v) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Aeaolution have occurred. e. Pesolutian. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the CL ty Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga ea follows: 1• This Council hereby ape cif ically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Pazt A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence prase nted to this Council during the above-referenced January 20, 1993 public heating, including written staff reports, the minutes of the above-referenced Planning Commission meeting, and the cnn tents of Planning Commissior. Resolution No. 92-151, Chia Council hereby ape ci Eica lly finds as follows: C1'L'Y CONNC IL kea„LU'L'i UN NU. CDY 92-18 DENIAL - SMITH'S Sanua ry 20, 1993 Page 2 (a) The application applies to property located at the northwest corner of Foothill Doulevard and Vineyard Avenue with a street frontage of 770 feet along Foothill Bovle vard and a lot depth of 780 feet on property zoned Community Commercial. The proposed site is composed of several parcels and is presently improved with a vacated roller rink and restaurant, a free-standing vacated restaurant and associated parking loi with landscaping, and a one-story, wood-framed residence; and ~S) The properties to the north of the subject sl to are partially vacant and developed with two apartment buildings, the property to the south consists of vacant property south of Foothill Doulevard, the property to the east is Commercial east of Vineyard Avenue, and the property to the west is the Cucamonga Channel; and (c) The application contemplates the development of a 75,000 square foot grocery store, two satellite buildings (B 6 C) comprised of 3,500 square feet each, and a drive -thru pad consisting of 4,800 square feet; and (d) The application, as proposed, would be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare and does not comply with each of the appli cat le provisions of the cevelopment Code and the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan for the following reasons: (1) The architecture and related design element9 within the proposed project, as reEle cted in this application, are not consistent with the goals, policies, and design guidelines of the Foothill Boulevard Specific plan which states the following: 1) In Section 4.5.1, that vehicular traffic through adjacent residential streets shall to minimized; 2) Sn Section 8.2.2, that Activity Center parking lots dorm natinq th_ street scene are specifically prohibited and auto-related facilities (i.e., working bays, storage, etc.) shall be screened or oriented away from public views, buildings she 11 be sited and designed to minimize pedestrian/vehicle conflicts and avoid locating driveways and service areas which interfere with the Elow of Foothill Doulevard pedestrian movements; 3) In Section 8.2.5, that in Activity Center locations, the pa rklnq areas shall be located to the rear of building; and 4) In Section 9.4.3, that parking lots 6e tween the front property line and major structures are strongly discouraged; and 12) The design of the Smith's store, as proposed, provides lx ding dock facilities on the east and west sides of the store which face Foothill Doulevard and are, therefore, inconsistent with the design of other major supermarkets in Aancho Cucamonga which front onto major thoroughfares. The location and orientation of loading feel lilies are typically provided along the rear elevations of grocery stores and/or shopping centers to conceal delivery activity from public view, particularly ir. an area which is considered to be a major gateway Lnto the wesie rn section of the City; and (3) The location of the loading docks create potentially dangerous vehicular conflicts between truck and car traffic within the parking tot. In addition, such a potentially dangerous and confusing traffic pattern within the parking lot could be hazardous to pedestrians entering and exiting the store; and CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. CVP 92-1R DENIAL - SMITH'S January 20, 1993 Page 3 (4) Truck traffic along San Bernardino Road and truck in gtess/e qre ss from and to this street, whl ch is proposed by the project site design, is undesirable to existing residences along both sides of the street. 3. eased upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced public hearing, including written and oral staff reports, this Council hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) That the proposed use is not in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and (b) That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will 6e detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and (c) That the proposed use does not comply with each of the applicable provisions to Che Devrelopment Coda and Foothill Boulevard Specif lc Plan. 5. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby denies the application. 6. This CouncLl hereby provides notice to Smith's Food and Druq that the time within which judicial review of the decision represented by this Resolution must be sought is governed by the provisions of California Code of Civil procedure Section 1094.5. 7. The City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga is hereby directed to: (a) certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and (b) fotthwl th transmit a certified cepy of this Resolution, by ce rtiEled nail, return-receipt requested, to Smith's Food and Dtvg at the address identified in City records. CZTY OF AANCHO COCAHONGA PLANNING COMMIBB SON MINUTES Adjourned Hgtinq April 3, 1997 Chairman tarry McNiel called the Adjourned Meet lnq o! CM City of Raneho Cucamonga Planning CammLeion co order at 5:15 p.m. TM motinq w• held in tM Raine Room at the Rancno Cucamonga Clvic Cenur, 10500 Clvlo CenGr Drive, Rancho CuealaOnga, Cali[ocni• ROLL CALL COHMISEIONEAS: PALSENT: tarry McNle 1, PKer To Ltoy, Jonn Mel<her, Suzanne Chitiea, BGVe Proton, XPC STAFF PRESENT: Brad Bullet, Clty Planners SCOtt Murphy, Auocist• Planners Naney Ponq, Benior Planners Otto Aroutil, Deputy C lty P1annK; Bev Nle qn. Auoalate P1anM[J AnChea Nartiq, Auociab Planners Larry Henderson, Principal Planner; Dan Coleman, Prineipal Planners Bnincu Bose, Deputy City Lngineert Joe O'Nell, City 6ngineec7 Barbua xral 1, AuLtant Bngineesl Dan Jamee, Senior Clvil E ngingr7 Basrys Hanson, Senloc Clvil Lngineer APPLICANTS: PRESLNT: Prncott Mule, Preeeott Mult Architettr, Llu Arnett, Preeeott Mulr Archatecu; Brett French, Envlrans Landscape Archlteotuns Jouph Neysr, C.B. Coeale[aial ~ jYfVZEw OP CONCEPTUAL PLAM! s'OR DLVEL^PM_NT OP A HOPP IH A 10 IffE_NORTNHEST CORNER OP FOOTHILL a t Ey pn VINEY R At N 6 PRL-APPGLCATION RE VIEH 92-02 - SMITH'! SUPERfTOAE Mr. Preeeott Mulr pruen[sd rwlaed arehlcsotural plane to the Commie ion and Commented on CM proposal. Ne. Bwsrly Nls can presented •catC'• comments to the CoasUSion. Thn Commlaelon cu ponded Co the propo eel a Collowss Commies loner Mel ehee indluted that thi• prouq wu not inunded tar cn• Commau loo to ceceive nw !nlnrmacion end lc would be dlt Clcu le for ham co comment on CM nvased el evasions. Me Celt shat the original drawanq• were d atC icult to deelpMe becaup o! cM it sirs and teals. Hs like4 cM tact coat ch• bulldanq wu "dug an" an the north •ads. He t•It ehi• would help reduce tM stale of the Oulldinq. Ha tali that tM Laek of uu11Lt• pads ae ehe cornet wu not art loos and that muter planning with Ch• out paroel to cha north wa apgropriab. Ha Lelt that the urbanity of the Activity Conur need. co bo addteuod and at [Lret blush M pr•torred the alt•rnau Lnd•eapa plan rather than whet was originally propo••d. H• tAt thaC the oviRead door were enormous and needed co be addte u•d. Ho to It that allowing cRe archit•ctur• to retleet eN winery or Gill building on the scat •ide of Foothill Boulevard wu appropriaur Eut chat the building •hou ld not reflect tM architecture o[ era winery thappLnq center. Commiuioner Toletoy 1ndlcat•d he te1C tb Activity Center a propoesd 61d not mac ch• intent of the foothill eoulevard Specific Plan. He ra[Leeed On CM cu eon why no bulldinq. required an the nortMa•t corner of looth111 boulevard and Vineyard Avenue and only this corner wu diLUnne and buildings should De required. Xe oleo felt the alto should be more pede•trLan oriented and give ehe watomer• tM opportunity co do other types o! chopping and errand.. He tale chs •iL plan ohould try and get away tram Lrgs perking area expo••d to Foothill eoulward. He felt the! tM archldctuw wu hard to coemenc on Escau•e of tho .Cale o[ the drawing.. He felt that the building did not LLt hie idea of what • shopping cenwr •hou ld look like. Commls•lone chit lea ontred the ^SU plan congrns o! Cominlonsr Tolaeoy. she Lolt cM site vu loo .mall co accameodau such a Luge bulldinq. SM felt that eM eonvsnUnee to the. eoneuMr vu not Dnpnt rithout addLCioMI chops. She felt CM bulldinq facade needed greeter articuLtien. She felt it would be hard, however, co place • bulldlnq o! chU airs ad~acene to the seruc frontage. sM felt CMe CM Duildinq [wade needed sore movement and that <hangs wu needeA in the roof plane. SM felt that eM oelent-tion o[ cRe loading area wu a problem. sM pre3srred eM nviaed lwdwape toncspe with the wecer element at the corner. Shs [ale more landwapLnq againac cM building •heuld be provided. Commie Loner HcHtel commenced that he had never seen a bulldlnq thi^ largo for a 9rocsrY .tore. Hr. Preecoee Mule responded that CM eencept behind tM smith•^ Supeneore roe eo cab • typical chopping tenter and LnesoveK 1C w chat •11 tM ancillary wrv ices are provided In CAe lousier o! tM DuLld Lnq. Yogurt scores, vLdeo Wool, and piara parlor r111 be run by concualonalree. Commisslonu McH/el Lndleated Chat he agreed with CM loett ion of CM Act lv ity Cancer. Ne felt Le ras SmpOKant to master plan [M out pared. He Lndicaud coat ie wu a polity o[ the PLnnlnq Cwaiu ion not to expose roll-up door to a public street. Ne Ulf that CRe walkray eheough CRe Benue o! the sire would b• dl!liGUlt to push • gceeery tart through and Chat it ehouLd be •apandw. He felt that tM speela11ce0 paving 1n front of tM eegre carved no pu rposs unl ue ie lined up rich ehe entry door. He Celt chat the root line ns•ded greaur arc iculat ion -nd that equipment sereenlnq should be lncsquud uich the arch iteeturs o[ the bulldlnq. He did roe like the wending eeame0 meal root and felt a dit hrene root matsrtal would be more appeoprlats. He to It that CM exterior o[ CM bulldlnq should be treated ae though ie wsrs a Plano inq commission M1nuCee -7- APril 3, 1997 /hopping unto. H• tale chat the corner crutmenc fhould ref Uci cM local wintry heritage al ao. Nie ^igquc concern vest the crsat ion of pedesc ciao scree. roar made unp. He Lelc that the applicant •nould explore mov Lnq p+de A and B to the Corner to crow an Activity tenter and pasaib ly raor lent the building. He felt chat the uu wu apptopriaw. Cammiu inner Solrtoy indicaud that ne would welcome • new arehiuc[ural look in tn• Cicy and did not mind departing tram cne cradicional Medlurranun •cyle, but coat any new Cheme mutt nave Cne •axw Lwel m[ drta 11 ae i• cmmmon thrmughout cne Cicy. Commtu inner Helcher thought that the form o[ tM bulldlnq should expcee• cne [act that so much la Happening lnelde the bulldlnq• xe state6 he wa^ diuppolntq with the mechenleal ecrNnlnq concept. He stated chat the lino oC cne penihouo mould not be dLCernlbll o a pentnouu. He thought cna< the applleant should explore nduclnq the drive aleUe to 2a [set in width. He Had no obi eccion to the proposed metal root. Commiuloner Cnlt iea indl<ated CM appllcant should not ute any lnduetrial mawraaL. She did not like tM uu of epl It [ate Dlock upecially when mixed with .tutee and rock. SM Lelt tM entry point at the corner should he at quality materLL and upa<ale. Sne felt tM building needed mop movement and inverter and that !t currently looked like a blq bor. Mr. Buller Coot ludad tM vetting w/ch CM tollarinq cesw•rku 1. The chal Unge [or cM applleant Le to tit the 75,doJ square Looe bulldlnq onto the tic •. 2. The out parcel to Che north •hould be auatee planned. 7. Tone of the Commlulones• wn opposed eo roll-up doors bring Poothill eoulward and ohm of tM Coewluloner• Celt they mLght be eucceuCully incorporaud into eM project /t ueehec lc• and location iuuu were considered. a. Metal roof !e not dulraele. 5. TM archiuecure o! cM project shoo ld not ref UcC tMt of the winery enoppinq notes. 6. tnq inN[inq and Hletoelo PnNrvetion conderM Wn not dUCwud. TM appllcant should consult with the Pin Oiecriet co determine i! cne ' secondary drlvway ot[ Vlneyerd Avenue could be curt blocked and whether a ma~orlty o[ Cne drive ielee could be reduced to 7• feet. ins Hletoric Pn great ion Coaw Lelon will coN ldee eM peo~wt Meeup of CM original Cucamonga Poet Cf rice was located on the elec. 7. TM applleant should revlee eAe Aeeiv icy Center concept. OuildLnge, of an appropruu ^cal• mould be added and cited ac eM corner. Plano in9 Commie eon Ninueo -]- Apr 11 2, 13 q1 M•ating edjournad at 6:10 p.m. Ra•p i1y • 'tLd, Br B Serer •ry PLanninq Commie Lon Minute -a- April 2, 1992 pKAFT ,,~` ~,~1" FOR pi~,CUSSIOV PURP05ES ONLY `~~pt°N~~~~ ^141gL FILE NO.: CUP 92.18 ~f '_',,~MV yyy Y7+ (COMPLETENESS COMMENTS) f.IW'~//~°°(((l,,''III .NY p~ NOTE; This information is provided to assist in the preparati~o! a development package complete for processing. Additional information or comments may 6e necessary based upon a more thorough analysis during the Development Review Process. A, Deslgn ly<oSL - The Collowing arc preliminary design issues that are recommended to be addressed in the revised plans: 1. Master Planning. The ultimate development and ~\ redevelopment of the site should incorporate the three , parcels on San Bemardioo Rd. Ai' a minimum, a conceptual master plan for these three parcels should be developed Po J ensure integrated developmene LL 2. The proposed design of the activity center is contrary to the Specific Plan in that buildings are not proposed at this -~ cprner. `,TILL Nr~ (lrlNS6Tt~%='- ~E-IZ lTi r.1Di6 vt., V4iN -~-~.,$ ~t?,f~ravP~ anJ Pa. tit-e.ts-a~vsctncw mcw5..w~.•~...... --~-~ is inconsistent with the desigh guidelines oC the Specific Plan. Lack of pedestrian oriented facilities such as continuous Pasco walkways designed with testured pavement; kiosk and attractive landscaping flanking the walkway, connecting to the different buildings, streets, and the regional trails; plaza with pedestrian amenities; etc. O5. The orientation of the two loading areas create aesthetic and design issues and traffic conflicb which are contrary to the design guidelines of the Specific Plan. 6. The architcetural style proposed for Smith's Superstore does not reflect the City's cultural and historical heritage, nor address the comments voiced by the Planning Commission at the Pre-Application Review. In general, the design of the project with its buildings orientation, site planning, architectural style, etc., is not sensitive to the site as expressed by the Planning Commission at the pre-Application Review. The Planning Commission acknowledged the many constraints of the site but believed that they should be considered as opportunities. An opportunity to use innovative and creative site planning design which firs in with the size, shape, and unique characteristics of the site. An opportunity to design the buildings sensitive to and reflective of the City's cultural and his[orical heritages. R is for these reasons that [he City has adopted a Specific Plan establishing special design guidelines and standards to guide future devdopmem and redevelopment along [he Foothill Boulevard cortidor. B. T.chni al Ic<, ~ - The following preliminary technical issues arc minimum code requirements which must be satisfied before the project can be recommended for approval to the Planning Commission. It is recommended [hat these issues be addressed in the revised plans: 1. Staff nos comple[ed s draft Environmental Assessment and identified the following issues: a. W The site is within a City designated Special Study Zone for the inferred Red Hill fault. Submit two ~~ ~p copies of the Geologic Repon dated September lo, {"~ ~ 1991, prepared by [he applicant's consultant, ?~ Leighton and Associates, Inc. TAe City's policy is to A/" i~ retain a registered geologist consultant to review ,tss} .ty the completeness and adequacy of the report in VV'' ~(,1" \ complying with the Alquist-Priolo Act. The ~s~ , ~~/ applicant is responsible for the full cost of this p~;P review. Prior to authorizing the City's consultant to proceed with it, payment for the full cost of this review must be submitted to the City. b. The site contains existing mature trees such as, ` Palms, Sycamores, Pines, etc. which are protected by On the Tree Preservation Ordinance. The development Ufa'' of this project would resat[ in the removal of these `~ «ew. An Arborist's Repon is required to ddermine h the exact location of these trees, their species and _ ~~If size, their state of Aealth, and whether these trees can be saved in place or by relocation. The city will retain an Arborist consultant to prepare such a report at the applicant's expense. Prior to ~t authorizing the City's consultant to proceed with it, payment of the full cost of such rcpon must be submitted to the City. The site is imputed by toad noise from Foothill Blvd. and Vineyard Ave. as indicated in the Noise Element of the City's General Plan. Prior to issuance of s building permits, a Noise Study is required to ~,~" ~detennine the noise source and level, and mitigation measures to ensure the reduction of the interior `~ noise to an acceptable level for Pads A and B, rV_..~~1' _A,y~ 2 / I d. 1 The site is part of a larger area that rcprcsents a set 1 'vl of important physical tics to the major historical periods of the Rancho Cucamonga area, and as such there are many pmentially significant impacts on a variety of identified and unidentified cultural resources. Therefore, a Cultural Resource Study is required, subject to Historic Preservation Commission review and approval. This study shall consist of two pans. One part is to determine the historical, cultural, and architectural significance of the existing single (amity structure located at 8010 Vineyard Ave., whether it should have a landmark designation and whether it should be preserved in place or by relocation. The second pan is to do a surface and sub-surlacc archaeological site reconnaissance survey with test borings, to determine the significance of the archaeological «source and the necessary mitigation measures for the site. The Cultural Resource Study shall. be performed by an archaeologist certified 6y SOPA - the Society of Professional Archaeologists. The City will «tain such a consultant to prepare this Study at the applicant's expensa. Prior to authorizing the City's consultant to proceed with it, payment for the full cost of this study must be submitted to the City. c.~l`, The development of the site will result in the f (,~ removal of the existing roller rink building. \~ According to the Phase I Environmental Site Assessmem for Potemial Hazardous Materials/Waste ~ Comaminarion repon prepared by the applicant's ,a~consultant, Leighton and Associates, Inc., dated „n August 22, t991, ubestos containing materials are present in the building. Prior to demolition of any structures within the project sire, a comple« demolition asbestos survey and abatement shell be required, subject to the City's Building Official's review and approval. 2. Detailed Site Plan, The alignment of the on-site main driveway off meyard Ave., together with the location of the easterly loading dock and parking area, create contliets for pedestrians, autos, and trucks. Indicate whether Pad A is a drive•through ~ ~ restaurant, bank, or other use. The design of this .~Q/Pad should meet the Drive•Through Policies as ln/1''~'1 contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 88-96. A copy of the resolution has been given to you during a preliminary review (PR 91-26) of the development proposal. [i appears that the drive- through lane does not provide adequate car stacking distance and will create trafl"ic conflicts a[ the main envy. c. The location of the westerly loading dock area creates a traffic conflict for pedestrians, autos, and ~\ trucks. ~ d.~ The meandering of the sidewalk is too severe and ///\~~~~^~ should be more gradual. The second driveway o(f Vineyard Ave., together with the gate, crcue traffic conflicts and a potential 1 public safety hoard io that it creates opportunities ~(~' Cor autos by mistake to tom in and then have to back up to VineyaM Ave. All commercial development must provide for on- site bicycle storage space at s rate of S percent of the required parkiog spues and comply with the specific design criteria as outlined in the attached Ordinance No. 480. The are- where the bicycle storage racks arc to be located should be embellished with architectural elements such as trellis, light fis[urcs, etc., consistent with the design theme of this project. ~ypuj~,, a. Q.~,I t ,~ tw,.~ ~ fXt_ loe4~avt- 3. Conceptual Landscape Plsn. ~O The number of trees do not meet the minimum standards as listed below. Tho density of landscape materials is baud on the following landscape ratio: i. ~ One tree per three parking spaces. ii. One tree per thirty lineal fear of the street ~ frontage. iii. tl' One tree per thirty lineal feet of the building perimeter. tv.~~One tree per thirty lineal feet of the properly boundary, specifically the west, east, and north property boundaries. /v. J Lgpd~Cape materials consisting of trees, l./ ~~tru/b~ and appropriate ground cover within 0 feet landscape setback area along Foothill Blvd, and VineyaM Ave. 4 The size of the trees within the activity center area should be a minimum of 30-inch box per Section 9.4,ti, Page IV-9.24 of the Foothill Boulevard Specifc Plan. co. The proposcd landscape scheme of the activity center does h not meet t e concept depicted in the Foothill Blvd Specific Plan. This hu been previously U'y1" pointed out through a preliminary review (PR 91- L 1 (LlU ~-fl 1 26). Also, the proposed Queen Palm tree species is inconsistent with the conce t as shown in [h 1 -~1 p e Specific Plao. C r'~m plot n sc R m. - Additional information that must be submitted prior to finding the application complete: 1. Complete those items u marked on the attached Submittal Checklist. 2. Submit a copy of the Fire Department receipt. ~ Submit a let[er with signatures from all the property owners within the project site authorizing the applicant, Smith's Food and Dmg Center, Inc., and/or Prescott Muir Architec[s, to process the Conditional Use Permit application. 4, Besides the items marked on the attached Submittal Checklist, provide the following information on the Detailed Site Plan: a. Plot truck taming radii to show that there is adequate maneuvering space into the loading docks at the east and west sides of the Smith's Superstore. The track turning radii for the easterly loading dock should begio at Vineyard Ave. The truck taming radii for the westerly loading dock should begin at the driveway of[ Foothill Blvd. Add a Summary Development Table to include information such as the percentage and square footage of landscaped areas, plaza areas, parking, buildings, etc., to the net site area. c. Provide and label the dimensions for the following items: the different sizes of the landscaped planter areas in the parkin area the width of the driveway on Vineyard Ave., the distance between buildings and curbs,~the length and width of the two loading 5 docks, the length and width of Smith's Superstore ~^ huilding Pads A and B,/ Ir d, t Show future Regional Trail along the was[ propeny boundary (within Cucamonga Crack). Provide an illustrative cross section showing information such as, but are not limited to, Fencing, trail widths, landscaping, property lines, slopes, concrete channels, e[c. e. Show height of the proposed free-standing light ~~~~ fiztura. The City's requirements limit the height of the parking light fixture to be 15 feet as measured from the finished grade ro the top of the fixture. ~~ Label the type of textured pavement across the drive aisle and within the activity center at the tourer of Foothill Blvd. and Vineyard Ave. g. Locations of cart corrals in the parking area. storage area for the shopping carts, locations of bicycle storage areas and recycling centers, locations of truh enclosure areas for Pads A and B, locuions of ~oposed transformer and other ground mounted equipment. ~ ~ - Show concrete columns consistent with what's gho~wn on the Conceptual Landxape Plan. lAeeanj(o,(gPs'`~• 5. Besides the~itc nsnma od oo~~Ihe~S bmittal If-~ Checklist provide the following information on the Conceptual Grading Plan: a. ~ Show the retaioing wall along the north propeny boundary consistent with the Conceptual Landscape Plan. Provide cross sections at locations shown on Attachment The cross sections should include m ormauon such u, but ue not limited to, elevation differences (maximum and minimum conditions). eleva[ion of the mounding cnntour, height of building walls, height of freestanding or retaining walls, etc. Show all existing structures with dash lines and /~~ label the existing uses. o. / Show mounding contours with spot elevations along ~/ Vineyard Ave and Foothill Blvd, 6 Show line-of-sight (see separate handou[ from Engineering Division). 6. Conte/ptual Landscape Plan. a. rygr Provide illustrative cross sections at locations shown v` on Attachment A. The illustrative cross sections should include information such as, but are not limited to buildings, fret-s[andiv.g walls, mounding contours and height dimensions, landscaping, (cotes walkways, etc. b.,,`V Show line-of-sight (see separate handout from the N' Engineering Divisioo). 7. Elevations. The scale of the elevations is coo small. It should be /~ enlarged to a scale of 1/8 inch equals 1 foot. b./ Provide enlargements of architectural elements. c. Provide all elevations (four sides) of the proposed bus shelter, building Pads A and B. 7 I p M L(bJ £fat.ta, A conceptual floor plan for the Smith's Superstore showing the general areas for storage, office mezzanine, retail area, mechanical penthouse anJ the different concessionaires. 8. _„/Three sets of the typed gummed labels on 8 I/2 X It inch Hr' sheets listing the name, address, and Assessor's Parcel Numbers of all property owners within the Subarea 2 boundary per Section 8.1.11, Page If[-8.3 of the Foothill Blvd Specific Plan. Attuhment R is a map showing the boundaries of Subarea 2. A Tree Removal Permit is required if existing mature trees on-site are to be removed. A[tuhed for your use is a copy of the application form, a list of submittal requirements, and information for an Arborist's report. The filing fee for a Tree Removal Permit is s 432. fl. Engineering Division; A. nmpletene 'trm - Additions{ information that must be submitted prior to finding the application complete: I. Show existing utility polls on the "Detailed Site Plan". Also, refer to the attached "Existing Overhead Utility Requirements" handout and provide a separate drawing 7 per Section B of the handout. Include any utility poles that are on-site. 2. The project proposes to take access from Foothill Boulevard which is a State Highway; therefore, written commcnts from Caltrans are required. 3. The project proposes to drain to a Flood Control District facility; therefore, written comments from the District are required. This will be necessary if i[ is decided during Technical Review that a storm drain connection to Cucamonga Crcck to the wes[ is nccessary. 4. Providc a bus bay/right rum lane combination on Foothill Boulevard per attached sketch. 5. Show truck routes on the site plan for ingress and egress from the public right-of-way and access to the delivery docks. Use the attuhed Caltratu tumiog radii. 6. The line-of-sight shall be cornered to be in conformance with the attached policy. Also, show the lioe-of-sight on the grading plan. 7. Show the location of the existing dwellings on the north and south side of San Bernardino Road, the entire length from Vineyard Avenue wear, in relationship to the ultimate street width. 8. Provide a traffic study for the project. Your Traffic Engineer should contact the City's Traftic Engineer (Mr. Paul Rougeau) for the requirements of the study. Ot particular concern is the lack of adequate left turn opportunities for the site. 9. Show handicap ramps and traffic signals within the activity center area. 10. Show proposed median island on Foothill Boulevard. B• Issues The following arc preliminary technical issues that are recommended to be addressed in the revised plans: I. The northerly most driveway on Vineyard Avenue shall be eliminated because it is too close to the main driveway. The emergency gate would cause additional problems to drivers who turn in and have to back out. A mountable curb and turf block may work if an emergency access is required by the Fire Protection District. 8 2. Additional right-oF-way for the cul-dc-sac on San Bernardino Road shall 6e provided to eliminate the notch shown on the plans. 3. The drive approach on San Bernardino Road shall be 35 fee[ at the right-obway line. 4. Berming of landscaping is not allowed in the public righ[- of-way. 5. On-site storm drain facilities cannot connect to public catch basins. Connection may be made to the main storm drain line. Anachments: Submittal Requiremeou Checklist Tree Removal Permit Application and Submittal Requirements A -Cross Section Locations B Subarea 2 Boundary Ordinance No. 480 Planning Commission Resolution No. 88.96 April 2, 1992, Plamiog Commission Minutes Existing Overhead Utility Requirements Bus Bay Standard (Draft) 50-foot Turning Radius Interscetion Linero6Sight Determination 9 n _ _ ; ~ t1 N C tI O C U B r~ ti~i O ~ G ~i May 21, 1992 Mr. Presc otC Muir Prescott Muir Arahit ects 1"744 Berkeley Street Santa Monica, CA 90409 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL VSE PERMIT 92-1R Dear Mr. Muir: we are in receipt of your formal application and development plans for the proposed Smith's Superstore shopping center located at the norC hues[ corner of Foothill Blvd and Vineyard Ave. It is our normal practice to send a notice of completeness or incompletenesa upon receipt and review of an application. Yours is attached Co Chia letter. Because you choose to participate in the City's Pte-Application Review processr I would like to Cake this opportunity to snare some observations on your submittal in [nis letter. As you know, the purpose of Che Pre-Application Reviev Process held on April 2, 1992 for your proposed project was to allow you Che oppo rt unity to receive general comments and direction from the Planning Commission prior to plan preparation and formal submit Cal. Tne Commission reviewed your concepts aC that meeting and ide nt Lfied a number of major concerns and provided direction to assist you in preparing Che plena for formal application. The development plans we received on Ap cil 29, 1992, for which [he aCtacned incompletenesa notice addrease s, do not reflect changes that respond to the concerns ra:aed by the Planning Conanisa ion. Such concerns as site placement and exterior design of [he Smith's Superse ore, master planning [he site to incorporate all properties up to San Becna rdino Road, the inclua ion of buildi nqs ac [he Activity Center, and the use of front facing toll up doo ca were not add re seed in your submittal. A copy of the April 2, 1992 Commission minutes have been inclutled in tnia letter for your reference. I[ is my opinion that the plans submitted are not cons intent with ehe direction offered by the Planning Commission aC the Pre-Application Review. Therefore, I would recommend Chat you and I hdve a meeting to review the direction of [ha project before you proceed with temple tinq the miss inq elemenca of the formal applicaC ion. Rowever Chia is your option. Staff has reviewed your submittal Eor completeness and accuracy of filing and has found [ne application [n be incomplete for processing. Attar hed for your reference is the completeness comments that outline the technical and design issues as well as the additional information needed to complete [he application. Comments under design issues do not ',tOVV"r C'¢nns ~ i'^W ~ GJUnUmembCl DiUne `Nill~pms '.io.c:r Pro~'em ;, nom , ~•ier :nOer Caunctlmember OOmela J ;')nqm .9rK 'Jm AICF '-~l ',~+ngQer ~ ~ '~CUnGlmembelfhJfleSJ RUgUef I .. .. • .. .' fl . ... have to be addressed in order for the project to be deemed complete for processing and are provided as a guide to the design issue9 that will be addressed by the Planning Commission. Should you decide to pursue the project as proposed, the applicac ion and development plans must be revised to address [he list of items as identified in Che attached completeness comments. Aqain, i would be more Chan happy to meet wish you at your convenience co discuss [he concept and tlirecCion for your proposed project and [o review [hose completeness comments to assist you in the completion of a deve lopmen[ package complete for processing, IE you have any questions oc if I can be of fu rtner assistance, please feel free to contact me or Beverly Nissen at ( ]19) 989-18fi1, Sincerely, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT P LANN IVIS Brad ller City Planner BB :NF Attachment CC: Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Enqinee[ Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer Larry F. Klang, Smith's Food b Druq Centers, inc. FILE NO.: CUP 92•IS (COMPLETENESS COMMENTS) VOTE: Thls information is provided to assist in the preparation of a development package complete for processing. Additional information or comments may be necessary based upon a more thorough analysis during the Developmept Review Process. I. Planning D'Yicion; A. Dgsgen I_~ccy,~ - The following are preliminary design issues that arc recommended to be addressed in the «vised plans: Master Planning. The ultimate development and «developmcn[ of the site should incorporate the three parcels on San Bernardino Rd. As a minimum, a conceptual master plan for these three parcels should be developed ~to ensure integrated development. 2. The proposed design of the activity center is contrary to the Specific Plan in that buildings are not proposed at this Corner. 3, The site planning is dominated by the parking area which is inconsistent with the design guidelines of the Specific Plan. 4. Lack of pedestrian oriented facilities such as continuous paseo walkways 4esigned with testa red pavement; kiosk and attractive landscaping flanking the walkway, connecting to the different buildings, streets, and the regional trails; plazas with pedestrian amenities; etc. 5. The orientation of the two loading areas create aesthetic and design issues and uaffic conflicts which are contrary to the design guidelines of the Specific Plan, 6. The architectural style proposed for Smith's Superstore does not «flect the City's cultural and historical heritage. nor address the comments voiced by the Planning Commission at the Pre•Application Review. In general, the design of the project with its buildings orientation, site planning, architectural style, etc., is not sensitive to the sits as espressed by the Planning Commissior, at the Pre-Application Review. The Planning Commission acknowledged the many constraints of the site but believed that they should be considered as opportunities. An opportunity to use innovative and creative site planning design which fits in with the size, shape, and unique characteristics of the site. An opportunity to design the buildings sensitive to and reflective of the City's cultural and historical heritages. It is for these «asons that the City has adopted a Specific Plan establishing special design guidelines and standards to guide (u[ure development and redevelopment along the Foothill Boulevard corridor. B. Techn'cal Ircu '- The following preliminary technical issues are minimum code requirements which must be satisfied before the project can be recommended for approval to the Planning Commission. It is «commended that these issues be addressed in the revised plans: 1. StaCC has completed a draft Environmental Assessment and identified the Collowing issues: a. The site is within a City designated Special Study Zone for the inferred Red Hill fault. Submit two copies of the Geologic Report dated September 10, 1991, prepared by the applicant's consultant, Leighton and Associates. Inc. The City's policy is to retain a registered geologist consultant to review the completeness and adequacy of the report in complying witA the Alquist-Priolo Act. The applicant is responsible (or the furl cost of this review. Prior to authorizing the City's consultant to proceed with it, payment for the Cull cost of this review must be submitteA to the City. b. The site contains existing mature trees such as, Palms, Sycamores, Pines, etc. which are protected 6y the Tree Preservation Ordinance. The development of this project would result in the removal of these trees. An Arborist's Report is requi«d to determine the enact location of these trees, their species and size, their state of health, and whether these trees can be saved in place or by relocation. The city will retain an Arborist consultant to prepare such a report al the applicant's expense. Prior to authorizing the City's consultant to proceed with it, payment of the full cost of such report must be submitted to the City. c. The site is impacted by road noise from Foothill Blvd. and Vineyard Avc. u indicated in the Noise Element of the City's General Plan. Prior to issuance of building permits, a Noise Study is required to determine the noise source and level, and mitigation measures to ensure the reduction of the interior noise to an uceptable level for Pads A and B. d. The site is pan of a larger area that rcprcsents a set of important physical ties to the major historical periods of the Rancho Cucamonga area, and as such there are many potentially significant impacts on a variety of identified and unidentified cultural resou recs. Therefore, a Cultural Resource Study is required, subject to Historic Preservation Commission review and approval. This study shall :onsist of two parts. One pan is to determine the historical, cultural, and architectural significance of the existing single family structure located a g010 Vineyard Ave., whether it should have a landmark designation and whether it Should be preserved in place or by relocation. The second pan is to do a surface and sub-surface archaeological site reconnaissance survey with test borings. to determine the significance of the archaeological resource and the necessary mitigation measures for the site. The Cultural Resource Study shall. be performed by an archaeologist certified by SOPA - the Society of Professional Archaeologists. The Cily will retain such a consultant to prepare this Study at the applicant's expense. Prior to authorizing the City's consultant to proceed with it. paymen[ for the Cull cos[ of this study must be submitted to the City. The development of the site will result in the removal of the existing roller rink building, According to the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment for Potential Hazardous Materials/Waste Contamination report prepared by the applicant's consultant, Leighton and Associates, Inc., dated August 22, 1991, asbestos containing materials are present in the building. Prior to demolition of any structures within the project site, a complete demolition asbestos survey and abatement shall be required, subject to the City's Building Official's review and approval. 2. Detailed Site Plan. a. The alignment of the on-site main driveway off Vineyard Ave., together with the location of the easterly loading dock and parking area, create conflicts for pedestrians, autos, and trucks. b. Indicate whether Pad A is a drive through restaurant, bank, or other use. The design of this Pad should meet the Drive-Through Policies as contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 88-96. A copy of the resolution has been given to you during a preliminary review (PR 91.26) of the development proposal. It appears that the drive- through lane does no[ provide adequate car slacking distance and will crsate [raffic conflicts at the main entry. c, The location of the westerly loading dock area creates a traffic conFlicf for pedestrians, autos, and tn:c ks. d. The meandering of the sidewalk is too severe and should be more gradual, e. The second driveway off Vineyard Ave., together with the gate, create traffic conflic[s and a potential public safety hazard in that it creates opportunities Cor autos by mistake to sum in and then have to back up to Vineyard Ave. f. All commercial development must provide for on- site bicycle storage space at a rate of 5 percent of the required parkiog spaces and comply with the specific design criteria as outlined in the attached Ordinance No. 480. The area whore the bicycle storage racks are to be located should be embellished with architcetural elements such as [rellis, light fissures, etc„ consis[ont with the design theme of Ihis project. 3. Conceptual Landscape Plan. a. The number of tress do not meet the minimum standards as lis[ed below. The density of landscape materials is based on the following landscape ratio: i. One tree per three parking spaces. ii. One tree per thirty lineal feet of the street frontage, iii. One tree per shiny lineal feet of the building perimeter. iv. One tree per shiny lineal feet oP the propcny boundary, specifically the west, east, and north propcny boundaries. v. Landscape materials consisting of trees, shrubs, and appropriate ground cover within the 50 feet landscape setback area along Foothill Blvd. and Vineyard Ave. 4 b. The size of the trees within the activity center area should be a minimum of 30-inch box per Section 9.4,6, Page IV-9.24 of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. c. The proposed landscape scheme of the activity center does not meet the concept depiacd in the Foothill Blvd Specific Plan. This has been previously pointed out through a preliminary review (PR 9I- 26). Also, the proposed Queen Palm tree species is inconsistent with the concept as shown in [hc Specific Plan. C (Jompjy,t n ss n ms - Additional information that must be submi«ed prior to finding the application complete: 1. Complete those items as marked on the attached Submittal Checklist. 2. Submit a copy of the Fire Department receipt. 3. Submit a letter with signatures from all the property owners within the project site authorizing the applican[, Smith's Food and Drug Centers, Inc., and/or Prescott Muir A rchitccts, to process the Conditional Use Permit application. 4. Besides the items marked on the attached Submittal Checklis[, provide the following information on the Detailed Site Plan: a. Plot truck turning radii io show that there is adequate maneuvering spue into the loading docks at the east and west sides of the Smith's Superstore. The truck turning radii for the easterly loading dock should begin at Vineyard Ave. The truck turning radii for the westerly loading dock should begin at the driveway off Foothill Blvd. b. Add a Summary Development Table to include information such as the percentage and square footage of landscaped areas, plaza areas, parking, buildings, etc., to the net site area. c. Provide and Zabel the dimensions for the following items: the different sues of the landscaped planter areas in the parking area, the width of the driveway on Vineyard Ave., the distance between buildings and curbs, the length and width of the two loading 5 docks, the length and width of Smith's Supers[oro, building Pads A and B. d. Show (afore Regional Trail along the west property boundary (within Cucamonga Creek). Provide an illustrative cross section showing information such as, bu[ are not limited to, fencing, trail widths, landscaping, property lines, slopes, concrete channels, etc. ~. Show height of the proposed free-standing light fixtu«s. The City's «quircments limit the height of the parking Tight fixture to be 15 feet as measured from the finished grade to Ne top of the fixwrc. f• Label the type of textured pavement across the drive aisle and within the activity center at the corner of Fwthill 81vd. and Vineyard Ave. 8~ Locations of cart cortals in the parking area, storage area for the shopping carts, locations of bicycle storage areas and recycling centers, locations of trash enclosure a«as for Pads A and B, locations of proposed transformers and other ground mounted equipment. h • SAow concrete columns consistent with what's shown on the Conceptual Landscape Plan. 5. Besides the items marked on the attached Submittal Checklist, provide the following information on the Conceptual Grading Plan: a. Show the retaining wall along the north properly boundary consistent with the Conceptual Landscape Plan. b. Provide cross sections at locations shown on Attachment A. The cross sections should include information such as, but are not limited to, elevation differences (maximum and minimum conditions), elevation of the mounding contours, height of building walls, height of free-standing or retaining walls, etc. c. Show all ezisting structures with dash lines and label the ezisting uses. d. Show mounding contours with spot elevations along Vineyard Ave and Foothill Blvd. 6 e. Show line-oF-sight (see separate handout from Engineering Division). 6. Conceptual Landscape Plan. a. Provide illustrative cross sections at locations shown on Attachment A. The illustrative cross sections should include information such as, but are not limited to buildings, free-standing walls, mounding contours and height dimensions, landscaping, fences walkways, etc. b. Show line-of-sight (see separate handout from the Engineering Division). 7. Elevations. a. The scale of the elevations is too small. It should be enlarged to a scale of 1/6 inch equals 1 foot. b. Provide enlargements of architectural elemen[s. c. Provide all elevations (four sides) of the proposed bus shelter, building Pads A and B. d. A conceptual Floor plan for the Smith's Superstore showing the general areas Cor storage, office mezzanine, retail area, mechanical penthouse and the different concessionaires. 8. Three sets of the typed gummed labels on 8 1/2 X 11 inch sheets listing the name, address, and Assessor's Parcel Numbers of all property owners within the Subarea 2 boundary pct Section 8.1.11, Page III.8.3 of the Foothill Blvd Specific Plan. Attachment B is a map showing the boundaries of Subarea 2. 9. A Tree Removal Permit is required if existing mature trees on-site are to be removed. Attached for your use is a copy of the application form, a list of submittal requiremems, and information for an Arborist's report. The filing fee for a Tree Removal Permit is S 432. I1. Engineering Division; A. Comole[en 't - Additional information that must 6e submitted prior to finding the application complete: 1. Show existing utility poles on the "Detailed Site Plan", Also, refer to the attached "Existing Overhead Utility Requirements" handout and provide a separate drawing 7 per Section B of the handout, Include any utility poles that are on-site. 2. The project proposes to take access Crom Foothill Boulevard which is a Stale Highway; therefore, written comments from Caltrans are required. 3. The project proposes to drain to a Flood Control District facility; therefore, written comments from the District are required. This will be necessary if it is decided during Technical Cucamonga Review that Creek to [h a storm drain i connection to e west s necessary. 4. Provide a bus bay/right rum lane combination on Foothill Boulevard per attached sketch. 5. Show track routes on the site plan for ingress and egress from the public right•of-way and access to the delivery docks. Use the attached Caltrans taming radii. 6. The line-of-sight shall be corrected to be in conformance with the attached policy. Also, show the line-of-sight on the grading plan. 7. Show the location of the existing dwellings on the north and south side of San Bernardino Road, the entire length from Vineyard Avenue west, in relationship to the ultimate street width, g. Provide a traffic study for the project. Your Traffic Engineer should comact the City's Traffic Engineer (Mr. Paul Rougeau) Cor the requirements of the study. Of particular concern is the lack of adequate left turn opportunities for the site. 9. Show handicap ramps and traffic signals within the activity cenmr area. Io. Show proposed median island on Foothill Boulevard. B. fis-lies. - The following are preliminary technical issues that are recommended to be addressed in the revised plans: 1. The northerly most driveway on Vineyard Avenue shall be eliminated because it is too close to the main driveway. The emergency gate would cause additional problems to drivers who turn in and have to back out. A mountable curb and turf block may work if an emergency access is required by the Fire Protection District. 8 2. Additional right•oF-way for the cul-de-sac on San Bernardino Road shall be provided to eliminate the notch shown on the plans. 3. The drive approach on San Bcnardino Road shall be 35 feet al the right-of-way line. 4. Bcnning a( landscaping is nor allowed in the public right- of-way. 5. On-site storm drain facilities cannot connect to public catch basins. Connection may be made to the main storm drain lint. Attachments: Submi«al Requirements Checklist Tree Removal Permit Application and Submir[al Requircmenls A -Cron Section Locadona B - Subarea 2 Boundary Ordinance No. 480 Planning Commission Resolution No. 88-96 April 2, 1992, Planing Commission Minutes Existing Overhead Utility Requirements Bus Bay Standard (Draft) 50-foot Turning Radius Intersection Line-of-Sight Determination 9 august 27, 1992 .N r. Pces colt Muir Pres cart Muic Architects 1743 Berkaley Street Santa Monica, CA 90404 SUBJECT: CONUIT'.ONAL U5E PERMIT 92-iB Dear Mr. Mui t: we are in receipt of your second formal application and development plans for the proposed Smith's Superstore shopping center located at the ro rthwese corner of Foothill Bou Le vazd and Vineyard Avenue. The project was revrewed ky Planning, Engineering and Building and Safety staff at our July 29, 1992 staff meeting. The attached list of completeness, technical and design items indicates the extent of the issue9 which still need to be addressed in conjunction with review of this project submittal. You should note that the majority of the items listed in the attached completeness Checklist are reiterations of the previous completeness letter dated May 21, 1992. These issues were reviewed with your firm and Tait Engineering at a meeting on August 6, 1992. Additionally, the outstanding rnmp lateness, design and technical issues were reviewed with your landscape architect on August 12, 1992. In considering Che application further and in view of the myriad of design and technical Ls sues still remaining, staff has come to the conclusion that i[ would be more prudent to proceed with Technical, Da si qn and Gra dins Coimpittee review, rather than to schedu Le the project Ear additional completeness reviews at a staff level. This however, necessitates Ghat your Eull submittal package (20 sets of all sheets in the application) be submitted on or before September 16, 1992, in order to be scheduled for Che next available Design Review and' Technical Review agenda dates of October 6 and October 7, 1992, respectively. This matter wad discussed with Gisa Arnett of your of flce on August 25, 1992. Please be adv lsed that the completeness items noted in the attached Check llgt must be addressed prior to scheduling the project For a Planning Commission hearing. As was indicated to you in Che previous letter of May 21, 1992, it is sti 11 staff's opinion that the plans submitted do not adequately address the concerns of the Planning Commission which were related to you at the Pr<.-Application workshop conducted on April 2, 1992• For this reason, as cu rrenc Ly proposed, staff cannot support the project deai qn. The comments expressed by the Commission at that time concerned the site design and exterior design of the Smith's Superstore, master planning .. . ... ,~,n~s. ,~:~1 Ccunc imemcyr J~.:ry ;ri„gym-~ .. ..., .. ;m •.-"r :e~ _wnc imamber romeip . .,r ~. . .- -~ r :1F :je~ ~,~ .:~.nCAmembef C~OP.:S .~..t ,, Mr. Prescott Muir CUP 92-1R Auqust 27, 7992 Page 2 the site to incorporate all properties up to San Bernardino Road, and the use of front facing toll-up doors. These issues will be Eurther addressed at the upcoming Design Review Committee meeting. Should you have any further questions regarding the processing of this project or wish to further dlscuss any of the other issues noted in the attached Checklist, do not hesitate to contact me or Beverly Nissen at ()1J) 989-1861. Sincerely, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT P~ NG DIMS ~//~/!/~ Dan Coleman Principal Planner DC:BN:mlq Attachment cc: Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer Larry Klang, Smith's Food 6 Drug Centers, Inc. Rob White, Project Manager Tracy Le[z nng, Tait Enqi veering PILB NO.: COP 92-18 (C0!@LBT@7655 COM®rl'S) NO'PB: lfiie infozwtim is provided to a9eiat in the preparatim of a developsent package complete Eor processing. Additimal inEoz~stim or oos•enta .ay be necoseary based upon a amore thorough analysis during the Developunt Revier Process. Z. Planning Division: A. Comp le tene99 Items - Addit iOndl infeilOaClen that mU9t be submitted prior to finding the application complete: The following items from the previous letter of Nay 21, 1992 must be addressed prior to finding the application complete and scheduling the project for review by the Design Review/Technical RevieN and Cradinq Committees: 1. ,1 S~uhmit a letter with signatures from all the property i}p;puners within the project site authorizing the applicant, t~~1~ Smith's Food and Drug Centers, Inc., and/or Prescott Muir `D1-~V ~\ Architects, to process the CondiCional Uae Pemit ,,,Y application. (Previous Ceament N7.) 2. Provide the following in£ormatim m the Detailed Site Plan: ~a) Add a Summary Development Table to Include information such as the percentage and aqua re footage of landscaped areas, plaza areas, parking, bui (dings, etc., to the net site area. (Prevloua Comment Ndb.) Jb) Show future Regional Trail along the west property boundary (within Cucamm9a Croak). Provide an illuatrativa cross-section showing Lnformat ion such as, but not limited to, fencing, [call wid[hs, landscaping, property lines, slopes, concrete channels, etc. (Previous Comment NAd.) c) Label the type of textured pavement across the drive ~/ aisle and within the activity center at the corner of l' Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue. (Previous Comment Naf. ) ,l d) show concrete columns consistent with whet is shown on the Conceptual landscape Plan. (Previous Comment Ndh.) Note that the colwnn size, shape and spacing is not shown canslstently on the Entry Detail Sheet. 1. Provide the following lnformatlon on the Grading Plan: COMPLETENESS COMMENTS CUP 92-15 Page 2 a) Provide cross-sections at locations shown on AttacFuaent A. The cross-sections should include informer ion such as, but not limited to, elevation differences (maximum and minimum conditions), elevation of the mounding contours, height of building walls, height of free-standing oe retaining walls, etc. (Previous Comment MSb.I b) Show mounding contours with spot elevations along Vineyard Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. (Previous Comment NSd.) c) Shov line-oF-sight (see separate handout Ftom Engineering Division). (Previous Co®ent RSe.) d. Provide the following information on the elevations: a) The scale of the elevations is too small. They should 6e enlarged to a scale of 1/B-inch equals 1-foot. IPrev loos Comment N7a.) b) Provide enlargemenCS of architectural elements. (Previous Comment N7b.) ,c) A conceptual floor plan Eor the Smith's Superstore showing the general areas for ato[age, office mezzanine, retail areas, mechanical penthouse and the different concessionaires. (Previous Comment N7d.) 5.~ A Tree Ramaval Permit is required if existing mature trees on-site are to be removed. Attached for your use Sa a copy of the application form, a list of submittal requirements, and information Eor an Arboriat's report. The filing fee Eor a Tree Removal Permit is $dJ2. (Previous Comment M9.) The following completeness items must also be addressed on the next submittal: 6. Label any ro11-up doors on the Entry Detail Sheet. Note their color and material. 7. Identify location of the sections on Sheet A.2 (exterior e levationa ). COMPLETENESS COMMENTS CUP 92-19 Page 3 9• On Sheet 2A, provide a section through the north elevation which will indicate the re lationahip of the retaining wall and the side of the building. Indicate overall height of the structure depicted in the east and west elevations. a. Technical Issues - The following pre liminery technical issues are minimum code requirements which must be satisfied beFOre the project can be recommmended for approval to the Planning Commission. It is recommended Chat these issues be addressed in Chs revised plane: The following technical isauae from the previous letter of May 21, 1992 have not yet been resolved and still need to 6e addressed during the review process: 1. The site L9 part cf a larger area that represents a get of important phys'_cal ties Co the miajor his torieal periods of the Rancho Cucaaonga area, and as such there are many potentially signi kicani impacts on a variety of identiFied and unidentiFied cultural resources. ~S '1, Therefore, a Cultural Resource Study is required, subject ~~)~ ~ to Historic Preservation CommlBaion review and approval. \ ~(/-~\\\~ This StLLdy Shd 11 CO n913C OE iw0 Pa [ta. OI1e pa[L 19 CO N determine the hi3totical, cultural, and arch iteetutal signl ficance of the existing single family structure located at 9010 Vineyard Avenue, whether It ahauld have a landmark designation and whether it should be pro served in place or by re Location. The Second part is to do a surface and sub-surface archaeological ai to roconnai seance survey with test Doringe, to determine the Significance of the archaeological resource and the necessary mitigation measures Eor the site. The Cultural Roaource Study eha 11 be performed by en archaeologist certified by SOPA - the Society of Professional Archaeeloglst3. The City wilt retain such a consultant to prepare this study at the appllcent's expense. Prior to authorizing the City's consultant to proceed with lt, payment for the Eull cost of this Study must be submit red to the City. (Previous comment Mid.l Nate that staff i3 currently drafting a letter Eor your review which aubatantlatea the need Eor this study. COMPLETENESS COMMENTS CUP 9?-1B Page 4 2. Detailed Site Plan: a) The alignment of the on-site main driveway off Vineyard Avenue, together with the location of the easterly loading dock and parking area, create conf lices Eor pedestrians, autos, and trucks. (Previous Comment M2a.) b) Indicate whether Pad A is a drive-Chru re e[aurant, bxnk or other use. The design of this Pad should meet the Drive-th ru Pol Sties as contained in Planning Comm ssian Resolution No. BR-96• A copy of the resolution has been given to you during a Preliminary Review (PR 91-26) of the development Proposal. It appears that the drive-thru lane does not provide adequate car stacking distance and will create traffic conflicts at the main entry. (Previous Co>~ent MYb.) c) The meandering of the Sidewalk ie too severe and should be more gradual. (Previous Comment XTd.) d) The second driveway off Vineyard Avenue, together with the gate, crease traffic conflicts and a potential public safety hazard in that Lt creates opportunit Sea For autos by mistake to turn in and then have to back up to Vineyard Avenue. (Previous Coament N2e.1 e} All commercial development moat provide for on-ai^~ bicycle storage specs at a race of 5 percen[ of c. required parking apecee and comply with the specific design criteria as outlined in the attached Ordinance No. 480. The area where the bicycle storage racks are to be located should be embellished with archliectucal e lementa such as trel lie, light fixtures, etc., cone ietent with ehc design theme of Chia project. (Previous Comment N2f.) Note chat details of the facility as well as the location should De indicated. Conceptual Landscape Plan: a) The number of trees do not meet the minimum standards as listed below. The density of landscape materials is based on the [ollowing landscape ratio: (i.) One tree per three parking spaces. (prat/ Sous Comment •7a1. ) CCMPLETENEBS COMMENT6 CUP 92-iS Page 5 (ii.) Landscape materials consisting of trees, shrubs, and appropriate ground cover within the SO feet landscape setback area along Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue. (Previous comment N3av.) b) The size of the trees within the activity center area should be a minimum of 30-inch box per Section 9.6.6, page IV-9.26 of the Foothill Houlevard Specific Plan. (Previous Conoent N36.) c) The proposed landscape scheme of the activity center does not meet the concept depicted in the Foothill Boulevard specific Plan. This hoe been previously pointed oui Lhrough a Preliminary Reviar (PR 91-26). Also, the proposed ¢ueen Palm tree species is inconsistent with the Concept as shown in the Specific Plan. (Previous Comnene ale.) 6~ Provide an R 1/2" x 11" reduction of the tree plan to be included with the Arborist report. 5. Provide dimenaiona on the landscape seciiona. C. ^-+sign Issues - Tha following are preliminary deal gn issues than are recoaunended to be addressed in the revised plans: The following design issues from the pervious letter of May 21, 1992 must still be addressed during the review process: Master Plannin9• The ultimate development and redevelopment of the site should incorporate the three parcels on San Bernardino Road. Aa a minimum, a conceptual master plan Eor these ehree parcels should be developed Co ensure integrated development. (PZev lows Comment N1.1 2. The proposed design of the activity center is contrary to the Specific Plan in that buildings are not proposed at th19 COrW [. (Prevloua Comment X2•) The site planning Sa dominated by the parking area which is inconsistent with [he design guide llnea of the Specific Plan. (Previous Comment Ml.) 4. Lack of pedestrian oriented facilities such as continuous paseo walkways designed with textured pavement; kiosk and attractive landscaping flanking the walkway, connecting to COMPLETENESS COMMENTS CUP 92-18 Page 6 the different buildin qs, street, and the regional Grails; plazas with pedestrian amenities; etc. (Previous Comoent X4.) 5. The orientation of the two loading areas create aesthetic and asst qn issues end tra Efic conflicts which are contrary to the design guidelines of the Specific Plan, (previous Covm ant X5.) 6. The architectural style proposed for Smith's Superstore does not reflect the City's cultural and historical heritage, nor address the comments voiced by the Planning Comm isaion at the Pre-Application Review. (Prey loos Comment XS. ) In general, Lhe design of the project with its buildings orientation, site planning, architectural style, etc., is not sensitive to the si to as expressed 6y the Planning Commission at the Pre-Application Review. The Planning Coamission acknorledged the many constraints of the site but believed that they should be considered as opportunities. An opportunity to use innovative and creative site planning deai qn which Fite in rich the size, shape, and unique characeeriatica of the site. An opportunity to design the but ldings sensitive to and reflective of the City's cultural and historical heritages. It is for rhese reasons that the City has adopted a Specific plan establishing special design guidelines and standards to guide Future development and redevelopment along the Fooehill~ Boulevard corridor. (Previous Conment M6.) ~• As a condition of eppruval, a Unitozm Sign program will be required to be rev lowed and approved by the Design Review Committee prior to issuance of building permits. The monument ei gn and aignage concept audsitted Ss not acceptable, nor is it consistent with the City's Sign Ordinance. B. The 2:1 slope indicated on the Grading Plan adjacent to Vineyard Avenue and Foothill Boulevard is not consistent with the activity center concept Ln the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. If possible, the slope should be eliminated in order to accommodate the hardecape and formalized tree planting indicated Ln the Foothill Boulevard Specific plan. This issue will be reviewed concurrently by the Design Review and Technical Review Committee. COMPLETENESS COMMENTS CUP 92-18 Page 7 9. Indicate materials, etc., on the water feature detail sheet. II. Engineering Division: A• Completeness• i. Show existing utility poles on the "Detailed Site Plan". Also, refer Lo the attached "Existing Overhead Utility Requirements" handout and provide a separate drawing per Section a of the handout. Include any utility poles that may be on-site. 2. The project proposes to take access Erom Foothill Boulevard which is a State Nighway therefore, written comments from Coltrane are required. 3. Line of sighs designs shall be provided on the Grading Plan. 4. Show Lhe Locetion of Lha existing dwe llinge on the north and south side of San Bernardino Roed, the entire length Erom Vineyard Avenue westerly, in relationship to the ultimate right-of-way width of San earnardlno Road. 5. Provide typical street sections on the Site and Grading Plans Eor Foothill Boulevard, Vineyard Avenue and San Bernardino Road. e. Issues 1. It during Technical Review it is decided that the project eha 11 drain to Cucamonga Creek, then written comments from the San Bernardino Cauncy Fluod Control District shall be provided. 2. A bus/bay right turn lane combination shall be provided on Foothill Boulevard as shown on the attached sketchy. The plans shall be revised to ref lec: the "new curb" lor_at ion. Nest of Che driveway the centerline to curb distance Ls 51 feet in accordance with Coltrane revised street widths. 3. A median opening is not allowed for the driveway on Foothill Boulevard. The median is Land shall be extended westerly on all plans. COMPLETENESS COMMENTS CUP 92-18 page 2 4- Undersidewalk drains are to be used to carry flows off-site or where possible on-site storm drain may connect to the main storm drain line. 5. The traffic study is being reviewed at this time. Any concerns regarding the traffic study will 6e discus std at Che Technical Review Com:ittee meeting. 6. It appeals that the drive-thru restaurant does not have enough stacking distance which would cause vehicles to stack onto Poo[hill Boulevard and also block traffic existing the site. Therefore. the de al gn Eor the drive-thru she 11 be revised eo that no stacking occurs within the main entrance drive a191e. III. Building and Safety Oiviaion: indicate storm drainage fact litie a. See plena and provide aectio~ as noted. (This was discus std with your engineer at our August 6. 7992 meeting.) 1. Submit those ltems noted on the attached Checklist. DESIGN BEVIEN CO1e9ENT5 6:60 - 7:30 Bev Nissen Dctober 6, 1992 EN4IAONNa'NPAL IGBESEIQSNNT A1ID ,mYDITIONAL •BBE P@WT't97+4Y..~'~aYRt- The development of a commercial shopping center consisting of a 75,000 square foot grocery store, ero satellite buildings of 3,500 square feet each, and a drive-shwa pad of 4,800 square feat on 10.6 acres of land in she Cosmunity Commercial District (SUlurea 2) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the northwest corner of Poothi ll Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-102-03, 5, 8, 15, 20, 21 and 49. Design Parameiere,~Backgtound: The 10.6 acre Bite ie rode up of several percale and Sa Ooundsd on the west by the Cucamonga Creek Channel end on the north by iro existing apartment buildings and a vacant parcel at the eouthrut corner of Vineyard Avenue and San Bernardino Road. The vacant parcel is the site of a previously approved otCice coeplex which lue since expired. An existing restaurant building is located m tM site a• call a• the vacated roller rink facility. These rtructuraa era propwed for demolition with conetructlon of the project. This project proposal has praviaue ly bean reviewed by the PLnnin9 coamlealon u a Pre-Application Raviw on April 2, 1992. The ainutae from Chia meeting have bean attached for your revive. Additionally, the project has bwn nviwed for coapleteneea Dy stet[ on two separate accaaiona. TM project u currently auhnltUd la sClll somerhet incomplete, but staff determined thst dw to the exteneiva amount of design and Gchnlcal Saeuee, that it could be Dest to sadrne these mjor issues up front wAi1e allowing the applicant to concurrently work an addreaeing the wmpletaneu Star. Stitt C'oaaemtes The follwing ea~en4 era intended to provide an artltne for Coanletw dlscusdon: Major Iseuu/ The tolloring broad design ieawe will W Ne focus of Committee dlecueelan regarding Nis project: 1. Generally, the design of Ne project rich ib building ozlaneaeion, Bite planning and archltectursl style Ss not naponalw to the cooenb expressed by the Planning Coamiuion ae i!s Dze- Application Review. The following Sseuee need to W ad~raaaed Dy the applicant: a. Parking which doadnaUe the atreeteupe Se. rot condeGnt with tM Deel qn Guidellnq rnntained Sn the Poothi ll Boulevard 9pecl tic PLn [oz Activity CmGZe, u previow ly noted. •.~ Dsslcal HEVIAY oDMMBHTS f CVP 92-18 -SMITH'S M OCTOBBA 6. 1992 Pe ge 2 b. The size and mass of tae building (75,000 square teex) in ralatlon to the sire of the parcel and the leek of artlculniion Sn the building Ss snot desirable. This wm also previously noted. c. Tha orlenLatlon of the roll-up doors facing Foothill Boulevnrd is incondYtent with daeires of the Plnminq ' Commission expressed at the Pra-ADP11caLiOn Molar. d. TM archiLacLUral atyla of t1y building, and tae uu o! materials should rat fact the. historic character of tha riaery building on the opposib tide of Vineyard Avenue par tha Design Guidelines of the foothill Soulavard Bpecitic Plan. Secondary Issues: Once all oC the rjor iasuu have been addruud. and tim peraitting. the Coe•lt4e will discuss flu tolloYing ucoadary design Seeues: 1. Muter pLnning of the thru parcels to~ ttu onrth suet b• taken into cronsidaratlon rith thin subait4l.. A eongepteal wins plan , has mot yet been developed. 2. The 2:1 slopes adjsgat to laothill Boulevard sad pinay~rd Avsnw are not milzely conaistut rlth CM ~ "urbao• character required of an Activity Canter. Additionally. the landewpe plan Lor the arw beyond the Sawdla4 corner dou not reflect the regleuted style of planting required In the foothill Boulevard HpeClflc pLn for en Activity Center. TM grading plan could be nviud to elimina4 or reduce the extent of the 2:1 slopes at tDe corner of Vinsyud Avanw and foothill Boulevard. J. ~TM fast food. Dad A. 6ae mt been designed Li accordance with the drive-thru policy Buolution Yo. %-%. TM location o; tM drive-thru Lu crates pruent vehicular oonflicte with the suin drive aisle. Alihcugh EM Dullding pLoeeeat scraeas tM driw- thru-Lne, the reeul4nt on-site cirouLLion le probLrtic. M altarlytiw location hu been provldsd rhlch raloutu the drive+ihru alaL betrNn the Dui ldinq and lcothill Boulevard. Thin could 1» acceptable i[ properly sareenM rich Derna~;lor rails or trelllue. The relocation does not ndep say potentlsl traffic conflict hwever. IL has not been ladtga~ed rMthef or not separate pays plek up rlndwe have Dean pmvidadr,. nDr Nw psdeetrisn ap-cu or plaza atw been ctwted. a. undeupinq should Da provihd directly adianat to tM front of tha building. D89ZGN RiPffiM COMBMT$ CDp 92-18 - SMIT71'9 ~CPOBBR 6, 1992 Page 3 5. Roof plane should be provided with more undulation b. A cohesive system o{ pedestrian walkways ehmld De provided throughout the site and should wnnect t0 the Regional Trail located adjaceni to the Creek. Deal qe Aevlar ComdttN actlms Memhere Present: John MalcRer, P~e,~ , pan Coleman Staff Planner: eev Nlasen The Committee did rot approve the project u presented end requested that the proposal return to Lhe full ComaLCtN rith~the [ollom;aq Sasues addressed: The applicant indicated that the rook Yterial utilised m tM store vas eiad ler to riot o[ tM Wsy[arei'• Chapel and TaliNiq Meat. The Cosnlttae felt Chia ru ugacceptaDls, Dut ras rilling to zevier apecitic Guile, photographs and material. saaples o[ Dor the material Could cork and rMther os qDL It rou1Q HL into the context of the sits. Tredltional river rock could also b• utiLlred as an alternative, it the other typ. o[ stone s. determined rot to be eppropriau,. rhich rmld also ba oospatiDla ritd river rock approved Lor the rorthuat and ~southMet , oornen o[ the lntereectlon. 2. The CoY1tUe pratured the. aecmd optioq [or, ills drive-thru, horever, they required that the di17m-thty, lane b sonsned from Foothill annLvard. an Sllustrati»~ crgm~Netim should be presented to tM Commlttes tot tusNer sevler. 1. A master pLn rhleb•~Sacorparatms WoNq tG thm parq~.s. to, tLs rorth should M provided tar nv;w by .thm Ca~1lttMi•.,, . d• LenGwpinq should G pmvidsd in [root o[ and adjacent to the Smltd'• bulldinq. S. No art storage ahmld 4 allorad in front of the grmery store building. A letter !rw 9mith'a agrNlnq to this condltim aRm Ld be eubaitted prior to sohedulinq !ot planning Commlu3pn. TM Co~alttw suggested using the triangular apaoa ~betreM the store and the lwdigq area for cart storage. 6. TM YN o[ the taWr should be wodl[iad by Loorwalaq 1tm ~Relght and width. DESIG77 REVIEW COM(SHTS CVP 92-18 - SNITN'S 111 OCTOBER b, 1992 Page 4 7. The size of the tre llie columns on the front elevation should be carefully studied and po&sibly increased in width to be square in shape. In addition, the size oP the trellis members should be specified. E. The pedeatzian connection to the tronC of the atom should line up at 90 degrees with the front entrance, rather than angled as currently shown. 9. Special paving (aggregate finish or interlocking pavers) should be provided in Front of the entire entryway across the drlverny. 10. Large canopy trees (not the Prunes ceraeifsra) should b. provided for shading of the parking lot. Additional trees. should 4 added to the parking lot and mey M planed adlspnt to the light standards, aith Na height of the light being lover (S.e., 15 feet maximum) then the eventual canopy Might of the Tres. i it. The retaining ra lls along Vineyard Avemre and YOOthill Boulevard ± should be treated with the aaar type of rock that will W provided on the building front. 12. Redeei gn the entryway to provide a second Nt~ot glass doors rather then a forced sir barrier or elialnata Lhe~ dividing call between the entrance and exit to provide a more inviting entrance. il. The Foothill Boulevard Activity Center/lmdarape concept should continue [rom the corner to the channel along Pmthill Boulevard and from tlw corner to the northerly dtiveray along Vineyard Avmua. Terzawd rock rolls Mould bs~ providsd W' alnimize 2:1 elopes. ter. The veneer at the tro bulldinga at the aorner~oL -ooth111 Boulevard and Vlnayasd Awnw should b constructed oL Cho rook material. 15. 2f tM tro building pads at Ne corner are mt developed ai the ease tir as the grocery stop, then tM airaetacapa should be developed up to the level of pad and the pads landscaped for eroaian control. 16. Increased intorsation on hor tM test-Lood pad rill workphould M aubmittsd for nviar by tM CoeeitGe. A ateckinq study should be provided. 17. The Coasittee axpausd wncsrn flat the "aqueduct' element combined with tM grade dlffarential, world negatively affect Smith's vier corridor. DBSIGH P8yI8i1 COMfSt7fS CUP 92-18 - SMITH'S OCfOBBR 6, 1992 Pam 5 18. The bua stop shelter should he redeai~ed to eliminate the steeply pitched roof element. 19, Provide a rendering of the trvck loading areas to ehw hoa truckm wa:ld be screened. i Enlargement of Congested West Loading Dock Area Compactor Double Trash Storage Loading Dock Cart Storage >~ /i ~~ j /~ Bike Racks // / Handicapped ~ Parking Spaces Traffic Lane (30 feet wide) Landscape Obstacles i I ---,_.__.__J.d-_ d.i1_- _~ .~ . i I ~' -~---l---T__. _.____ _ , e l . - i ~ _ = I ~__ ~ -_ .-_~. 1 - ~ "- ~ ~~~~~~~\~ ~~7 i 5: i ~ ~ / / i !~ ' III ul, ~' ~ yI' .. =~J s iii .e .~ ~ g I I~~ ,v 91, ~- 1 ~~ . -.a... .- ~ _ r; i ~i~i~~~~~ "'- iii. '~_ _` ' d - \~ -__ ----zc:-. ........ r... Yr .~.-, .~ ... ....... ....~' :I _-s -. .- ,. _. __ .. . ._ ._ _ _ y - ~_ _____ -_ ~ _ .~~~ r~~ lA . ~. ~ '.~E iiE -~-- ' W I, X /`CR- r'.'-R Ri R ~ o zzo~ ~Rs R3 wHwe RS > Z Rz Starrdavd Bus aay 33S ~ Iv r~X ~~~ 45~ 90~ 140 A?MS TYO NSII MN ANiO S~O/J9~° $~pl6~t GVf!!O`J ~` k4 a4 l3ccs Bay Wife Rr~Gr~ Turd G.ar7e I a d l jC - iGho~, G~ISf JtfCG Tro /' C, D, alld LI Q, WGr Cv~ NPCCSSc7PV _/ /, li: = 273, ?_'~ ~~u5 <icJ~ ~TJ'ild3u'~~ F;;1= 6?.57~ ~., NO SPECIAL PRIVILEGES YIHEREAS ALl BUSINESSES IN RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUST MEET THOSE RULES AND REGULATIONS WHICH 7HE CITY HAS IMPOSED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC; VMERE,4S 70 PERMIT SMITH'S FOOD AND DRUG CENTERS, INC. TO CIRCUMVENT THESE REQUIREMENTS WOULD GIVE THEM AN UNFAI R ADVANTAGE OVER THOSE • MERCHANTS AND OTHER BUSINESSES WHO COMPLY WITH THE CITY'S RULES; AND WHEREAS SMITH'S ENTRY INTO OUR COMMUNITY WILL NOT BRING WITH IT NEW BUSINESS BUT, INSTEAD, WILL JUSTCOMPETE WITH OUR EXISTING BUSINESS COMMUNITY - -ALREADY SUFFERING FROM THE RECESSION; THEREFORE WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, URGE OUR ELECTED OFFICIAL8 TO REQUIRE THAT SMITH'S MEET ORDINARY CITY PLANNING AND BUILDING REOUIREMENIT3 AND NOT AFFORD TO SMITH'S ANY "SPECIAL PRIVILEGES" OR CONCESSIONS, NAME ADDRESS PHONE (Lfaricho C i,t c pn'Ulic~Ai _ ~ ~v ss 2, ~c~s17'_ ~~~ ~~H,~azch3 Sl,AL1,sl~+,ec~x 0i+9-9R?-8ss~ 4. O, ..~~r. ~ ~yL,.F-'~_.,C1-rLC~~>~.1~.~6.~~s3~1=1_=~17 J e. i, ~~ 14. 16 - i n -rte.... ~ ~i~ _.. y ~- ~.. . ~ ~~ -~- .~:~u `9yB- 37z~ NO SPECIAL PRIVILEGES WHEREAS ALL BU8INESSES IN RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUST MEET THOSE RULES AND REGULATIONS WHICH THE CITY HAS IMPOSED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE GENEgAI PUBLIC; WHEREAS 70 PERMIT SMITH'S FOOD AND ORUO CENTER8, INC. TO CIRCUMVENT THESE REQUIREMENTS WOULD GIVE THEM AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE OVER TN08E ~pCHANTB AND OTHER BU81NE88E8 WHO COMPLY WITH THE CITY'S RULES; WHEREAS SMITH'S ENTRY INTO OUR COMMUNITY WILL NOT BRING WITH IT NEW BU8INESS BUT, IN8TEA0, WILL JUST COMPETE WITH OUR EXI8TING BUSINESS G0~IMUNITY - -ALREADY SUFFERING FROM THE RECE3810N; THEREFORH WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, URGE OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS TO REQUIRE THAT SMITH'S MEET ORDINARY CITY PLANNING AND BUILDING RECUII9EMENT9 AND NOT AFFORD 70 SMITH'S ANY "SPECIAL PRIVILEGES" OR CONCE8810N8, NAME ADDRE88 PHONE a. ~l cu1~~: H.le >jv----.~s~~ll~Y~.~~? ~~ 98e _E~, 3, ~CGL ZCL _... ~-~'/~./~-~~'~~ [ e ' _ ~70 ~ 9/X7 8~ ~v7/•'Z... s. f~J,~ii I~ b __,__~55J(,r~ cZJ'cl ~OOCT _~__~ Qn~ 3Q NO SPECIAL PRIVILEGES WHEREAS ALL BUSINESSES IN RANCHO CUCAMONl3A MUST MEET THOSE RULES AND REGULATIONS WHICH 7HE CITY HAS IMpCSEO pCR THE BENEFIT OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC; WHEREAS TO PERMIT SMITH'S FOOD AND DRUG CENTERS, INC. TO CIRCUMVENT THESE REQUIREMENTS WOULD QIVE THEM AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE OVER THOSE MERCHANT8 AND OTHER BUSINESSES WHO COMPLY WITH THE CITY'S RULES; AND WHEREAS SMITH'S ENTRY INTO OUR COMMUNITY WILL NOT BRING WITH IT NEW BUSINESS BUT, INSTEAD, WILL JUSTCOMPETE WITH OUR EXISTING BUSINESS COe1MUNITY- • ALREADY SUFFERING FROM THE RECESSION; THEREFORE WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, URGE OUR ELECTED OFFIGALB TO REQUIRE THAT 8MITH'S MEET ORDINARY CITY PLANNING AND BUILDING REQUIREMENTS AND NOT AFFORD TO SMITH'S ANY "SPEGAL PRIVILEGES" OR CONCESSIONS. NAME ADDRE89 PHONE w ybq ~-(970 /y si/~ a. s. a, ~ ~,~- 8., fl. it 16.,,- ~~_ ~ pr~_--~ _ _~~t~et~.~ ~ _ _ _ _ i ~ -----^ C, l CL' C ~L1r~ ~ ~ C.- -r r,. _ '(QYKiIY/j " u~-u _~~iHiZ ---y21'i-/5e~ct.~ol,. S~ ~;-1%e/i~r-_(/~ %~~37J S~sS V ~r /ltd i~ve 9yt~-/Y8 3 ~ _ __ , , -- ---- ----- ---_-~- ~ c, ~~~~1. _ S?~..~_ _~i~~12 --~~E r~_> --- 9~L-S~43 ~ _- NO SPECIAL PRIVILEGES WHEAEA8 ALL BU81NE88E3 IN RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUST MEET THOSE RULES AND REGULATIONS WHICH 7HE CITY HAS IMPOSED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC; WHEREAS TO PEAMIT SMITH'8 FOOD AND DRUG CENTERS, INC. TO CIRCUMVENT THE8E REQUIREMENTS WOULD GIVE THEM AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE OVER THOSE ~RCHANTS AND OTHER BU81NE88E8 WHO COMPLY WITH THE CITY'9 RULES; WHEREAS SMITH'S ENTRY INTO OUR COMMUNITY WILL NOT BRING WITH IT NEW BUSINESS BUT, IN8TEAD, WILL JUST COMPETE WITH OUR EXISTING BU8INESS COMMUNITY - • ALREADY SUFFERING FROM THE RECE9810N; THEREFORE WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, URGE OUA ELECTED OFFICIAL8 TO REQUIRE THAT SMITH'S MEET ORDINARY CITY PLANNING AND BUILDING REQUIREMENTS AND NOT AFFORD 70 SM17H'S ANY "SPECIAL PRIVILEGES" OR COIICES810N8. NAME ADDRESS PHONE <.... ~ti NO SPECIAL PRIVILEGES WHEREAS ALL BUSINESSES IN RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUST MEET THOSE RULES AND REGULATIONS WHICH THE CITY HAS IMPOSED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC; WHEREAS TO PERMIT SMITH'S FOOD AND DRUG CENTERS, INC. TO CIRCUMVENT THESE REOUIREMENTS WOULD GIVE THEM AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE OVER THOSE MERCHANTS AND OTHER BUSINESSES WHO COMPLY WITH THE CITY'S RULES; AND WHEREAS SMITH'S ENTRY INTO OUR COMMUNITY WILL NOT BRING WITH IT NEW BUSINESS BUT, INSTEAD, WILL JUST COMPETE WITH OUR EXISTING BUSINESS COMMUNITi - -ALREADY SUFFERING FROM THE RECESSION; THEREFORE WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, URGE OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS TO REQUIRE THAT SMITH'S MEET ORDINARY CITY PLANNING AND BUILDING REQUIREMENTS AND NOT AFFORD TO SMITH'S ANY "SPECIAL PRIVILEGES" OR CONCESSIONS. NAME ADDRESS PHONE 1•VM~t~SarlraN~aala OAS GYiI~„g.tiew e,~a.a1:n ~D9)f199_!~9/l 2. DAL511R~~s-iLY -~3 SMa,a s^! (a~w) 9vl ~735~ 3. K~r~/ L. ~- a. PAN <1-G4~•'-- `~03~ -Fro~4~c t_ RWZ-tk~Z ""~b` _ 9~1 `i'd'a`od / 5. ,kl/--/c'"^/v?,~ 9b 7/ CUCp 57, ~?.G, 9c3 9fi1-?Y1 ~r ,~- /c----- ~ - ~"- ~-~J/ --~-- 8. ~,C(C.~a-4/' ' ~`cn9ft,_j-- ~-L/`ice/ ~~~~iC.~i~_---~~~'1.~_`~..~~^~~_ 10 ~ ~ .'.,~ //.w „c C/'Y / f, CcYG~ °LT ~t~A a^.,4- c C> 9 --:^ ~ , 12._~-L~~!~~ +~ (,rySS ~n'~*/n+~~~l ~'!In ~e,c- °~$'7"G~~.3~__ 13.E _~ __1'_J5n_ lAw¢'1$SiA Ci. ~~°( lYQ1---_ _~ lc T ~~/~/{/~OOD l -- `~~ S'w a ~y ~3`!4'I.~icllF~r Dn /,alTil ' ~ ~ q~~/zqv NO SPECIAL PRIVILEGES WHEREAS ALL BUSINESSES IN RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUST.MEETTHOSE RULES AND REGULATIONS WHICH THE CITY HAS IMPOSED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC; WHEREAS TO PERMIT SMITH'S FOOD AND DRUG CENTERS, INC, TO CIRCUMVENT THESE REQUIREMENTS WOULD GIVE THEM AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE OVER THOSE MERCHANTS AND OTHER BUSINESSES WHO COMPLY WITH THE CITY'S RULES; AND WHEREAS SMITH'S ENTRY INTO OUR COMMUNITY WILL NOT BRING WITH IT NEW BUSINESS BUT, INSTEAD, WILL JUST COMPETE WITH OUR EXISTING BUSINESS COMMUNITY - -ALREADY SUFFERING FROM THE RECESSION; 111EREFORE WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, URGE OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS 70 REQUIRE THAT SMITH'S MEET ORDINARY CITY PLANNING AND BUILDING REQUIREMENTS AND NOT AFFORD TO SMITH'S ANY "SPECIAL PRIVILEGES" OR CONCESSIONS. NAME 1. 2. 4., 5. 8. 7., 8, 9. ~0. 11. ~2, 13, 1 a. ADDRESS PHONE ~g~lcA" CNaFn~~g1- as ~t~3o ~~L-_s~?k1! use LI NQ (zD 'g7~ ~~ ~~_ s_S~SanC ~~1~ gyl-/~l/.~---- ~ ~ z ~_ Fi,~/f /f _ dui- rr~,~6_~ ~~i c ~ - ~,- L'~'1Lf/f.~%s~~u~ L.C_1~_c£'% c ~ ~~ l'~l~'s u99-/Bc 3 /.v G S ~P ~`l 0.412 i MUrr-FH ~ ~Fl b(~ ~r~ r/~, G NO SPECIAL PRIVILEGES WHEREAS ALL BUSINESSES IN RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUST MEET THOSE RULES AND REGULATIONS WHICH THE CITY HAS IMPOSED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC; WHEREAS TO PERMIT SMITH'S FOOD AND DRUG CENTERS, INC. TO CIRCUMVENT THESE REQUIREMENTS WOULD GIVE THEM AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE OVER THOSE MERCHANTS AND OTHER BUSINESSES WHO COMPLY WITH THE CITY'S RULES; AND WHEREAS SMITH'S ENTRY INTO OUR COMMUNITY WILL NOT BRING WITH IT NEW BUSINESS BUT, INSTEAD, WILL JUST COMPETE WITH OUR EXISTING BUSINESS COMMUNITY - -ALREADY SUFFERING FROM THE RECESSION; THEREFORE WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, URGE OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS TO REQUIRE THAT SMITH'S MEET ORDINARY CITY PLANNING AND BUILDING REQUIREMENTS AND NOT AFFORD TO SMITH'S ANY "SPECIAL PRIVILEGES" OR CONCESSIONS. NAME ADDRESS PHONE S a._~:~.o_y'~a~y 8«1_s. /idt,twnP dPo _ R. c.. 4bG-oaoL NO SPECIAL PRIVILEGES WHEREAS ALL BUSINESSES IN RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUST MEETTHOSE RULES AND REGULATIONS WHICH THE CITY HAS IMPOSED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC; WHEREAS TO PERMIT SMITH'S FOOD AND DRUG CENTERS, INC. TO CIRCUMVENT THESE REOUIREMENTS WOULD GIVE THEM AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE OVER THOSE MERCHANTS AND OTHER BUSINESSES WHO COMPLY WITH THE CITY'S RULES; AND WHEREAS SMITH'S ENTRY INTO OUR COMMUNITY WILL NOT BRING WITH IT NEW BUSINESS BUT, INSTEAD, WILL JUST COMPETE WITH OUR EXISTING BUSINESS COMMUNITY - -ALREADY SUFFERING FROM THE RECESSION; THEREFORE WE, THE UNDERSIGNED. URGE OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS TO REQUIRE THAT SMITH'S MEET ORDINARY CITY PLANNING AND BUILDING REQUIREMENTS AND NOT AFFORD TO SMITH'S ANY "SPECIAL PRIVILEGES" OR CONCESSIONS. NAME ADDRESS PHONE CH (ns) vtil - oar¢ hlµ)4a7-a~o~ ~~Y) 9X0-x766 AIl-lP C. M1577ZY 2. /7123 sMRW sT RANCHO cuc~MONGA 4 NO SPECIAL PRIVILEGES WHEREAS ALL BUSINESSES IN RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUST MEETTHOSE RULES AND REGULATIONS WHICH THE CITY HAS IMPOSED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC; WHEREAS TO PERMIT SMITH'S FOOD AND ORUG CENTERS, INC. TO CIRCUMVENT THESE REQUIREMENTS WOULD GIVE THEM AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE OVER THOSE MERCHANTS AND OTHER BUSINE38E9 WHO COMPLY WITH THE CITY'S RULES; AND WHEREAS SMITH'S ENTRY INTO OUR COMMUNITY WILL NOT BRING WITH IT NEW BUSINESS BUT, INSTEAD, WILL JUST COMPETE WITH OUR EXISTING BUSINESS COMMUNITY • -ALREADY SUFFERING FROM THE RECESSION; THEREFORE WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, UflGE OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS TO REQUIRE THAT SMITH'S MEET ORDINARY CITY PLANNING AND BUILDING REQUIREMENTS AND NOT AFFORO TO SMITH'S ANY "SPECIAL. PRIVILEGES" OR CONCESSIONS. NAME ADDRESS PHONE , is NO SPECIAL PRIVILEGES WHEREAS ALL BUSINESSES IN RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUST MEET THOSE RULES AND REGULATIONS WHICH THE CITY HAS IMPOSED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC; WHEREAS TO PERMIT SMITH'S FOOD AND DRUG CENTERS, INC. TO CIRCUMVENT THESE REQUIREMENTS WOULD GIVE THEM AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE OVER THOSE MERCHANTS AND OTHER BUSINESSES WHO COMPLY WITH THE CITY'S RULES; AND WHEREAS SMITH'S ENTRY INTO OUR COMMUNITY WILL NOT BRING WITH IT NEW BUSINESS BUT, INSTEAD, WILL JUST COMPETE WITH OUR EXISTING BUSINESS COMMUNITY - -ALREADY SUFFERING FROM THE RECESSION; THEREFORE WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, URGE OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS TO REQUIRE THAT SMITH'S MEET ORDINARY CITY PLANNING AND BUILDING REQUIREMENTS AND NOT AFFORD TO SMITH'S ANY "SPECIAL PRIVILEGES" OR CONCESSIONS. NO SPECIAL PRIVILEGES WHEREAS ALL BUSINESSES IN RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUST MEET THOSE RULES AND REGULATIONS WHICH THE CITY HAS IMPOSED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC; WHEREAS TO PERMIT SMITH'S FOOD AND DRUG CENTERS, INC. TO CIRCUMVENT THESE REOUIREMENTS WOULD GIVE THEM AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE OVER THOSE MERCHANTS AND OTHER BUSINESSES WHO COMPLY WITH THE CITY'S RULES; AND WHEREAS SMITH'S ENTRY INTO OUR COMMUNITY WILL NOT BRING WITH IT NEW BUSINESS BUT, INSTEAD, WILL JUST COMPETE WITH OUR EXISTING BUSINESS COMMUNITY - -ALREADY SUFFERING FROM THE RECESSION; THEREFORE WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, URGE OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS TO REQUIRE THAT SMITH'S MEET ORDINARY CITY PLANNING AND BUILDING REQUIREMENTS AND NOT AFFORD TO SMITH'S ANY "SPECIAL PRIVILEGES' OR CONCESSIONS. NAME ADDRESS PHONE 2~ ~t NO SPECIAL PRIVILEGES WHEREAS ALL BUSINESSES IN RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUST MEET THOSE RULES AND REGULATIONS WHICH THE CITY HAS IMPOSED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC; WHEREAS TO PERMIT SMITH'S FOOD AND DRUG CENTERS, INC. TO CIRCUMVENT THESE REQUIREMENTS WOULD GIVE THEM AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE OVER THOSE MERCHANTS AND OTHER BUSINESSES WHO COMPLY WITH THE CITY'S RULES; AND WHEREAS SMITH'S ENTRY INTO OUR COMMUNITY WILL NOT BRING WITH IT NEW BUSINESS BUT, INSTEAD, WILL JUST COMPETE WITH OUR EXISTING BUSINESS COMMUNITY - -ALREADY SUFFERING FROM THE RECESSION: THEREFORE WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, URGE OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS TO REQUIRE THAT SMITH'S MEET ORDINARY CITY PLANNING AND BUILDING REQUIREMENTS AND NOT AFFORD TO SMITH'S ANY "SPECIAL PRIVILEGES" OR CONCESSIONS. NAME ADDRESS PHONE 3. pAM_~at]LL~d±~ ~ S°L~ti 9'~ a cw..(~--a l1 S, __77(, Si ~' - ~'---~-=Y - - s. ~Iti4ull ~~~~VI 0 fs .. nd~ - l~z ~--- 3~ NO SPECIAL PRIVILEGES WHEREAS ALL BUSINESSES IN RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUST MEET THOSE RULES AND REGULATIONS WHICH THE CITY HAS IMPOSED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC; WHEREAS TO PERMIT SMITH'S FOOD AND DRUG CENTERS, INC. TO CIRCUMVENT THESE REQUIREMENTS WOULD GIVE THEM AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE OVER THOSE MERCHANTS AND OTHER BUSINESSES WHO COMPLY WITH THE CITY'S RULES; AN D WHEREAS SMITH'S ENTRY INTO OUR COMMUNITY WILL NOT BRING WITH IT NEW BUSINESS BUT, INSTEAD, WILL JUSTCOMPETE WITH OUR EXISTING BUSINESS COMMUNITY - • ALREADY SUFFERING FROM THE RECESSION; THEREFORE WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, URGE OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS TO REQUIRE THAT SMITH'S MEET ORDINARY CITY PLANNING AND BUILDING REQUIREMENTS AND NOT AFFORD TO SMITH'S ANY "SPECIAL PRIVILEGES" OR CONCESSIONS. NAME ADDRESS PHONE __Lli~/C.y(1Film^_.c~=. ~~l.~c.~LLl~w~_~----~ftG-~~s7 aj'~76 / NO SPECIAL PRIVILEGES WHEREAS ALL BUSINESSES IN RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUST MEET THOSE RULES AND REGULATIONS WHICH THE CITY HAS IMPOSED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC; WHEREAS TO PERMIT SMITH'S FOOD AND DRUG CENTERS, INC. TO CIRCUMVENT THESE REQUIREMENTS WOULD GIVE THEM AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE OVER THOSE MERCHANTS AND OTHER BUSINESSES WHO COMPLY WITH THE CITY'S RULES; AND WHEREAS SMITH'S ENTRY INTO OUR COMMUNITY WILL NOT BRING WITH IT NEW BUSINESS BUT, INSTEAD, WILL JUST COMPETE WITH OUR EXISTING BUSINESS COMMUNITY - -ALREADY SUFFERING FROM THE RECESSION; THEREFORE WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, URGE OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS TO REQUIRE THAT SMITH'S MEET ORDINARY CITY PLANNING AND BUILDING REQUIREMENTS AND NOT AFFORD TO SMITH'S ANY "SPECIAL PRIVILEGES" OR CONCESSIONS. NAME ADDRESS PHONE ~~9) ,.4~2~!'~?~~_~lc~x-~3c_ ~~-1 ~5 "l_v_n~ ~' U ~..r`~_R4b-3ys ~ r z. ('kel Co[l:~tJ~__-x(06 w-96_1-,~A __~ _ `~!$'~-5~ - -~Id 1/y~ 7~ 12. ~ e+n ~ /d~ir u~rlay~~#lr8-_~/~.V_4~trs_Cil- NO SPECIAL PRIVILEGES WHEREAS ALL BUSINESSES IN RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUST MEET THOSE RULES AND REGULATIONS WHICH THE CITY HAS IMPOSED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC; WHEREAS TO PERMIT SMITH'S FOOD AND DRUG CENTERS, INC. TO CIRCUMVENT THESE REQUIREMENTS WOULD GIVE THEM AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE OVER THOSE MERCHANTS AND OTHER BUSINESSES WHO COMPLY WITH THE CITY'S RULES; AND WHEREAS SMITH'S ENTRY INTO OUR COMMUNITY WILL NOT BRING WITH IT NEW BUSINESS BUT, INSTEAD, WILL JUST COMPETE WITH OUR EXISTING BUSINESS COMMUNITY - -ALREADY SUFFERING FROM THE RECESSION; THEREFORE WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, URGE OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS TO REQUIRE THAT SMITH'S MEET ORDINARY CITY PLANNING AND BUILDING REQUIREMENTS AND NOT AFFORD TO SMITH'S ANY "SPECIAL PRIVILEGES" OR CONCESSIONS. NAME ADDRESS _ /. PHONE ~ ~~O C~NI ""1 2. 3. 4. s. s, f/~o9~ ~f"]=e2lo9l -- ---~4°-~21c~~17~ -- ~l~ K /~37~/ ~/5.'-S '~Yli,~,uta/~nr`~rFl,,,,..c ~9-33 4 el '•-l/ , NO SPECIAL PRIVILEGES WHEREAS ALL BUSINESSES IN RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUST MEET THOSE RULES AND REGULATIONS WHICH THE CITY HAS IMPOSED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC; WHEREAS TO PERMIT SMITH'S FOOD AND DRUG CENTERS, INC. TO CIRCUMVENT THESE REQUIREMENTS WOULD GIVE THEM AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE OVER THOSE MERCHANTS AND OTHER BUSINESSES WHO COMPLY WITH THE CITY'S RULES; AND WHEREAS SMITH'S ENTRY INTO OUR COMMUNITY WILL NOT BRING WITH IT NEW BUSINESS BUT, INSTEAD, WILL JUST COMPETE WITH OUR EXISTING BUSINESS COMMUNITY - -ALREADY SUFFERING FROM THE RECESSION; THEREFORE WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, URGE OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS TO REQUIRE THAT SMITH'S MEET ORDINARY CITY PLANNING AND BUILDING REQUIREMENTS AND NOT AFFORD TO SMITH'S ANY "SPECIAL PRIVILEGES" OR CONCESSIONS. NAME ADDRESS PHONE ,.___ frass 'J.rwe,~,~~p~oJ' toy) qyi-13a 1 z. aSy ~~ ~---- v -------- 3.~ ~~---~`~_-~1!~kL17-.L.S.$tc-.~~ . `~1 7,x-0--------- -------- io ~/ /2 ~4 Ln ~t rt` / 9~// d 7 7..1`^ ~ll~~_?vl_~zz7 _ C , 9~// 1~~f~ ----------------------- -`-y ---- 98~~I~--- NO SPECIAL PRIVILEGES WHEREAS ALL BUSINESSES IN RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUST MEET THOSE RULES AND REGULATIONS WHICH THE CITY HAS IMPOSED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC; WHEREAS TO PERMIT SMITH'S FOOD AND DRUG CENTERS, INC. TO CIRCUMVENT THESE REQUIREMENTS WOULD GIVE THEM AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE OVER THOSE MERCHANTS AND OTHER BUSINESSES WHO COMPLY WITH THE CITY'S RULES; AND WHEREAS SMITH'S ENTRY INTO OUR COMMUNITY WILL NOT BRING WITH IT NEW BUSINESS BUT, INSTEAD, WILL. JUST COMPETE WITH OUR EXISTING BUSINESS COMMUNITY - -ALREADY SUFFERING FROM THE RECESSION; THEREFORE WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, URGE OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS TO REQUIRE THAT SMITH'S MEET ORDINARY CITY PLANNING AND BUIkDING REQUIREMENTS AND NOT AFFORD TO SMITH'S ANY "SPECI~PRIVILEGES" OR CONCESSIONS. NAME ADDRESS PHONE ~Ne f~.TuVc~ C.Lbrpokr Pn 9~4'~ 1'f'! 3/mod 3` o ~t a. s. s, .~1C_C:~'V_S u 11 13. 1s. ~~k`~.~.,.7a.~.~l i3 NO SPECIAL PRIVILEGES WHEREAS ALL BUSINESSES IN RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUST MEET THOSE RULES AND REGULATIONS WHICH THE CITY HAS IMPOSED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC; WHEREAS TO PERMIT SMITH'S FOOD AND DRUG CENTERS, INC. TO CIRCUMVENT THESE REQUIREMENTS WOULD GIVE THEM AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE OVER THOSE MERCHANTS AND OTHER BUSINESSES WHO COMPLY WITH THE CITY'S RULES; AND WHEREAS SMITH'S ENTRY INTO OUR COMMUNITY WILL NOT BRING WITH IT NEW BUSINESS BUT, INSTEAD, WILL JUST COMPETE WITH OUR EXISTING BUSINESS COMMUNITY - -ALREADY SUFFERING FROM THE RECESSION; THEREFORE WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, URGE OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS TO REQUIRE THAT SMITH'S MEET ORDINARY CITY PLANNING AND BUILDING REQUIREMENTS AND NOT AFFORD TO SMITH'S ANY "SPECIAL PRIVILEGES" OR CONCESSIONS. NAME ADDRESS PHONE ~8~ /,'. ~ L 1/_ 6 ' %CCC4Q Fl; ~Z K~IJ ~~ ~i.t `IU Cis N.,, i !1 12. ~'.-~121~'_- ,~r1 __ 1~~..~- sCYt~+~c+c~,H. t~ ~ d'~i_~~s/t~k - ~~ / ~~~ V Zar( Ca~~P,K4s 7 ~ a0 KC vsnta m Q ~' `~ 173 9, i yJ ~'~_.<.' ~`-c~s~t n~ `1V /t A, J s~ti('/ A ~I I (~A l Ciwln NO SPECIAL PRIVILEGES WFiEREA9 ALL BUSINESSES IN RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUST MEET THOSE RULES ANO REGULATIONS WHICH THE CITY HAS IMP09ED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC; WHEREA8 TO PERMIT SMITH'S FOOD AND DRUG CENTERS, INC. TO CIRCUMVENT THESE REQUIREMENT8 WOULD QIVE THEM AN UNFAI R ADVANTAGE OVER THOSE MERCHANTS AND OTHER BUSINESSES WHO COMPLY WITH THE CITY'S RULES; AND WHEREAS SMITH'S ENTRY INTO OUR COMMUNITY WILL NOT BRING WITH IT NEW BUSINESS BUT, fNSTEAD, WILL JUSTCOMPETE WITH OUR EXISTING BUSINESS COPiMUNITY • • ALREADY SUFFERING FROM THE RECESSION; THEREFORE WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, URGE OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS Tp REQUIRE THAT SMITH'8 MEET ORDINARY CITY PLANNING AND BUILDING REQUIREMENTS AND NOT AFFORD TO SMITH'S ANY "SPECIAL PRIVILEGES" OR CONCESSIONS. NAME ADDRE88 PHONE akax~ '~~ NO SPECIAL PRIVILEGES WHEREA8 ALL BUSINESSES IN RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUST MEET THOSE RULES AND REGULATIONS WHICH THE CITY HAS IMPOSED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC; WHEREAS TO PERMIT SMITH'S FOOD AND DRUG CENTERS, INC. TO CIRCUMVENT THESE REQUIREMENTS WOULD GIVE THEM AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE OVER THOSE MERCHANTS AND OTHER BUSINESSES WHO COMPLY WITH THE CITY'9 RULES; AND WHEREAS SMITH'S ENTRY INTO OUR COMMUNITY WILL NOT BRINQ WITH IT NEW BUSINES8 BUT, INSTEAD, WILL JU3T COMPETE WITH OUR EXI8TING BUSINESS COC'1MUNITY - - ALREADY SUFFERING FROM THE RECESSION; THEREFORE WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, URQE OUR ELECTED OFFICIAlB TO REQUIRE THAT SMITH'S MEET ORDINARY CITY PLANNING AND BUILDING REQUIREMENTS AND NOT AFFORD TO SMITH'S ANY "SPECIAL PRIVILEQES" OR COIJCESSIONS. NAME ADDRl88 PHONE `iS NO SPECIAL PRIVILEGES WHEREAS ALL BUSINESSES IN RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUST MEET THOSE RULES AND REGULATIONS WHICH THE CITY HA5 IMP09ED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC; WHEREAS TO PERMIT SMITH'S FOOD AND DRUG CENTERS, INC. TO CIRCUMVENT THE8E REQUIREMENTS WOULD GIVE THEM AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE OVER THOSE MERCHANTB AND OTHER BUSINESSES WHO COMPLY WITH THE CITY'S RULES; AND WHEREAS SMITH'S ENTRY INTO CUR COMMUNITY WILL NOT BRING WITH IT NEW BUSINESS BUT, INSTEAD, WILL JUST COMPETE WITH OUR EXISTING BUSINESS COMMUNITY - -ALREADY SUFFERING FROM THE RECESSION; THEREFORE WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, URGE OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS TO REQUIRE THAT SMITH'S MEET ORDINARY CITY PLANNING AND BUILDING REQUIREMENTS ANO NOT AFFORD TO SMITH'S ANY "SPECIAL PRIVILEGES" OR COPICESSION8, NAME ADDRESS PHONE ' ~ 1. 1~(: tu~(u,-~~ c' ~a. ~' 1 i5 i ~ ~'~L+~1~Y ~t /:~Z~'tl L ~~t~ ~. ~~ ~' ~7 /~~~ . sr/~ w9~7~'= i.7$c' ; nv ~ 73cr ~i~~ r 2, dy/11~y~/! ~'yr=-~t~~c:.dt~~CSQ~-,L~~•~ -------- NO SPECIAL PRIVILEGES WHEREA8 ALL BUSINESSES IN RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUST MEETTH08E RULE9 AND REGULATIONS WHICH 7HE CITY HAS IMPOSED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC; WHEREAS TO PEAMIT SMITH'8 FOOD AND DRUG CENTER8, INC, TO CIRCUMVENT 7HE8E REQUTAEMENT8 WOULD GIVE THEM AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE OVER THOSE MERCHANTS AND OTHER BU81NE88ES WHO COMPLY WITH THE CITY'S RULES; AND WHEREAS SMITH'S ENTRY INTO OUR COMMUNITY WILL NOT BRING WITH IT NEW BU81NES8 BUT, INSTEAD, WILL JUST COMPETE WITH OUR EXISTING BUSINESS C0~IMUNITY • • ALREADY SUFFERING FROM THE RECESSION; THEREFORE WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, URGE OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS TO REGUIRE THAT SMITH'S MEET ORDINARY CITY PLANNING AND BUILDING REQUIREMENTS AND NOT AFFORD TO SMITH'S ANY "SPECIAL PRIVILEGES" OR CONCES810N8, t a ~. 8, 0, tc 11 ~?~~vir~~wno~ IaoeC, NAME ADDRE8S PHONE `~.~ ~a .-, ~_ NO SPECIAL PRIVILEGES WHEREAS ALL BUSINESSES IN RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUST MEET THOSE RULES AND REGULATIONS WHICH THE CITY HAS IMPOSED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC; NAME ADDRESS PHONE sT WHEREAS TO PERMIT SMITH'S FOOD AND DRUG CENTERS, INC. TO CIRCUMVENT THESE REQUIREMENTS WOULD GIVE THEM AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE OVER THOSE MERCHANTS AND OTHER BUSINESSES WHO COMPLY WITH THE CITY'S RULES; AND WHEREAS SMITH'S ENTRY INTO OUR COMMUNITY WILL NOT BRING WITH IT NEW BUSINESS BUT, INSTEAD, WILL JUST COMPETE WITH OUR EXISTING BUSINE33 COMMUNITY - -ALREADY SUFFERING FROM THE F~CESSION; THEREFORE WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, URGE OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS TO REQUIRE THAT SMITH'S MEET ORDINARY CITY PLANNING AND BUILDING REQUIREMENTS AND NOT AFFORD TO SMITH'S ANY °SPECIAL PRIVILEGES' OR CONCESSIONS. 2/3-~Cr_~--Lryl~-~~~1~~2~-Ida ~~1~~ 3~~!/~~.1,~c ~ CQ~((eS'~ r ch UJ 09o G~~_~i1~c,_SOS_3 a. ~~I F2A[.a ___~ ~/,/E G~±r~ _G~.~agr~>u 9v_c=_y~.2.~ s.,5~_1}'~tJ~_s-----~S87U /~~u1I0d~lpd~L~u!02// j~~d~l~dt__/3~~ ~ gd 7 6. ` ~.p~MYy•tS Q''~~ KoNceT~ 5\~__I,UCIj. __ Cr~r~,rOQI~ 7. ;'lnti:~ir F. FS~w~~-i 9r37diLPVw~55' c/u~r `j'ff-~70~`~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~ tJ~Ler ~QA ~P I~A~~,Qa Z2S7T.-,a /~rj.~/~I .cBp~~(' n~P_ ~(~, _~~/~°pS~`a__ 2.'~~n~)aEG~L,y~7,,-M~p~,UP ~..,~~./~L--_~v~ ~~~.4i/' 7,7~+~ 5. e. ~. 8. 9. 1C 11 NO SPECIAL PRIVILEGES WHEREAS ALL BUSINESSES IN RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUST MEET THOSE RULES AND REGULATIONS WHICH THE CITY HAS IMPOSED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC; WHEREAS TO PERMIT SMITH'S FOOD AND DRUG CENTERS, INC. TO CIRCUMVENT THESE REQUIREMENTS WOULD GIVE THEM AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE OVER THOSE MERCHANTS AND OTHER BUSINESSES WHO COMPLY WITH THE CITY'S RULES; AND WHEREAS SMITH'S ENTRY INTO OUR COMMUNITY WILL NOT BRING WITH IT NEW BUSINESS BUT, INSTEAD, WILL JUST COMPETE WITH OUR EXISTING BUSINESS COMMUNITY - -ALREADY SUFFERING FROM THE RECESSION; THEREFORE WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, URGE OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS TO REQUIRE THAT SMITH'S MEET ORDINARY CITY PLANNING AND BUILDING REQUIREMENTS AND NOT AFFORD TO SMITH'S ANY "SPECIAL PRIVILEGES' OR CONCESSIONS. NAME ADDRESS PHONE 4. 5. 6. 7, 8, 9. 10 11 15. NO SPECIAL PRIVILEGES ~, WHEREAS ALL BUSINESSES IN RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUST MEET THOSE RULES AND REGULATIONS WHICH THE CITY HAS IMPOSED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC; WHEREAS TO PERMIT SMITH'S FOOD AND DRUG CENTERS, INC. TO CIRCUMVENT THESE REQUIREMENTS WOULD GIVE THEM AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE OVER THOSE MERCHANTS AND OTHER BUSINESSES WHO COMPLY WITH THE CITY'S RULES; ANO WHEREAS SMITH'S ENTRY INTO OUR COMMUNITY WILL NOT BRING WITH IT NEW BUSINESS BUT, INSTEAD, WILL JUST COMPETE WITH OUR EXISTING BUSINESS COMMUNITY - -ALREADY SUFFERING FROM THE RECESSION; THEREFORE WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, URGE OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS TO REQUIRE THAT SMITH'S MEET ORDINARY CITY PLANNING AND BUILDING REQUIREMENTS AND NOT AFFORD TO SMITH'S ANY'SPEGAL PRIVILEGES' OR CONCESSIONS. NAME ADDRESS PHONE ~LZe~~~._~ ~a~~\\ ~~v~~lv~ L`A~~1 ~SSS 2. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 11 s~. ._ Mme... NO SPECIAL PRIVILEGES WHEREAS ALL BUSINESSES IN RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUST MEET THOSE RULES AND REGULATIONS WHICH T!-IE CITY HAS IMPOSED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC; WHEREAS TO PERMIT SMITH'S FOOD AND DRUG CENTERS, INC. TO CIRCUMVENT THESE REQUIREMENTS WOULD GIVE THEM AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE OVER THOSE MERCHANTS AND OTHER BUSINESSES WHO COMPLY WITH THE CITY'S RULES; AND WHEREAS SMITH'S ENTRY INTO OUR COMMUNITY WILL NOT BRING WITH IT NEW BUSINESS BUT, INSTEAD, WILL JUST COMPETE WITH OUR EXISTING BUSINESS COMMUNITY - -ALREADY SUFFERING FROM THE RECESSION; THEREFORE WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, URGE OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS TO REQUIRE THAT SMITH'S MEET ORDINARY GTY PLANNING AND BUILDING REQUIREMENTS AND NOT AFFORD TO SMITH'S ANY "SPEGAL PRIVILEGES" OR CONCESSIONS. NAME ADDRESS PHONE 1.~iL~ tt='~dl~t/1G'~ 5367 !-hw.i¢~.c~.~r~r ~/N SSG -(ofa~ ~~ 2. ~~BG_.~lsx-- 43ss G~,ed, ~I~~~~_ a. NO SPECIAL PRIVILEGES WHEREAS ALL BUSINESSES IN RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUST MEET THOSE RULES AND REGULATIONS WHICH THE CITY HAS IMPOSED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC; WHEREAS TO PERMIT SMITH'S FOOD AND DRUG CENTERS, INC. TO CIRCUMVENT THESE REQUIREMENTS WOULD GIVE THEM AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE OVER THOSE MERCHANTS AND OTHER BUSINESSES WHO COMPLY WITH THE CITY'S RULES; AND WHEREAS SMITH'S ENTRY INTO OUR COMMUNITY WILL NOT BRING WITH IT NEW BUSINESS BUT, INSTEAD, WILL JUSTCOMPETE WITH OUR EXISTING BUSINESS COMMUNITY - -ALREADY SUFFERING FROM THE RECESSION; THEREFORE WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, URGE OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS TO REQUIRE THAT SMITH'S MEET ORDINARY GTY PLANNING AND BUILDING REQUIREMENTS AND NOT AFFORD TO 3MITH'S ANY "SPECIAL PRIVILEGES' OR CONCESSIONS. v. b. 8. 7. 8. 9. 11 14. 1b. - ----- -- NAME ADDRESS PNONE NO SPECIAL PRIVILEGES WHEREAS ALL BUSINESSES IN RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUST MEET THOSE RULES AND REGULATIONS WHICH THE CITY HAS IMPOSED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC; WHEREAS TO PERMIT SMITH'S FOOD AND DRUG CENTERS, INC. TO CIRCUMVENT THESE REQUIREMENTS WOULD GIVE THEM AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE OVER THOSE MERCHANTS AND OTHER BUSINESSES WHO COMPLY WITH THE CITY'S RULES; AND WHEREAS SMITH'S ENTRY INTO OUR COMMUNITY WILL NOT BRING WITH IT NEW BUSINESS BUT, INSTEAD, WILL JUST COMPETE WITH OUR EXISTING BUSINESS COMMUNITY - -ALREADY SUFFERING FROM THE RECESSION; THEREFORE WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, URGE OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS TO REQUIRE THAT SMITH'S MEET ORDINARY CITY PLANNING AND BUILDING REOUI REMENTS AND NOT AFFORD TO SMITH'S ANY "SPECIAL PRIVILEGES' OR CONCESSIONS. NAME ADDRESS /~ PHONE n. r7i /J OJ.t.~r...l ~I'7~ ~~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e. 7. 8. 9. 11 7 1 NO SPECIAL PRIVILEGES WHEREAS ALL BUSINESSES IN RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUST MEET THOSE RULES AND REGULATIONS WHICH THE CITY HAS IMPOSED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC; WHEREAS TO PERMIT SMITH'S FOOD AND DRUG CENTERS, INC. TO CIRCUMVENT THESE REQUIREMENTS WOULD GIVE THEM AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE OVER THOSE MERCHANTS AND OTHER BUSINESSES WHO COMPLY WITH THE CITY'S RULES; AN D WHEREAS SMITH'S ENTRY INTO OUR COMMUNITY WILL NOT BRING WITH IT NEW BUSINESS BUT, INSTEAD, WILL JUST COMPETE WITH OUR EXISTING BUSINESS COMMUNITY - -ALREADY SUFFERING FROM THE RECESSION; THEREFORE WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, URGE OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS TO REQUIRE THAT SMITH'S MEET ORDINARY CITY PLANNING AND BUIIDiNG REQUIREMENTS AND NOT AFFORD TO SMITH'S ANY "SPECIAL PRIVILEGES' OR CONCESSIONS. NAME ADDRESS PHONE _~V \rv~ l0_ 1''QV~, ~ tl~~{~ L-WN9~~T,• F~ ~(, ~ t~ 2. 3. 4. 5. 8. 7. 8. 9. 11 3~ 12. NO SPECIAL PRIVILEGES WHEREAS ALL BUSINESSES IN RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUST MEET THOSE RULES AND REGULATIONS WHICH THE CITY HAS IMPOSED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC; WHEREAS TO PERMiT SMITH'8 FOOD AND DRUG CENTERS, INC. TO CIRCUMVENT THESE REQUIREMENT8 WOULD GIVE THEM AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE OVER THOSE MERCHANTS AND OTHER eUeINESSE9 WHO COMPLY WITH 7HE CITY'9 RULES; AND WHEREAS SMITH'S ENTRY INTO OUR COMMUNITY WILL NOT BRING WITH IT NEW BUSINESS BUT, INSTEAD, WILL JUST COMPETE WITH OUR EXI871NG BUSINESS COMMUNITY - • ALREADY 8UFFERING FROM THE RECESSION; THEREFORE WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, URGE OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS TO REQUIRE THAT SMITH'S MEET ORDINARY CITY PLANNING AND BUILDING REQUIREMENTS AND NOT AFFGRD TO SMITH'9 ANY "SPECIAL PRIVILEGES" OR CONCESSION8, D, 11. - "- ------------_._.~~~~~.... 1 a. -----------------~~ 13. ----------__^-_---------------- 14. ---------__.._.-----------~.._--_...._ 16 NAME ADDRE88 A PHONE NO SPECIAL PRIVILEGES AND REGULATION3NWHICH THE OIT'f HAS IMPOSED FORUTHE BENEFHTOOF THE S GENERAL PUBLIC; WHEREAS TO PERMIT SMITH'S FOOD AND DRUG CENTERS, INC. TO CIRCUMVENT MERCHANOTS AND OTHER BUS MESSES WHO COMPLY WITH THEACITY'S RUL SOSE AND gUSiNEBS BUT INSTEADYWILLOJOUST COMPETE WITH OUR EXISTING BUSIN SSW COMMUNITY - -ALREADY SUFFERING FROM THE RECESSION; THEREFORE WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, URGE OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS TO REQUIRE THAT SMITH'S MEET ORDINARY CITY PLANNING AND BUILDING REOUIREMENiS AND NOT AFFORD TO SMITH'S ANY "SPECIAL PRIVILEGES" OR CONCESSIONS. NAME ADDRESS ~/~ ~~__ ~~~,~~~} ~a^'_h--~ a ~v_Z~-YCL?^'LL_~e-' At _~p632 ~'fdWrf l~l PHONE ~_~~ 905 ~Yy~v rn to m ~9_.~~~.` ,~ 4. 5. 8. ~. e. s. ,,. ~. 13 /~~,:~~1i ~~ ~G s 7 uiy `"'i ~~365'~ 4 ._-~ .-~+ r r Cj.L. y C`a~ dyrR~ ~a ,~Kt ~ ~(~~~.. "Build a Store to fit the site... ~ , ... or find a site to fit the store!" Smith's Food 8 Drug insists on building a 70,000 - 80,000 sq. tt. combination store (twice the size of a normal supermarket) in a location that will not accomodate the massive structure and its regwred parking facilities. To cram that store onto the site, Smith's is demanding that the City Council grant it special treatment and allow it to put its loading docks in plain sight -either in the front or the side. It's unsightly and unsafe, and it's only the tip of the iceberg in terns of the problems a store of this design will create. Vineyard Ave. -FUTURE PARKING LOT? Foothill and Vineyartl is already congested. To be profitable, the store must draw additional traffic to that comer. Those cars must enter and exit the lot -- stopping antl fuming and merging. Add to that mix the heavy truck traffic required to stock that store and we have the recipe for a traffic nightmare. • Smith's doesn't care about the traffic problems it will be creating. Smith's doesn't care that the Planning Commission has rejected the project because it doesn't meet city design standards. • Smith's dcesn't care that its combination stores have put small shops out of business, resulting in blighted areas. WE WELCOME SMITH'S IF... IT COMES TO RANCHO CUCAMONGA AS A GOOD NEIGHBOR VOICE YOUR CONCERNS: PLEASE CALL THE COUNCIL MEMBERS 8 THE MAYOR: 989.1851 Mayor: Dennis Stout Council Members: Diane YYlliams Mayor Pro-Tem: William Alexander ChaAes f3uquet II Rex Gutierrez PLEASE COME TO THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING. Wednesday, February 17. 7:00 P. M. Council Chambers, 10500 Civic Canter Dr. Panted as a Public Service by the State Building & Construction Trades Council of California 2/11/93 T0: All Council Members We requested a copy of the Smith Traffic Report from Justin Farmer (Smith Traffic Engineer), who completed an analysis of the proposed development. We hired our own Traffic Engineer to review the Farmer report and give us his opinion. Weston Prinkle & Associates is one of the most well respected Traffic Engineering firms in Southern California. We called your engineering department and inquired if we needed to get a "bio" on Mr. Prinkle. Your engineering confirmed the fact of Mr. Prinkle's qualifications. Upon review of Mr. Prinkle's report you will note several serious concerns he has for safety and deficiencies in the Smith development. These issues must be mitigated prior to Smiths' receiving any approval. We've had a very short period of time to respond to the Smith project. We agreed and felt the Planning Commission had more than enough reasons to deny the project when they asked Smiths' to resubmit their plans. At that time we thought our rights as adjacent property owners and homeowners in the neighborhood were protected. Z (Ed Combs) have left several messages to schedule a meeting with you prior to the meeting on the 17th regarding the attached report & the issues that concern all of us. Donna at your office will verify that I have called many times to see if you received the messages. She confirmed that you had received my messages. We have several of the homeowners & property owners who want to meet with you and express their thoughts. As of this date I still have not heard from you. We still are requesting that you call and meet with us prior to the 17th. You can reach me at 981-0466 days, or at either number in the evenings(wkends 985-5994 - 985-0400. Due to several circumstances we were forced to hire legal counsel to represent us and protect our rights. Our legal counsel will be present at the City council meeting to express our feelings, thoughts, concerns and suggestions. We have some other expert opinions which we should be available to you by the 17th. Just recently we have discovered a couple of other serious problems with the proposed site. In the fact that the information we turn o~rer to you is public information, we met with the Daily Bulletin and gave them a copy of the attached report for them to review and comment on. We wanted to discuss the report and our concerns with you, in person, prior to discussing or meeting with anyone else. We waited as long as we could before going public with the information. If you have any questions please feel free to contact us. Thank you. 02. . y~ 15:30 !JESTON PRIhkiLE HNp F550t:iRiES W ~ 'pn'1 . I 1 I~- V~CI; A i Weston Pringle 8. Associates 1RAFFIC 5 FAX -II~ANSMITI-.d-L DATE: ~~9/19-3 flRh1e ATi1=MiON: ~~ Co'y/ys PROM: /~ fii~e WESTON DR 6LC & ASSOCWTES ENCilN~cEUNIi DESCRIDTION: NOTE: WE ARE TRANSM~iT1N6 A TOTAL OP ~, DAGCS (INCLUDING 7t1~ f,OVER DAOEI. , IP 7'CU FIAVE ANY DRODLEM WITl1 711E T 2sNSAUSSION. DLEASE CAIl. US Ai' (J7A) 871.2937. OUR FAX NUMBER IS ply 977.0389. irwNn rou. UVi y~ __ L ul, PF,'In..~t JC. _. ~u~ WPA, Traffic Engineering, Inc. TRAFFIC ~ TRANSPORTATION ENGllVEERING February 9, 1998 Mr. Ed Combs 419-B North Central Avenue Upland, CA 91786 SUBJACI': SMITH'S FOOD (LING, liAlYCHO CUGAMONGA Dear Mc Combs: This lotto is in response to the re<luest of prujtcny owners on San Bernardino Road to review tra(6c facrors related to the proposed Smith's Food King development on the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vine}ard Avenue In the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The project would include a Smith's Food and llrug Center along with satellite uses. Vehicular access is planned on Foothill Boulevard, Vineyard Avenue, and San Bernardino Road. It is indicated that ultimately the Foothill Boulevard access will be riglu un'ns Holy. A loading dock is proposed on the west end of the main building. Our review has been based upon a site plan, a trt6c study by Justin F. Farmer Transportation Engineers, Inc„ dated January 13, 1993, and Information provided by yon. etw .,„ . Fuanrtr~~~ t:n tnnat • hlsl wl-zeal • rnx:(rr.,/ r; r-u.. . -z- A site plan, prepared by Tait and Associates, shows a deceleration lane located on Vineyard Avenue, south of the San Bernardino Road/Vineyard Avenue intersection, at the Smith's Food and Drug Curer driveway. '1-his deceleration lane was examined to determine whether the length is adequate. Vineyard Avenue has a posted speed limit of 45 MPH in the vicinity of the Smith's Food and Drug Center site.tn Typically, the design speed on a street is higher than the posted speed limit. Therefore, a conscn~ative design speed of 50 MPH was ~ assumed ou Vineyard Avenue. CalTranS ~-Iigbwa siyn Mamtalrn states that the "design speed of the roadway sbmdd be the basis Cor dettrmining deceleration lane length". YJhen measuring the length oC the deceleradon lane, the bay raper is to be included in the measurement, The deceleration lane shown on dre Smith's site plan is approximately 225 feet. Table 405.YB, in the H'.g~l way Design Manuahr, shows the relationship between the design speed of a roadway and the desired deceleration lane length. For a design spccd of 50 MPH, a deceleration lane length of 435 Feet is needed; however, where partial deceleration is permitted on through lanes, the average spccd may be reduced 10 to 20 MPFI. Duc to the Catt that two southbound lanes arc provided on Vineyard Aveuuc, a reduction o(10 MPH was assumed. A 90 Ml'H design speed was utilized for determining the appropriate deceleration lace length far the Smith's driveway, Table 405.2B indiwtcs a length of 915 feet for a design speed of 40 Ml'H, As stated previously, the deceleration lane shown un thr: site plan is approximately 225 feet, which falls 90 feet short of the required S15 feet. (I) Shown in Figure 7 of the Smith's Food and Drug Center Tralhc Study; prepared br,1ustin F. Farmer 'Transportation Engineers, Lu.; dated January IY, 1999. (2) 1{jghwa}' Design Manual, 9th Bdition; California Uepanmcnt of'1'ransportation (CalTrans); February, 1992. (~) ILid. h was also noted that Vitwyard Avenue has a horizontal curve, north of the Site. This results in restriacd sight distance for southbound drivers with respect to vehicles entering the project site, At noted in the letter from Justin F. Farmer Transportation L'ngineers, tnc., a truck exiting the Vineyard Avenue driveway will intrude into the southbound uumher one lane or, in effect, block southbound trafFc!"~ Since the stopping sight distance for 50 MPH ix 4S0 Cect, a safety concern could exist. I[ is undersrood that typically 65 foot trucks are utilimd to serve these projects. The turning characteristics oC tbis vehicle are illustrated on Figure 407C oC the Hirrhwav, Design Manualt'~. Rased upuu these characteristics, the driveway design raises some concerns. The driveways nn both Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue arc not "!licient to allow exiling vehicles while a [ruck enters. 'Phis condition results in both ;iic operational and safety concerns. Access via San Bernardino RoaA is ~anolher concern. This is a residential street and it is understood chat access to the project Bile from San Bernardino Road was precluded in the Foothill Boulevard plan. The project traffic study assumes that 22 percent of the trips will utilize San Bernardino Road. This access via San Bernardino Road raises the following concerns. o Vehicular access to Sau Aernardino Road is via the west end of the main building, past dtc loading docks. This access route is not highly visible to patrmts and is a "back door" m the facility. In addition, safety is a potential problem due w trucks backing into the loading docks in the path of ve}tidcs utilizing San Bernardino Road. Truck drivers have limited visibility when backing. (4) Juadn F. Farmer Transportation Engineers, Tnc:s letter to Prescott Muir Architects; January l 1, 1003. (5) jjjg~y Design Manual; oo~cjl b1i kJ='i53 1532 WEST(7N PRIha'iLE RIJP R550.1RTE5 005 `4- o If an access is not provided on San Bernardino Road, there arc significant traffic impacts. Based upon the traffic study, the total left Corns from Vineyard Avenue is I13 vehicles during the PM peak hour. Figure 1G of the traffic repon indicates that this volume would require a s[orage length of 900 feet. Since [he limit Zinc mt Vineyard Avenue at Foothill Roulcvard is approximamly 360 feet from the driveway, there is not sufbduu distance fora 300 foot sloregc area. o If vehicular access is not provided on San Bernardino Road, the ouWound volume at the Vineyard Avenue driveway would increase to 184 vehicles during the FM peak hour. A volume of ibis magnitude could introduct a demand 'for signaGratiou, which wuu1J iutpact traffic operations on Vineyard Avenue. o The traffic repon addresses the sensi[ivity of increased traNc on San Rernardino Road due to the residential use; There is no discussion of truck impacts. The San Bernardino Road access would Le an auraetive route For trucks entering the site. In summary, there are po[ential [ra(Gc related impacts that should be addressed iu the review of the proposed development, 'Phis site has some specific access limitations wftich should be addressed prior to the approval of the prnject. Also, traffic impacts on San Rernardino Road and adjacent property should be clarified. • r • « .. _5_ We wst that these comments will be of assistance to you. If you hare any questions, plcasc contact us. Respectfully submitted, WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. 7 ~~i,~ Wcston S. Pr' gle, P. F,. Registered Professional Engineer State of California Numbers C36828 & TIZ565 WSP:ca tY980150 TABLE ~ OONTENTS Preface Letter Letter of Introduction Brief History Statement of Facts & Concerns Regarding Smith Development Foothill Specific Plan -Concerns Summary of Major Facts/Concerns Excerpts taken from Minutes of two Planning Commission Meetings & Planning Staff Report(s) Exhibits Submitted by: Concerned Citizens o£ Rancho Cucamonga Property Owners near Proposed Development 1'eaidents in the Immediate Neighborhood February 8, 1993 The following document is the result of input received from many individuals, including residen*_s of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, property owners in the immediate area that will be affected by the propcsed development, consultants and advisors. we have spent a great deal of time reviewing the Smith plans, conducting independent studies how the development will affect our City, its residents and property owners. We ask that you review these materials with an open mind and try to understand why we feel the way we do. We have attempted to highlight points of issues, concerns and serious problems with the Smith project. All of the statements we refer to in the two Planning Commission Meetings of December 9th and 15th were taken from the official minutes and are verbatim, word for word. For your convenience we are enclosing copies of those minutes highlighting the sentences, paragraphs and words we are referencing. We tried to condense our report as much as possible; however, with the importance of the project, its affect to the City and its residents...the report is longer than expected. n February 8, 1993 TO: city council Members FROM: PiopartY OMnera - Baa Bernardino Rd. i Viae~ard Ave. and Concerned Citizens of the City of Raaobo Cucamoaoa RE: Bite plan i Development Proposal from BmitA's Food Einq Many of us attended the Planning Commission Meeting of December 9,1992 and the City Council Meeting on January 20, 1993 regarding the above mentioned project. we are property owners and citizens of Rancho Cucamonga. We hope that you will take time to review the enclosed materials and uphold the Planning Commission dec isior. to deny the project for the reasons stated. We have many concerns about the design elements, integration of the Smith development with adjacent properties, and we feel there are several serious design flaws that could cause serious health and safety hazards as outlined by the Planning Commission. We are not necessarily against the project, but we strongly feel the site needs to be revised to meet the goals which your Planning Commission and City Council have upheld for many years. BRIEF BIRTORY AND SUMMARY DP TO T8I8 DAT.$i Zn April 1992 Smith's Food King submitted an informal plan to the City which included ALL PARCELS bounded py Foothill. (South Side), San Bernardino (South Side), Vineyard Avenue (East Side) to the Flcod Control Channel (West Side). After the City indicated two (2) Fast Food Pads on the site would probably not be acceptable, Smith's submitted a second plan excluding three (3) small parcels at the extreme Northeast portion of the block. These three (3) parcels have a total land square footage of about 35,000 sq.ft. with two parcels of 8,900 and 9,500 sq.ft. Prior to submitting these plans Smith's had entered into contracts with ALL PROFBRTY OANERS is tha brook including the three parcels in question. Zn fact, until 9/1/92 these parcels were still under contract (options) with Smith's. As late as December 27th or 28th Smiths' representatives contacted the three remaining property owners to see "what price they would sell". smith's met With the City and Design Review Committees several times beginning in April 1992 up until the Planning commission meeting of December 9, 1992. The minutes of those meetings will clearly indicate the Commissioners strong feelings oP ~' having front and/or side "loading docks". The Commissioners kept telling Smith's "rear loading docks" was the preference of the • Commission. Smith's was informed the City HAS NEVER APPROVED anything but rear loading docks. Other serious design issues were discussed during these meetings including the safety and health concerns especially with semi trucks coming into contact with other vehicles and pedestrians. Planning Staff recommended approval of the project to the Planning Commission. Planning Staff indicated the project met all the guidelines of the Foothill Specific Plan, General Plan, etc. At the December 9, 1992 Planning Commission meeting numerous issues were brought up concerning site design, site plan, health and safety issues. The Planning Commission made a motion and voted to deny the project 4 to i. Smith's requested the Planning Commission expedite the administrative process so Smith's could appeal to the City Council. The Planning Commission agreed to call a special meeting on December 15, 1992 to ratify t'r..a? motion to deny. However, we learned just this week (after purchasing and reading the complete file of the Planning Staff report) that at the December 15, 1992 Planning Commission Meeting the public hearing was reopened and time was spent further discussing the issues. End result of that meeting was the same 4 to 1 vote to deny the project. At that meeting Mr. Huller inquired from the Commissioners if Smith's eliminated the "east loading dock" and moved it over to the same location of the "west loading dock", would this be acceptable to the Commissioners? Again, the minutes clearly show where the Planning Commission not only would give their approval...but, in fact told Smith's and the Planning Staff this would significantly change the site plan and should further be reviewed or resubmitted. During these meetings Smith's originally told the Commissioners that Smith's could not design the project with rear loading docks, because of site constraints. (Note: Prescott Muir - Smith Architect originally stated the site could not be designed to accommodate rear loading docks, but at the Planning Commission meeting he did indicate the site could be designed, but it would cost Smith's too much money to acquire the additional property. Property which Smith's already had previously agreed to purchase.) Smith's also indicated their normal design calls for front or side loading docks. (Note: In the minutes of the Planning Commission you will note at least 2 Commissionora confirmed this fact). The Planning Commission actually denied the project on two separate occasions by the same vote of 4 to 1. The findings indicate numerous serious concerns including non conformance of the Foothill Specific Plan, health, safety and site plan deficiencies. • As property owners and residents of Rancho Cucamonga we just want the site to be developed as per the Foothill Specific Plan, eliminate the potential safety/health issues, assure us that the "right hand turn lane^ going South on Vineyard is safe, cul-de- sac the west end of San Bernardino Road as per Section 7.1.6 of the Foothill Specific Plan, and develop a workable Master Plan that meets the needs of ALL PROPERTIES OWNERS affected in the area. Statement of Facts 6 Concerns Smiths' • Denial of this project, on separate occasions, by the Planning Commission. • Planning Commission makes a motion and votes to deny the project, 4 to 1, on December 9, 1992. (P8,L20) • Once again, Planning Commission makes a motion and votes to deny the project 4 to 1 on December 15, 1992. (P12,L29) • Several serious concerns are pointed out which affect The Foothill Specific Plan. (Part Pgl, all Page 2, Part PS) • Non-conformance to The Foothill Specific Plan with deficiencies in the site plan which affects health, safety, fire and possible injury to citizens, (Part Pgl, all Page 2, Part P3) • (Until now) The City of Rancho Cucamonga has NEVER APPROVED anything other than REAR LOADING DOCiBS. (P6,L2),(P5,L18) • Engineering concerns, regarding the site, were never discussed, (P1,L24) • Citizens, especially In the immediate area, are opposed to heavy trucks/traffic traveling on San Bernardino Road, (P3,L34) • Planning Commissioners are opposed to front or side loading • docks. (P1,L10), (P2,L26), (P2,L38), (P5,L19), (P6,L1), (P6,L7) (P6,L9), (P6,L14), (P6,L35), (P6,L37), (P7,L10), (P7,L21), (P7,L26), (P8,L5), (P9,L9), (P9,L25), (P10,L23), (Pi0,L34), (P10,L46), (P11,L13),(P11,18),(P11,31),(P11,L42),(P12,L24) • Turning radii and truck maneuvering diagram has not been discussed in detail or presented formally. (P6,L23) • Traffic patterns on Vineyard and Foothill must be addressed, • Rear loading access, without using San Bernardino Road rs feasible and practical...see sample plan #2. (See Attached Plan). • Insure the residents that the "right hand turn lane` going south on Vineyard Avenue is "SAFE" and meets the goals of the City. We've been Informed The lane is 'beariy at minimal standards'. We believe the lane should be considerably longer to insure the 'safety' of Rancho Cucamonga residents. • Need for 'fire lane" at rear of building. • Cul-de-sac of San Bernardino Road (per Foothill Specific Pian) FOOTHILL Sagrrgrr ~~ _ Some S~ ~ Issues ~ Feel • Need ~ ~g Mitigated Prior jig Approving j;~ c"'; *i+ Proiect We have concerns that the Smith Plan does note meet or exceed the minimums as indicated in The Foothill Specific Plan: A letter of introduction from Mayor Dennis Stout precedes The Foothill Specific Plan (September 1987). "The City of Rancho Cucamonga is a community committed to excellence. The city's development and deaian revier arocesa plncea heavy enahneia oa wality, loan tare coamftaaat for the developmeat of this vitnl corridor." The following Statement appears several times in the beginning pages of the Plan: "The City of Rancho Cucamonga is a community committed to excellence. The Foothill Blvd. BDeeitie Planla e long tarn coaiaitaeat !o the dsvalooaeat of this vital corridor." E7CCERPTS FROM THE FOOTHILL SPECIFIC PLAN (verbatim) section 1.2 - Authoritp "Development Plans, site plans and tentative tract/parcel maps in this area must be consistent with both this Specific Plan and the City's General Plan." eectioa 3.2 - Opportunities "opportunity to consolidate lots through City redevelopment incentives and Master Plan requirements." section 4.3.2 - Policies "Require compliance with the community design guidelines....." eeatioa ~.~.1 - objeativee "Require master glannina at key sites within the Specific Plan study area to assure integrated development utilizing coordinated access parkins building orientation/locations, pedestrian and . transit facilities." section 4.5.1 - Circulation ODj actives "Minimize vehicular through traffic on adiacent residential streets." eect ioa 4.5.2 Policies "Discourage new commercial and residential develooments from taking any acceea from local residential, by developing internal circulation systems which direct traffic away from surrounding residential neighborhoods." Section 7.1.6. Bah Diego Avenue Abaadonmant "... In an effort to remedy this situation. it is the intention of this clan to have the City vacate San Diego Avenue and cul-de-sac the western extent of San Bernardino Road"....."and the abandonment will include access provisions to San Bernardino Road and Foothill Blvd. as part of any development plan at the following locations:" a. "At the point where San Diego Avenue currently intersects Foothill Blvd; and," b. "Northerly and southerly of the western extent of San Bernardino Road where the proposed cul-de-sac would be constructed." "TDe abandonment aDall be n condition of aav devaloameat broposal... " (Note: A couple of years ago San Diego was "barricaded" to eliminate traffic moving along Vineyard to San Bernardino to San Diego ultimately to Foothill (both ways). The public used this thoroughfare as a "short cut" to avoid the intersection of Foothill & Vineyard. This is the main reason for the Section 7.1.6 of the Foothill Specific Plan.) eectioa e.o - aaaeral Dasiga ouidalinas and Developaaat etaadarda • B.1 - ;ntroduction - }noroval. The overall Guidelines are used by the City • as basis for review of all nroiecta. Proposals that do not addreos these auideliaes Mill sot receive city approval." Beetion 8.2.2 - Bite Planning "orient/screen all auto related facilities (i.d., working bays, storage, etc.) from public view." section 8.2.2 - Bite Plaaaiaq "At activity centers mace Duild'a at o ad' c nt to trout setback line to create more annealing active atrastsaape. Front yard areas with narkiaa lots domiaatina the street scene are apacifieally prohibited". a. Current Smith Plan has B~ of the total number of parking spaces at rear of building, WITH 92k OF TEE TOTAL HOMEER OF PAREIMO SPACER AT TEE PROET i BIDBB! b. Current Smith Plan has 18,800 sq.ft. concrete paving for parking at rear (6.8t total) WITH OVER 250.000 eg.ft. O! C0HCRBTB IN THE PRORT PORTIORB OF TH8 8IT8 (93.2'k)! c. Of the 475 total parking...435 are located at frost or aides. Section 8.2.5 - Yarklnq Lote "In activity center locations. locate parkins areas to the rear of buildings". "Vehicular circulation through a parking facility should be directed away from the fire lane (adjacent to the rears of stores), to the outer eggs of the narking lot where there is less pedestrian traffic". Bectioa 9.1.3 - Master P16u1 The first 3-4 paragraphs in Section 9.1.3 discuss what the Master Plan needs to include and the intent of creating a Master Plan. Discourages "piece meal" • attempts to develop properties. "A conceptual master plan shall be submitted for the Planning Commission approval, together with any • development proposals and shall address all other parcels as they relate to the master plan". eeetioa 9.{.1 - BuDarea Tvo - Daeiga Duideliaea (Diagram on Page IV - 9.20) In this diagram there's a notation about "parking dominates street edge" on the Parcel at the Northwest corner of Foothill and Vineyard. J • SUt~A4ARY OF MAJOR FACTS/CONCERNS PLANNING COMMIBBIONERB BTATSNENT6/ACTIONS POSITION TAxBN HY BOMB CITISENB OF RANCHO COCAMONGA CONCSRNe OP ADJACENT PROPERTY O11NBR8 We believe the minutes of the December 9th and 15th Planning Commission meetings clearly state the position of the Commissioners on several maior oonaerae. We'd like you to consider the following: Testimony of Smith's architect where in the beginning he stated it was impossible to redesign the site with rear loading docks (P7,L38), (P7,L45)....and then he states it may be possible. (P9,L31). Mr. 1Clanq (emita's rap) atatad thsra should ba ao truck traffic oa San HarDaidlao Road. (P7,L18). Mr. Buller feels uncomfortable without any access to the project from San Bernardino Road. (P10,L7). Smith's was told numerous times, even in the very beginning, the wishes of the Commission with regards to the loading docks. (P6,L9), (P6,L37), (p7, L10), (P7,L21), (P7,L26), (P8,L15), (P9,L25), (P10,L32), (P11,L17), (P11, L32). The major conflict with truck traffic, autos and pedestrians all gathering together near the loading docks. (P2,L3H), (P6,L27), (P6,L33), (P6,L35). If two loading docks are placed together on the west side...does that mean there could be two semi trucks loading and/or unloading at the same time. Would a study need to be required? Ths currant sits plan (a^ of 1/29/93) ahovs handiaappad parking sad bike ranks right next to the east loading dock. a. Information told to the Commissioners, by Smith's, about other Smith "site plans" and location of loading docks. Seems there were several "misunderstandings" about comments made by Smith's and what really is the truth. (P11,L32), (P 12,L12). 5. What is the overall length of the semi trucks that will be used to deliver products to the site? Ma'va Dsaa iaformad the length is 68' to 69', not ~e~ ae Aas bean discuasad in uatinga. Did the truck diagrams indicate a8' trucks or 68'-69' trucks? Nould this have an • effect on the diagram and truck maneuvering? (PS,L32), (P6,L20). Public Comment and statement by Commissioner Tolstoy about the heavy traffic going South on Vineyard and the "shortness" of the right hand turn lane onto the Smith site. This is one issue that is extremely serious and could cause immediate injury if it is not designed properly from the very beginning. We understand this lane will be used by traffic going North and Sovth. Commissioner Tolstoy stated ba bee observed "long lines" of traffic going Houta on Vineyard. (P10,L11) a. A guastion was posed to the 8nginsariaq Department about the length of the right hand turn lane on Vineyard Avenue. "is the rigbt nand taro lane at its ideal length, sdequata or minimal leagtb?" We were told "it bearlp meets the minimal requirsmaata". Upon further investigation we believe it doesn't even come close to the "standards" as outlined in information given to us by the Engineering Department. Prior to the Council Meeting on the 77th of February.., we implore you to observe other cars approaching the intersection (going South) at San Bernardino Road and Vineyard, traveling at speeds around 40 to 45 MPH, passing the intersection and then attempting to enter the right hand turn lane in such a short distance as indicated on the plans (90' radius and 125' full lane = total 215'). Please drive it yourself. After passing the intersection there is about 125' before the curb begins to start the approach of the right hand turn lane. b. We were given materials by the Traffic Engineer showing a "HUS Bay" with an acceptable 220' turn out. Another diagram shows a "BUa Bay - Right Hand Turn Lane" combination with an overall length of 375'. How did the City determine a total length for the right hand turn lane of only 215' would be safe and the ultimate distance? 7. Overall concerns of the Commissioners and public testimony about the locations of the loading docks. Commissioners and public testimony overwhelmingly agree the City should uphold their standards as they have for the last 12 years. This has been discussed many times • with the Commission at several meetings. Bas tbmra EVER HESp A PROJECT APPROVED WITH L011DIp0 DOCEB OTEBR THAp AT TH8 REAR OF THE BDILDI802 (P6,L2) 8. Other public and safety issues including Fire and • Engineering Department concerns. Close proximity of residential dwelling units to Smith's building. Significant difference in elevation between Smith's finished pad 6 parking lots with the elevation of the apartment dwelling units. With the smith building located at the Rorthern boundnry and real property line, (closest possible point to the apartments) this will leave a "dead space" Detweaa the two properties. This will invite unsavory persons to congregate and cause concerns for the apartment dwellers and the single family residences across the street. Furthermore, as property owners on San Bernardino, we understand that The Foothill Specific Plan specifically prohibits buildings of this type (in activity centers) being located at the "rear of the property". This is something that should not Da overlooked ahd approved. This seems to be a direct violation of the Foothill Specific Plan. lo. Ron-conformance of Foothill Blvd. specific Plan. The Foothill Specific Plan clear states the following: 8eation 8.2.2 - Bite Planaiaa - At activity centers place building at or adjacent to front setback line to create more appealing, active streetscape. Front yard areas ri th parkins lots dominating the street scene ar 11. Lack of a well thought out Master Plan for the remaining properties in the block. Under eaitb's proposed plan Smith's will be developing about 500,000 sq.ft. of land leaving las^ that 38,000 sq.ft. comprised of three separate parcels. The remaining parcels will definitely became a blight and will do nothing but create potential problems in the future with the neighborhood. Two of tDa parcels (eaaD about 9,000 aq.ft.) will ba virtually loft uadavalopaDls, incompatible sad offer ao hope of future improvement to the city, Citiseas of Raaoho cucsmoaga or the immediate neighDOrhood. A blight will most likely occur without further consideration of a "good workable Master Plan for the entire area". 12. Planning Commission required trash can only be picked up between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 10:00 P.M., yet • smith's will ba permitted to Drinq semi trunks onto the sits at ANYTIMB they desire. How can this be! Please remember the immediate area to the North has eight apartment dwellings units with families. • 13. TY.e Planning Commission and residents in the neighborhood are ngainst having heavy trucks access the project from Baa Bernardino Road. (P4,L30), (P4,L41), (P5,L3), (PS,L10), (P10,L22). The street is now used strictly for residential purposes. Smith's own Architect, Mr. Muir, states if Smith's can not use San Bernardino Road for truck access to the project... it will necessitate added truck maneuvering on the site. (Note: this will be right in the middle of pedestrians, autos, handicapped parking and bike racks where children will park their bicycles.) Section 7.1.6 of The Foothill Specific Plan mandates for the west end of San Bernardino Road to be a cul-de-sac. 14. smith's were made aware of the serious design issues as early as April 1992. (P5,L45), (P6,L9), (P6,L37), (P7,L21), (P7,L26), (P9,L25), (PIO,L32), (P11,L17), (P11,L32). They and their consultants kept ignoring the Commissioners requests and recently have been pushing very hard to get the development approved, without meeting City requirements. Smith's (Klang) has indicated if Smith's doesn't get the project approved now, they will probably not qo ahead with the project. The architect (Muir) said the project was costing Smith's too much money; therefore, Smith's could not afford to purchase additional properties to meet the requirements of the City. Upon reviewing the minutes of the two Planning Commission Meetings and the Public Testimony given by the Community, it is rob gr)s... to allow tha project to ooatinua forward without major revisioae. We believe if Smith's redesigns the site to remedy these concerns, the development will benefit the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the immediate neighborhood, adjacent property owners and be a quality development which should be the ultimate goal of Smith's. • mitigates all safety/health issues, insures "right hand turn lane" is safe and develops a "workable Master Plan for all parcels in the block, we will lend our support to the project. There are just to maay MAJOR PROBLEMS with the plan as proposed by Smith's. Making any material adjustment or modification, at this late date, (ie. moving loading docks, moving building pad, eliminate/add parking spaces, change elevations, closer study on traffic and circulations concerns) to the site plan without conducting an in depth study, may not be serving the Community or Citizens of Rancho Cucamonga very well, especially When the reviewiac tae smith oroiect. This site is just to important to the Citizens of Rancho Cucamonga to rush in and make hasty, last minute decisions...just to satisfy a developer who has "blatantly" ignored the wishes of not just oae, two, three, or four Commissionera....eDT ALL FIVE CONHISSIONERS, at one time or another, HAVE E%PRES88D VERX SERIODB CONCERtfB with the site plea. Two times tAe Plaaalaq Commissi0a HA8 VOTED 4 TO 1 TO DENY THE PROJECT. THIS PROJECT STQDy ~~ ~D'LD ~ APPROVED ~}" THIS TIME• Many Rancho Cucamonga citizens and all of the property owners who are in close proximity to the Smith development wish to meet with you at your earliest convenience. We will be meeting at one of the homeowners Who live on San Bernardino Road. We ask that you please meet with us prior to the 17th of February. We're willing to meet with you at anytime. We believe it is important to the City, the residents of Rancho Cucamonga and the adjacent property owners. We encourage any comments, assistance or input you might have about the impending project. We sincerely thank you for taking time to review the enclosed materials. Respectfully yours, Concerned Citizens of Rancho Cucamonga Property Owners on or near San Bernardino Road and Vineyard Avenue • • The following excerpts have been taken "word for word" z from the Planruag Staff's R ort(s) 6 Minutes of Planning Commission Meetiaos. 4 6 During the December 9th and December 15th, 1992 meetings, several concerns with the site plan, circulation, and project design were 8 voiced by members of the commission. 10 The orientation of the loading dock doors... East and west sides of the store and which face foothill boulevard, were a public 12 circulation and aesthetic concern for the commission...The internal circulation plan has potential for conflicts between 14 truck, automobile, and pedestrian traffic within the parking lot. 16 April 2, 1992 (Pre-Application Review Meeting) 18 The out-parcel to the north should be master planned. 20 TAree of the commieaioa~rs rare opposed to roll-up doors 22 facing Foothill Eoulevard. 24 ENGINEERING...CONCERNS WHRE NOT DZBCDBBED. 26 October 6, 1992 (Design Reviex Committee Meetin ) za A Master Plan which incorporates access to the parcels to 30 the north should be provided. 32 December 15, 1992 (Planning Commisaion Meetinc) 34 Trash collection shall occur between the hours of 9 A.M. And 10 36 P.M. Only. 38 Modifications and relocation,...Traffic signal...Vineyard Avenue and San Bernardino Road and Vineyard Avenue, shall be the 40 responsibility of the developer. 42 2.(d) The application, as proposed, would be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare and does not comply with each 44 of the applicable provisions of the development code and the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan for the following reasons: 46 • (1) The architecture and related design elements within the 48 proposed project, as reflected in this application, are not 1 • consistent with the goals, policies, and design guidelines 2 of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan which states the following: 4 1) In Section 4.5.1, That vehicular traffic through 6 adjacent residential streets shall be minimized; 8 2) In Section 8.2.2, That activity center parking lots dominating the street scene are specifically prohibited 10 and auto-related facilities (i.e., Working bays, storage, etc.) Sha11 be screened or oriented away from 12 public views, buildings shall be sited and designed to minimize pedestrian/vehicle conflicts and avoid 14 locating driveways and service areas which interfere with the flow of Foothill Boulevard pedestrian 16 movements; 1g 3) In Sections 8.2.5, That in activity center locations the parking areas shall be located to the 20 rear of buildings; 22 4) In Section 9.4.3, That parking lots between the front property line and major structures are strongly 24 discouraged. 26 (2) The design of the Smith's store, as proposed, provides loading dock facilities on the east and west sides of 28 the store which face Foothill Boulevard and are, therefore, inconsistent with the design of other major 30 supermarkets in Rancho Cucamonga which front onto major thoroughfares. The location and orientation of loading 32 facilities are typically provided along the rear elevations of grocery stores and/or shopping centers to 34 conceal delivery activity from public view, particularly in an area which is considered to be a 36 major gateway into the western section of the city. 38 (3) The location of the loading docks create potentially dangerous vehicular conflicts between truck and car 40 traPf is within the parking lot. In addition, such a potentially dangerous and confusing traffic pattern 42 within the parking lot could be hazardous to pedestrians entering and exiting the store. 44 (4) Truck traffic along San Bernardino Road and truck 46 ingress/egress from and to this street which is . proposed by the project site design, is undesirable to 4B existing residences along both sides of the street. 2 • 3. (a) That the proposed use is not in accord with the general 2 plan, the objectives of the development code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 4 3. (b) That the proposed use, together with the conditions 6 applicable thereto, will be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to 8 properties or improvements in the vicinity. 10 3.(c) That the proposed use does not comply with each of the applicable provisions of the development code and 12 Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. 14 Public testimony December 9, 1992 Planning Commission Meeting 16 Statement from N.r. Klang (Smith's realty consultant)... "Smith's decided to forfeit the earnest money because they did not feel 18 they could get effective use from that much land in the development and meet the City's and Smith's requirements. He 20 said they could not get enough building area in the total project to justify the purchase of those additional properties." 22 ~ ott Muir (Smith Architect) "He said they would like to 24 move the proiect forward and did not want the concerns to be an imaediment to the process " He requested that the uniform sign 26 program approval not be required prior to issuance of building permits, but rather prior to issuance of a certificate of 28 occupancy. 30 Mr Muir stated their intent in mak inn the immrovements to San Bernardino Road was to accommodate truck traffic so thev could 32 route delivezv trucks to the tenter via San Bernardino Road. 34 Bill Hartag, 8837 San Bernardino Road,...He objected to trucks using San Bernardino Road 24 hours a day. 36 Chairman McNiel aekad iL Mr. Rlaag or Mr. Muir could like to 38 address the public commanta. 40 Both Mr. Rlaag and Mr. Mvir raspoadad negatively. 42 Chairm n Mch iel closed the public hearing He asked if the ,SIliith s proiect meets the teauirements of the Foothill Boulevard 44 Specific Plan. 46 Mr. eullar atatad that in stafL~a opinion the projaot is is full • compliaaoa rich lootbill Houlavard epacif is Ilan as raiatad to 48 master planning of the area. 3 • Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, ...He indicated there would 2 be sufficient grounds for denial if the site plan is not appropriate for the proposed development. 4 Chairman McNiel noted one request was to have the uniform sign 6 program approved prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy rather than prior to the issuance of building permits. 8 He recalled there had been numerous problems on other projects. Commissioner Chitiea agreed it would be inconsistent to delay 10 adoption of the uniform sign program. 12 Mr. Buller ~d staff would not ecommend chap e to those conditions. 14 Chairman McNiel agreed there should be no chancres. Commissioner Tolstov agreed that there could be a lot of problems 16 if the city allowed grading to begin prior to Caltrans aooroval le chairman McNiel noted the applicant had objected to the 3-ton limitation on San Bernardino Road. 20 Mr. Buller stated that the applicant had indicated they would 22 want to reconstruct San Bernardino Road to specifications which would handle heavier trucks and would want the limitation based 24 upon the specifications, rather that limiting to 3-tons. 26 Commissioner Melcher felt the applicant was considering running semis on the street which would be many tons over the suggested 28 3-ton limit. 30 Commissioner Vallette noted that the street is still residential and she felt it would be inappropriate for larger trucks to use 32 the street 34 Mr. Buller stated..."That BmitL's desired truck access from the North. ~' 36 rrr. Buller fel >, appli an or red a ess from an 3a Bernardino Road forease of.ingress and egress aL_a signalized 40 42 to the aonarent detriment of other properties. He said he understood Smith's desire for the opening but he also would 44 understand the neighborhood's opposition. He questioned why and when the 3-ton limit was introduced and when it became aooarep~ 46 to Smith's. • 48 Mr. James stated that the 3-ton limit was suggested by the City's Traffic Engineer. He skid the applicant had been advised of the 4 • limit during technical review. 2 commissioner Tolstov felt that semis should not utilize San 4 Bernardino Road. 6 Mz. Coleman stated a similar limitation had been placed on the Nuwest Shopp inq Center at Foothill boulevard and Heilman Avenue 8 regarding access down Helms. 10 Commissioners Chitiea and Vallette agreed that semis should not use San Bernardino Road. 12 Chnirman McMiel questioned if there would be a need for any 14 access to Ban Bernardino Aoad if truck access rare eliminated. 16 Commissioner Vallette stated she had an issue to bring up later 18 Commissioner Vallette stated that the side loading dock areas are 20 inconsistent vith vhat has been required in the rest of the City. She said other grocery stores have all been required to have 22 loading to the rear. She stated she had recently observed a truck trying to position itself for unleading at the Rialto 25 Smith's store. Sne said its ba ckina view was obscured because of vehicular parking ir.~ the area, as would exist on the east side 26 of the building. She noted there is no direct access straight into the loadinc area and it is only 12 feet wide. She observed 28 that the trucks would have to maneuver at a right angle from the front of the store, ba ckinc up on the blind side trying to get 30 into a 12-foot area. She said she understood the trucks are generally about s feet wide, leaving only 2 feet on each side. 32 She said at the R'a Ito store s a had observed that a 98-foot 35 ~.a not even at a right anale_ She also thought the view from Foothill Boulevard would not be aesthetically pleasing and noted 36 the intersection is one of the City's major entrances. She commented that the Smith's store in Fontana has a rear loading 38 dock. She thought consideration should be Divan to reconfiyurina the 'oadino dock to the rear of the building even thovoh she 40 noted that may reavire the purchase of additional crocerty to the north of the s_i te. 42 Commissioner Chitiea...She said she did not mean to discourage 44 retail building but ehe felt the design of the center should meet or exceed ghat esiate in the City. @he noted that aurino thn 46 48 5 . should be redasianed. She concurred with Commissioner Vallette's 2 comments regarding the loading docks. Brie did not think there vas nay other location is the city where a front or aide loading 4 dock is permitted and she particulnrly opposed one at each an important intersection. 6 Commissioner Tolstov...Had a problem with the aide loadiaa areas. 8 Commissioner Vallette noted there had been a pre-application 10 workshop at which it was stated that side loading docks were an issue. 12 14 16 18 20 Commissioner Melcher stated he was also concerned about Commissioner Vallette~s comments regarding truck maneuvering. 22 Mr. Buller stated that one had been prepared (a truck maneuvering 24 diagram) and staff felt that it would work. 26 commissioner CAitiea observed that in other projects throughout the city, even in the industrial areas, measures are taken to 28 orient trucks awav from the automotive traffic areas She did not think the project is an appropriate design, particularly at 30 one of the major intersection entries into the city. She also felt it was a saf etv issue. 32 Commissioner Vallstte agreed it was n aafsty issue. 34 Chairman McNial acknowledoed that it wan n matter o! cohcera 36 Commissioner Tolstoy..."He recalled that at the pre-application 38 review, the commission had requested rear loading and Smith's had 40 Commissioner Chitiea felt there were granter problems than just 42 the loading dock. 44 Chairman McNiel reopened the Public Hearing to gain input from the applicant. 46 Mr. Rlanq... "J~nd is most oases they can utilise rear loading 48 docks." 6 • He lKlang) noted that the cost of carr~nc the proiect is almost 2 510.000 a week and he cuestioned iow lonc Smith's could arrv the proiect. He rose concerned aDOUt general statements tact tan Claa 4 does not meet someone's conception. 6 He ~Mr. Klanol said he now felt some of the commissioners had expressed concern that the site was not even a proper place for 8 them. l0 i2 14 16 16 20 22 24 26 28 y 30 Mr. Muir..."Beinq_81.500.000 over their tvoical cost". ."Cosmetic improvements. ..He said such deliveries are typically in the early 32 morning...He said if there were adequate street access, rear- loading docks would require a high retaining wall on the back 34 side of the store and create a bigger visual impact than what is currently proposed...He sai that tha nnture of tan nits and tae 36 limiigd_.acaess _from_9laevard and FoothilLroould nsaesaitata_truek 38 i, He felt that the configuration preclude any grocery store on the 4o site." 42 Commissioner chitiea She felt the en ire site plan should be reviewed. 44 46 thou di of tae • 48 4CCeaa. Commissioner Tolstoy... "Commissioners had expressed concerns aDOUt safety matters sad aestaetics." Mr. Xlang stated he did not personally believe there should be truck traffic on San Bernardino Road. Commissioner Chitiea She felt the concerns were greater than 2 lust the loading dock The orientation to adiacent properties and the corner... 4 6 8 _~ 10 12 t at acc to Commissioner Ch er of o Hoag ma nave itiea noted that at Baseline ro oe aoanaonea and Haven and Lemon and Haven there were similar situations w'th grade chances where 14 a~orooriate designs have been emaloved She planning Commission first sar the project ei noted that the ght months ago at a 16 ore-aor+Zica tion revier and all of those concerns rere voiced at 18 commission. She stated that her motion stoc z0 Commission voted ~ to 1 to deny the project. zz za December 15, 1992 (Planning Commission Meeting) 26 Brad Muller C'tv Planner gave a recap of the history of 28 been advised of the issues and concerns or cne rtamm~a Commission and Staff and the Applicant had made some changes." 30 Chairman McNiel stated he had talked with the aohlicant's 32 Architect following the December 9 1992 meeting and the architect had asked chat they could do to salvage the 34 project...Ne had told the architect they could make a short presentation to address the issue of loading dock placement and 36 its effect on circulation and Vineyard avenue and the aesthetic issues of front loading docks. 38 Prescott Muir..."Ne suggested the eastern dock could be 40 eliminated by creating a corridor in back of the building but that would mean losing the trellis element or approximately 12 42 parking spaces. He thought the project did not have excess parking available." Mr. Muir agreed it would be possible to 44 eliminate the east dock, shift the building forward 6 feet to maintain an interior corridor, maintain the setback, and place 46 double loading parking on the east side of the building. He said • they would not need any variances. 48 Commissioner Tolstov felt there may be a grading Problem with 8 2 4 rear dock could be hidden with an effective greenbelt seoaration 6 Mr. Buller thought a minor exception process could be used. He said that would require a notice to the neighbors. 8 Commissioner Chitiea note4 that would still leave as ezaoaed dock 10 on the west side. 12 Mr. Muir showed where the rear dock would be located and stated a 12-14 foot reta inina wall would be needed in addition to closing 14 off the access to San Bernardino Road. 16 Mr. Buller felt there were findings that could be made to grant the variance because of the lot configuration and the grades. He 18 felt that a minor exception might also be available. 20 Commissioner Chitiea asked if a public hearing would be held. 22 Mr. Buller stated a public hearing would be held only if a variance were required. 24 Commissioner Valletta stated that at the pre-application review 26 workshop direction had been given to have all docks in the rear 28 44 9 . ttr. Huller said that if the dock were moved North, the grade may 2 be more difficult for maneuvering the trucks. He said that during the Site Plan Review there had been comments about traffic 4 flow and there had been discussion that it would be easier for users Who wished to travel North on Vineyard Avenue to exit to 6 San Bernardino Road because there would then be a signalized intersection to enter Vineyard. He said he could De concerned 8 about env deaiana that eliminated access from the oroiact to Ban Heraardiao Rond. 10 12 aoinc South on Vinevard Avenue attempting to cross Foothill Boulevard and those cars would conflict with anyone attempting to 14 make a left from the eastern drive of the center onto Vineyard Avenue. 16 18 could require that the project go back through design rsvier. asked if enough information had been presented to allow the 20 applicant to process through design review. zz Commisaioaar Chitiaa felt tea iasuaa rots maior in tares of ciraulatioa iacludina accase to can Heraardiao Road moviaa the 24 docks from amosure to Foothill Boulevard building artiaulatio in front and roar, the need for additional Dvildina movement. 26 relatioash~p to adiacani rasidanoaa. sad aooronriata designs fo', the eatallita buildiagp Sae sai that if those thinae oould b~ 26 aoDieved. it could be aoprooriata to ao back tarouch tea daaian review nroceas. aha was not sure tas oroiact rovla fit ritaout 3o acauiriao additional oronerty_ 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 10 Commissioner Valletta said she had some concerns regarding the architecture but per various ooncaras rare rite tea loadiaa dock and tas s=ietina internal circulation... "She felt the design review committee had done the beat they could with what had been presented by the applicant but indicated she did not feel it is • 2 4 Mr. Buller asked chat the commission was expecting the applicant 6 to change. 8 10 12 14 Commiaeioaer Valletta stated the City implemented a pre- 16 application design review process to allow applicants to receive early direction from the entire commission. She said direction 18 had been quite clear at the pre-application workshop that there should be no front dock areas visible from the street and she did 20 not feel Lhs Citp should try to uaaage the plans submitted. 22 Mr. Bu21er requested clarification if it was the position of the planning commission that there ahovld be absolutely ao front dock 24 doors no matter what. He said if that were the case, the applicant could then decide whether to pursue additional design 26 review meeting. 28 Chairman xcxiel atatsd he felt that Comaisaioaera Chitiea and Valletta were firs is their opposition to front docks. 30 32 34 36 which are hack loaded. 38 Commiseioaer vallette atatsd she did soma further checking and Sound there era stores is aleadora and Riverside in addition to ao the Foataaa atom with roar loading. 42 Chairman MONU1 tell that rear lOaalAa would De the aDDSODrlate direction to Dureue. He agreed a full commission workshop should 44 be held and additional attention should be paid to building articulation. 46 Mr. Buller reaomsended reopening the public bearing to allow the • 48 applicant to addreaa if they xould be willing to consider a design that Mould •1lminate ell Stoat loading. S1 Chairman xeNiel felt that would not be acceptable. Commiaaioaar Tolatoy stated he nlao has a pxoblam with front Chairman HcNiel reopened the public hearing. Mr. Muir atatad they felt they had already gone through t1e process. He said their undaratandiag at the last design review committee meeting raa that historioallp the raaommaadatione of the design ravier prooasa carried aoaaidarabla might at the planniaq commiaaioa sad rould act require aubaaquant daeiga ravier procaanaa. He felt to go back through the design review process would be a six-month step backward. He indicated that 9aith's and their legal counsel -ould prefer a vote on the oroiect at this time. even if it rare a denial, to allot them to rould Gave to ba addranad. gommieaionarn voted aanin I to 1 aad denied the mrpj cot 12 pursue cne ms~cer rnrougn any appeal. as apaaogieaa rot caa aiauadarstaadinq Lhat the ooninmioners salt Smith's doaa act have rear-faaiaq dock coatigarationa. He said a majority of their stores do have rear-facing dock conf iqurations, but they felt the site configuration demands side-loading docks. 0 3 IE ! ~~ i+ ,; ;~ is ~ i :~ , e i i ' ~ A I :q '- a :. i . G~.i~':. ,. :.. i;' i ~ :~ 0 t~ ~ 2 ', .', .'. 'i m llifai(Iia(~:~.':ii?iiliiS c ~~!~.i~ W6 `-W r 7~s~ ~a ~_,~ ~~ --_ m: d • ~!Y ~i 1~ terror or.er rrrs r~ ri ~ T ~~Y ;i ' • _ _ eai ~ ~~ ; ~ `~ I ! f ~ ~ ~ - _~ -I i : s ~~ i ~ ~~ s ~~~ ~ .• •: j ~ !i ?~ i! ii ~ • ~ , i I i ~ ~ % dab ~ 2 ~ ; 11 iv~ ~ ~~ ~ _1_ --- -- 7 6.' ~ ~ i '1 s __ ---L•i ~14~-i - I y ij ;_ .• ee ' 9f t C1 OY IA 1700• 77/M~001 ~ __ ~ - _ ~ i ~--___~~••.. ._J i ~~ s~ a"h h ~ a a ss y i1 ~;a '. ~• ~'~s. '''; ~ ~IO~ 'I!e,. Ie i ', a ',;~ : . ' ~ ', a ,(!. ~i ~i~,, 7! ii '3 i1 11 ~ PED Corp C.1. ~ _ ~ Winter 199211993 • 3 Carey Park Plaza ~, p~ ~a~rCens~ ~~~ NEW Uiews 3 Pomona Marke Iarn Center CSC. 4 Retail OpponuniBes 6 IncvbatorConference .A Publiration for Shareholders o; Pomonz Economic Development Corporatior. 7 Otre Stop Permitting TAKING CARE OF BUSINESS Pomonz Economic Development Corporation (PED Cnrp), m ronjunctior, with several local, regional and state organizations, is embarking on a city-wide Business Retention and `rxpanswn Program. Stated A5.'BifP'ByTUm,PEDCorpChfef executive Officer, "The retentior~ and expansion of existing Pomona firms is key to i ncreasing employment maintaining a stable tax base and athacting new business. The mapdh• of new employment growth in a community romes from existing business." A parmenhip of business, state and tool government, and academia will work to identity and sohe immediate problems and develop ways to meet long-term business concerns. This mogmm con thus be the vehicle bg width to address such concerns, In order to positively impact tied sion-malting, state and laa] governments must edunte themselves as to the wants, needs and perceptions of the business rommunity. Bythe same tok®, the business community must recognize that government is conremed about its pmbkms and can effectively respond to them. 7oaccomplishthisgoal,a projectfeature is to rondu4 personal one-onvne busrress visitatloninterviewswfth rompany exevSves. A questionnaire dovmentwillbe designed to assisi in [he interview process and in the gathering of data for the program. 'By visidngbcalbusinesses,wewill come to understand their needs, problems, and challenges. We can then begin to address the issues and help provide programs and resources as well as real answers!" stated Mayor Ibnna Smith. Reggie Webb, PED Corp President, remarked, "The program represents an opportunity to develop solutions to issues (coNirwed as page 1) MAJOR RETAILER ANNOUNCES POMONA SITE N'ELCOMF.70 POMONA! Smith's Food & Drug Centers, a leading regional supernurketchainbased in5nlttake City, Utah, announced recently the location of its Pomow store, slated to open in May 1993. The g2,(100,squam foot grocery store will be hated on the trortheast comer of South Carey and Philad elphia, across from the Prim Club. -f'he S72 miltlon center, wtdch sits on an 8.63 aae site, is expected to generate 31 SOA00 to 5200,000 a yeaz in sales tax for the dty, and in excess of S i 20,000 annually in property tax revenue.Over200newjobswillbecreated in Pomona because of this project. Smith's has planned one of itsvery fast Super Stores and it will be right here in Pomona. Nm only have they removed bligh from this area of our city,but they are private) y funding this development and with a commitment to hire Pomona residents," explained Mayor Donna Smith. (caNi.wed an page I) ., _. ----I ~ iI ~~~#~ ' ~ ~;i-f I Smith's Food propasrd Aire plan Typicd SrrdrA't Food Facade NEWS .Views P P~• - •'' " 104 ~ t'•~ Box 1073 ~ P - - i 91769 ~ ' ~r673.1946 ~ Fax' i/622~4217 J13h1 '~c~QN'FI~ELI N'.^ K~ i..2^ ~~~; ~lNw _ _ _,_ j { I ~: 1 _ W rP"= 1NC/:~Z^ - - - - _ ~ ~ EGPr'z3 "'..v. .r: Jf.: j ~ Eqi-Si1 ~ ~ Z ~ ~~-V !J- _~~ vON~u.c F ,~~-s 1 ~.,~~- fJa~r.„~~ Nqn vcq, c,s ~ 9ke'yi _ ~. 1 ~ Pqe i i PcAN~2 S~~'` e111L~iNL /I70/6< ggcr_ i~ !~/i.l 9D i=/eorh leW_ PRo R+27 -v'rrBgcx ,-a f~GLOUi TNe 9000/hNr~a9'lbJ a~ 68 ~iP~^+~ :Y2/iltrY~_.C ti -- ~~ c~J ry2~Ph'o iflgcE iti A mRC L'- .DNirv ~'LTO ~Rf LegDiu~ f UN.=44a ia'G gRc'q, Tit 9cco w: Fa= 9ALr, ~oa9z f}1kY~N% JfHCe: IeJ 9~~, npr~ '~ UNi/7 f'@~~D ~OLf Cc~ ~%P,.E' AeCrTl, • MINIMUM DISTANCE SUBJECT TO DRAINAGE O ~ AND TRAFFIC FACILITIES W FLOW LINE e /~~° ~ O I ~T ~ i ~L p. W I ° $IDE WALK " I BUS BAY MINIMUM DISi ANCE SUBJECT i0 DRAINAGE U ~ AND TRAFFIC FACILITIES i W J FLOW LINE GUT7ER LINE -__G ______ ________________SPECIAL \\ D ~T ~: BUS BAY -RIGHT TURN LANE 3 0.~ 6.5' 0'.11' 0 r'~ o O 1 ~ ° w 11 e:: a 2'~ ~ ~ ¢ ~ L. qa. IL y 1 • n. 1 f e' CURB ONLY e" P,O.C CONCRETE PER CITY STD. WITH W9REMESH DWG. NO. 704 ON 6" CLA55 II A.B. CURVE R ~ L ~ T ® 92.50' t6' S5' 29" 30.55' 15,42' ® 136.67' 12'40' aa' 30.25' 15.79' ® 273.33' 72°a0' 49' 60.49' 30.37' ® 8x.57' 20' d6' 39' 30.67' 15.50' CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA APPRRVE^ RT: ifj,L,~,~i-x•92 BUS BAY - RIGHT TURN LANE STANDARD PLAN DETAIL 119 CITY ENGINEER DA7E R.aE. 2x953 USE WITH STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION SHEET i Df I