The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2008/08/13 - Agenda Packet - Planning Commission • THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA CuRcA~~rtco GA AUGUST 13, 2008 - 7:00 PM Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center Council Chambers 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California L CALL TO ORDER Roll Call Chairman Fletcher Vice Chairman Munoz Stewart- Howdyshell _ Wimberly _ II. ANNOUNCEMENTS II III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES _ III Regular Meeting Minutes of July 23, 2008 IV: CONSENT CALENDAR The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non-controversial. They will be acted on by the Commission atone time without discussion. If anyone has concern over any item, it should be removed for discussion. A. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2006-01012 -CARTER REDISH -Site plan and design review of a 28,860 square foot warehouse/office building and associated parking on approximately 1.39 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 13), located at the northeast corner of 6th Street and Charles Smith Avenue; APN: 0229-283-06 and 0229-271-33. The Planning Department Staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines. The project qualifes 1 of 5 _ PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA AUGUST 13, 2008 RANCHO cUCA.NONGA as a Class 32 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, which covers in-fill developments. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS The following items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice their opinion of the related project. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address the Commission by stating your name and address. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. Please sign in after speaking. B. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBPTM19091 - MOJABE ENTERPRISES, LLC - A proposal to subdivide two buildings (under construction) into 16 units for condominium purposes in the Commercial Office (CO) District, Subarea 3, located at 10168 Foothill Boulevard: APN: 0208-331-30. Related file: Development Review DRC2005-00287. The project qualifies as a Class 1 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 Existing Facilities. C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2007-00283 - EL LOCO CANTINA (FORMERLY FELIPE'S MEXICAN RESTAURANT) - A public hearing to examine the business operation to ensure that it is being operated in a manner consistent with the conditions of approval and in a manner which is not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties in the vicinity. The Planning Commission will consider modifications of the approved Conditional Use Permit. The subject restaurant is located in the Masi Plaza commercial center at 11815 Foothill Boulevard; APN: 0229-011-38. Continued from July 9, 2008. D. ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT DRC2007-00284 - EL LOCO CANTINA (FORMERLY FELIPE'S MEXICAN RESTAURANT) - A public hearing to examine the business operation to ensure that it is being operated in a manner consistent with the conditions of approval and in a manner which is not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties in the vicinity. The Planning Commission will consider revocation of the approved Entertainment Permit. The subject restaurant is located in the Masi Plaza commercial center at 11815 Foothill Boulevard; APN: 0229-011-38. Continued from July 9, 2008. E. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2008-00196 -CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the Development Code Sections 17.08 -Residential Districts; 17.10 -Commercial/Office Districts; and Section 17.30 -Industrial Districts, prohibiting public storage facilities 2of5 • ~J • - PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA AUGUST 13, 2008 jZANCHo C.UCAMONOA including recreational vehicle storage and mini-storage in Residential Districts (with the exception of the provision for such facilities permitted or conditionally permitted within the Terra Vista Community Plan) and Commercial Districts. The proposed amendment also amends Section 17.30 from permitting storage facilities "by right" and to require a Conditional Use Permit for all storage facility applications. Staff has determined that the project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15061 (b) (3). Related files: Victoria Community Plan Amendment DRC2008-00561. This item will be forwarded to the City Council for final action. F. VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2008-00561 -CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to the amend the Victoria Community Plan revoking Ordinance No. 287 and prohibiting public storage facilities including recreational vehicle storage and mini-storage in all Residential Districts. Staff has determined that the project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15061 (b) (3). Related files: Development Code Amendment DRC2008-00196. This item will be forwarded to the City Council for final action. G. ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2008-00566 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the use regulations for the Residential Districts of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan to prohibit recreational vehicle storage facilities within the planned community. Staff has determined that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15061 (b) (3). Related files: Development Code Amendment DRC2008-000196 and Victoria Community Plan Amendment DRC2008-00561. This item will be forwarded to the City Council for final action. H. PUBLIC SLOPING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) DRC2008-00263 FOR DEVELOPMENT REIVIEW DRC2007-00951 - HOGLEIRELAND INC. - An opportunity to give public testimony pertaining to the environmental issues to be addressed in an EIR for the demolition of the former Biane Winery (originally Padre Winery), and the construction of a 240,740 square foot industrial warehouse building with two offce spaces within the General Industrial District on 10.41 acres, located at 10013 East 8th Street - APN: 0209-201-19 & 20. 3of5 _ PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA AUGUST 13, 2008 RANCHO cUaA.yoNCA VI. , PUBLIC COMMENTS This is the hme and place for the general public to address the commission. Items to be discussed here are those that do not already appear on this agenda. VII. COMMISSION BUSINESS/COMMENTS VIII. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission has adoptedAdministrative Regulations that setan 11:00 p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission. 1, Lois J. Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on August 7, 2008, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. i If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the Planning Department at (909) 477-2750. Notification of 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. Listening devices are available for the hearing impaired. INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION The Planning Commission encourages free expression of all points of view. To allow all j persons to speak, given the length of the agenda, please keep your remarks brief. If others have already expressed your position, you may simply indicate that you agree with a previous speaker. If appropriate, a spokesperson may present the views of your entire group. To encourage all views and promote courtesy to others, the audience should refrain from clapping, booing or shouts of approval or disagreement from the audience. 4of5 u • • _ PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA AUGUST 13, 2008 RANCHO CUCAMONGA The public may address the Planning Commission on any agenda item To address the Planning Commission, please come forward to the podium located at the center of the staff table. State your name for the record and speak into the microphone. After speaking, please sign in on the clipboard located next to the speaker's podium. It is important to list your name, address and the agenda item letter your comments refer to. Comments are generally limited to 5 minutes per individual. If you wish to speak concerning an item not on the agenda, you may do so under"Public Comments." There is opportunity to speak under this section prior to the end of the agenda. Any handouts for the Planning Commission should be given to the Planning Commission Secretary for distribution to the Commissioners. All requests for items to be placed on a Planning Commission agenda must be in writing. The deadline for submitting these items is 6:00 p.m. Tuesday, one week prior to the meeting. The Planning Commission Secretary receives all such items. AVAILABILITY OF STAFF REPORTS Copies of the staff reports or other documentation to each agenda item are on file in the offices of the Planning Department, City Hall, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. These documents are available for public inspections during regular business hours, Monday through Thursday, 7:00 a.m. to 6'00 p. m., except for legal City holidays. APPEALS Any interested party who disagrees with the Ciry Planning Commission decision may appeal the Commission's decision to the City Council within 10 calendar days. Any appeal filed must be directed to the City Clerk's Office and must be accompanied by a fee of $2,039 for maps and $2,141 for all other decisions of the Commission. (Fees are established and governed by the City Council). Please turn off all cellular phones and pagers while the meeting is in session. Copies of the Planning Commission agendas and minutes can be found at http:/Iwww.ci.rancho-cucamonga.ca.us 5of5 Vicinity Map ~ Planning Commission August 13, 2008 _I SPHERE:.` OF':-IN: FL. UENCE:' .. :° : ... J ~ Y ~ W HILL IDE ~ ~ ' ` ' W n x W I I ~ ~ WIL N . r Z ~ O ~ ` 19TH ~ B\ 1 BASE LINE i ~ '~~_~aI ~ 1 LLll CHURCH t FOOTHILL ARROW C,D 'L 4TH H A ~ Meeting Location: N City Hall 10500 Civic Center Drive • NOTE: Items E, F, G are Specific Plan/City-wide actions • ter' T H E C I T Y O F R A N C U O C U C A M O N G A ;+ ,. Staff Report DATE August 13, 2008 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: James R. Troyer, AICP, Planning Director BY: Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2006-01012 -CARTER REDISH -Site plan and design review of a 28,860 square foot warehouse/office building and associated parking on approximately 1.39 acre of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 13), located at the northeast corner of 6th Street and Charles Smith Avenue - APN: 0229-283-06 and 0229-271-33. The Planning Department staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines. The project qualifies as a Class 32 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, which covers in-fill developments. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Site Characteristics: The subject site is vacant and is dominated by short grasses and shrubs and is generally level with a subtle slope from north to south. It is bordered by the I-15 Freeway to the east, by Charles Smith Avenue to the west, by vacant industrially zoned land to the north and by 6th Street to the south. B. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Vacant land; General Industrial District (Subarea 13) South - Existing industrial buildings (across 6th Street); General Industrial District (Subarea 13) East - I-15 Freeway West - Existing industrial buildings (across Charles Smith Avenue); General Industrial District (Subarea 13) C. General Plan Designations: Project Site -General Industrial North - General Industrial __ South - Generallndustrial East - I-15 Freeway West - Generallndustrial ANALYSIS: • A. GENERAL: The applicant proposes to construct a 28,860 square foot warehouse and associated office area. The site is located on and served by a fully developed public street of the appropriate size and configuration to accommodate the proposed use. Vehicular access to the project will be via Charles Smith Avenue. ITEM A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2006-01012 -CARTER REDISH August 13, 2008 Page 2 The architecture of the proposed building is consistent with other industrial buildings located along the I-15 Freeway. Key features include building "pop-outs" with vision glass at equal intervals along the building elevations, concrete reveals, sand blasting, and an enhanced primary entrance defined by vision glazing. B. Development Code Compliance: The project complies with the Development Code requirements for building height, all setbacks (except along 6th Street), on-site parking requirements, and an efficient on-site circulation system. The building setback from 6th Street is 10 feet deficient from meeting the required 45-foot setback for a site located on a Major Arterial. On the General Plan Circulation Plan (Exhibit III-4), 6th Street was originally designated as an interchange for the 1-15 Freeway. The interchange is now slated to be located on Arrow Highway. East of Charles Smith Avenue, 6th Street will now transition from a Major Arterial to a Secondary street, making this portion of 6th Street, for all intents and purposes, a Secondary street and the building setback consistent with the street classification. C. Parking: The proposed industrial building and associated office space were designed to meet the parking standards for a warehouse related tenant. The warehouse portion of the building will include one dock high door and space to park one truck. -. -. '. .Sts M+.a...Y..ma~ ...p.z.niY ..iR"~I. Us 9 ~~ ` ,rvl(i Z:'j(y'nCGrt~,'.'a ii,. "~~Y gp~ °Code Standard : ~ i ~ ' i t ; " y~1LL~..A1u , a~S""aces ~ e.ti,.~x,<gy„w .¢ ;~ u~ 0 : :. r , ~N,s~. :. :; ~, ,. ~ , . . ,~-, Office (1,500 square feet) 1 space per 250 square feet 6 spaces Warehouse (27,360 square feet) 1 space per 1,000 square feet for the 24 spaces first 20,000 square feet and 1 space per 2,000 square feet for the next 20,000 square feet Total Spaces Required 30 spaces Total Spaces Provided 31 spaces D. Compatibility with Surroundings: The proposed building was designed to be used for warehouse distribution. This use is permitted within Subarea 13 of the General Industrial zoning designation. The buildings in the surrounding area are all focused on tight manufacturing, warehouse distribution, and light automotive repair, which will be fully compatible with the proposed development. • E. Design Review Committee: The Design Review Committee (Munoz, Stewart, Nicholson) reviewed the site, building elevations and conceptual landscaping plans on May 6, 2008. At that meeting, the Committee advised the applicant that he would need to revise the zero building setback along the east property line, increase the size of the office area for marketability purposes, and upgrade the design of the cover over the outdoor eating area. The applicant increased the setback along the east side of the building to 5 feet, increased the size of the office area, decreased the warehouse area, increased the available parking, and modified the design of the cover over the outdoor eating area. The item was rescheduled for Committee review on July 15, 2008. At that meeting, the Committee (Munoz, Wimberly, Henderson) recommended approval of the project as • presented. A-2 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2006-01012 -CARTER REDISH August 13, 2008 • Page 3 F. Grading Review Committee: The Grading Committee reviewed the project on May 6, 2008, and recommended approval. G. Technical Review Committee: The Technical Review Committee reviewed the project, on May 6, 2008, and recommended approval. H. Environmental Assessment: Planning Department staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines. The project qualifies as a Class 32 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, which covers in-fill developments which meet the following criteria: 1) they are consistent with General Plan; 2) they are of less than 5-acres in size; 3) they have no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species; 4) they will not have significant effect on the environment (traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality); and, 5) the site is adequately served by all required utilities and public services. Having determined that the project meets all the above limitations, staff finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 660-foot radius of the project site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review • DRC2006-001012 through adoption of the attached Resolutions of Approval with Conditions. Respectfully submitted, ~~ ames R. Troyer, AICP Planning Director JT:TV~ma Attachments: Exhibit A - Site Utilization Map Exhibit B - Site Plan Exhibit C . - Grading Plan Exhibit D - Building Elevations and Floor Plans Exhibit E - Design Review Action Comments dated May 6, 2008, and July 15, 2008 Draft Resolution of Approval for Development Review DRC2006-01012 „ . • A-3 • • r~ e ~ ~ ~' , ....< a E g i 5 6 e ~ e~ 6°~ a ~~ 3 ~ ~ E es~ as ~3 ~~~ ~ CCC 5~~ ~ n ~ ^'^ 39.5[? ~°°-~~y ((5 i P~i { s€ 9E .. ~zrs q r~ d I ;~~ j q{ i~ ~ s~ q i ~ ~ #~~ a ~ spa ~ d --- , ~ Z ~ - ---- - ------- - -- - ----- -- ---------- - - ~ Z OD ~ (.7 Q (IE AMH 31V15)AVM33klj 5{y A~ Z ~ V (lG AMH 31tl15) AtlM33Fld Sl-I O -~ ~~ Q ~ r--------- U w ~~ ~ -T I - L r 3 I ~ III I I-q III!I _ _ 1 _ __ e e I O ~ Y !~ { I ~_ U ~_ Z Q _ ~ q - k__ ___ ______ ___ _ __ ~ 9 _ '-' _ -'~ ~ - ---°==-=mod 3Atl H11W 531tlY 0 ~i I~ w w v ) li ~ 5 ~ .J76 ~ q B 0 . €~,2 b~Y ~ ~! qqff ; i BB J+ 5 a 1 ~$. $ XFlI~IT A A-4 E ti ^ Wvl^F~5^¢~_x OQNQY (7 3A m N ~ee Q~i O~F Q W J 6 i E U Z (7 ~ b O p{@ 1 y Q S~~ ~t¢9 C1 ~c ~ U~ 6°~ Y'~ ZON aaZ ~§0 m ~ Csl BiG e riw `E~ ~ ~ 9 ry~ _ ~Um m ($Jrj y ~ ee va _w„„~. m~sw~ _ U a p 9 ~ 6e C c p ' iii ~~~ ••• _ ~ 4 E G g°g @99 ~83~1 Bp. ~[ ~'EP .; - e A•= ~ O 63{~1 gSS ~ a c ~ ~ 46 99~ ~ A o a U §R p A ~: .~ e ~ ~ ~~~ ~ a i~8 p6 ~ ~I `~c6 ~~ p ~p§ 6 Ee 4 5 66 ~~ f@ Y S pC'9 ~~ i ~~ e~ ~ B C E e ~¢iQ~6F~ ~l9oi ~ m m B ~P p 00000000 IIC A,yippMW 3tvisl Avm33tu sit ~~ ~ ~ - Z C B (~ ~ ~' a~ ~~ ~ ~ o ~ c~ ~ ~~ V / V U.~ VJ MM~MM W W ~\ 6 ~~ ~p~ ~~ N ~ AApppp [A ~~ z ~4d L~ Z!~€~E~ld~@~~ °- 3~p~p f~~(g~g~rIr s [ 44fi ~ in ~~& ~~pi6i6 ~ 6 1 B 000000-- on EXHIBIT B • • U ~ g E_ 4 m ~ ~~ / /// U PP .~° _ 5 N <____io \ k~ III ~ [F. C~ 4 E q ~_ a g g _ ~ ~ ~ ~ Y II U V ~ ~ ~ w ~ C I a '~ 1~4 ' ` CS m :: t 1- . ° p~ -' i ~ w b N ~; _ _ ~ Y ,. _,-~~ 1 ~ _ H _.1. S ~ ~.~ ' r. ~ ~ g~{ (~ o "tr! ~~ 3• ~ LLa ~~ -$~Y. ~~Y~. s F~Yd .. 1 • ' /~~~- ` EXHIBIT C --- -'----- ~n~^ •. ---- ,_ - ~~ _~.; S h 1 ~ T ~' [Ye_CE=E29KSe ~ S 's ~~.~ a~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ g ~g~~~8~ s _ 3 e9 q p 3 a[a[ yyyy (G Sy3 ~`C U "~F~$t~l~d~Sd B~ E~ 9 Y~~ i ~A[YP~C y n 5 ., ' ¢c a ry^ ~~[p e 9$ ~ g ~~. v : ~ 523 .~ @ ~^~' = aR2 I ~ U~ ~- ~~~ :~ _ ~ ~ ~1'; S R e a ~ • pg ;~~'y Y s ~pp PS '' ~ f~ "~ ~~ R x '; ~ rr `~ Y 1 3 ~(1 ~ c C~_ ~\ ( E '1 __ - ---•` _ ~ ~ Ww.~~ _ ` ~ - ~ ~ r .. i , w w 7 ~~ ~ ~ m a. ,oi S g8 ~ ~ 5 ~ ~+ fi~ ~ p.t I o~ .. j ~ d a° ~ ~'F m ,ms g g®s ! i e ti z wrno ~~3g~~ "~~~ . g~ > Ow ~v 22J Ur ~ ~~~ 3~ i '' ^ ~ ~ 9 .~ ~ e w~~~. mLL Sw~ c~a 3~i f 3S r. ,: ~~ $~ ~atg~~pt~tgt tit o t, ! ~ ~ ~ p! ~t ~g ' g~ ga g~ ~ ~$ ~ ~a ~ 99 E9 $a 3i $i g~ t3 ~€ ~a ~€ gs $a o m p 9~ti ` UJ t~ tl~ i 2 e e t 8 B~ tt~ll~i~€t€8~°t~~! 000000000©00000 o- o- c 0 W m m L c 0 W T N 3 N N o- a- o- V o- o-- LL ~C7 VJ2 ~ Tn ~~ zOZa Z ge. QQ o _ 6 U m ~ m U 0 a'~ w L 0 Z o- ~ N O C f °~~ - t ~ pp X q Q t` p ~ ~ O B ~ ~ e u wN ~ A e o 9 a t _- °r mt w m 7 C L_ ~E N d `ro L U EXHIEIT D aU _ ~¢~gd3~~~ O(a,)rns C7 ~3a in~oa ~a y~~ z & xtt gg °" ¢F •, UzJ S$g 4~ Z~ZaZg ua40'I%p~~ a j^~5 U'U`s _ _ 6 ~p F ~N 0 m _ _p~ U~ E LL _ - ~ m ~ U p 3 v ~ 8 p ~ • G{ d ~~ z Z ~ ~ ggmi mr'yy"~~ ~ p ~° ~ ~ ~p{[~p~~~9 B[~~Ipy~4Qayp (p a~~_. E ~d ~d ~d YO 6d pp ~tl 4d pp '.~ YA Pd iC ~ P34 A ! 5 tl 0000000000000 S t s i r7 0 p ~ 1 S 4 P ,~ pp~ _ C1 [ ~~p O~a (~[ ~ O qq$4 I LL H3E i • t ` 0.P!• 1 e~ €a9 Y eg ~ _:- ~ ~~®~; s ° ~ pi `' ~ ~-_ t a O' ~ YX/~~~~~~~ I~ l l I ~ I ~ n ~ ~~ w y o Q W J F S"~"s s~ 9 ~ %sh oy = ~ ~~ x z ~~ EE §~ 5 ~ _ ~ r ° ~ F: r _ a ~ g ' an • ~ Q ~ ^UQ Nwnmur mu mw~ mm e g[} 4~ ' p ~t O ` Z ~ ! ~;~ ~ B ? @~ o a ! `a'pF a $E B9 G~*} @~ 9 p6= !/! ssY agY i@ t~ ~9Pe ~e o =jai aoo 00 ~(J (!J [C~ N~yy~ N N B ] '' ~ E ZOZ RZ Eem °' ~OB~~Bfd~h ~~rn ~ ~ o 0 ~ m m ~ ¢ N 0 8af f I I I 1 1- 1 I I I I I 3 I I i I I I I Q I I I j I I I ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I~ I I I I I I '~~I I I I I I I I I I I I I .,~h I ' I I I I I I I I ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I- I I I I I I I_ I ~- I I I I I I I I I ~~ I I I I I I I I I j l l l l l l l l l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I °" I ~._J I I I I I I I ~ I I I I I II I~ I I I I I I I~ I I I I I I I~ I I I I I I I I I I I ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 uu I I I I I I I I ~ 0, I I I I I~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I L . I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I I~~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i ~ I I I I ~ I I I I H I I i I I I I H I i I I, I I I I I I L I I I I~ I- I I ~ I I' i i i i i i i -V I -rte ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0 I I I ~ J 0 I i I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I f l l l l 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I ~ I 1 I' I I l i I I I~ I I I i I I I I ~ I I I r--i - --- -- i I '-~ I I~~ I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I~-~ ,~ Ig ~ ~R at t `off 0 ~ i • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:10 p.m. Tabe van der Zwagg May 6, 2008 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2006-01012 -CARTER REDISH -Site plan and design review of 29,700 square foot warehouse/office building and associated parking on approximately 1.39 acre of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 13), located at the northeast corner of 6th Street and Charles Smith Avenue - APN: 0229-283-06 and 0229-271-33. Design Parameters: The subject site is located at the northeast corner of 6th Street and Charles Smith Avenue (between 6th Street and Rochester Avenue). The site is approximately 1.39 acre in size, slopes roughly from the north to south, and is adjacent (east side) to the I-15 Freeway. The site is surrounded by other industrial developments with a number of buildings of similar size and type of construction. The proposed warehouse building will be approximately 29,700 square feet in size, will include approximately 1,000 square feet of office area, and will have a loading dock/ramp for one truck. Overall height for the building is 30 feet (33 feet to top of the screen around roof-mounted mechanical equipment). The entry/office area for the building is located on the northwest corner of the building facing Charles Smith Avenue and will be adjacent to the parking area for the building. Twenty-nine on-site parking spaces are provided (29 required). An employee outdoor eating area is located on the northeast corner of the site and has 8-foot high walls along two sides to block the eating area from freeway noise. •The design of the tilt-up building is straightforward and characteristic of industrial warehouse type buildings. All sides of the building have been appropriately treated with architectural detail including the side of the building which faces the freeway. The concrete tilt-up walls feature horizontal and vertical score lines and have a combination of smooth, fluted, and sandblasted finishes. More specifically, each building elevation is broken up and accented by decorative vertical design elements (located where there is a slight recess in the wall plane) that have a "fluted" finish, a reflective window, and blue color tone. Staff believes the overall design of the building is appropriate and visually interesting. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: None. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: Maintenance of the freeway side of the building may be problematic because of the zero setback from the freeway right-of-way. The applicant has been informed that he must obtain a letter from Caltrans permitting him to access their property during the construction of the building and for future maintenance purposes. •2. The Commissioners may want to have a Condition of Approval that states that no signs will be allowed on the freeway side of the building. EXHIBIT E A-10 DRC ACTION AGENDA DRC2006-01012 -CARTER REDISH May 6, 2008 Page 2 3. The site is parked at the minimum number of parking spaces permitted under the Development Code. Future tenants of the site will not be able to increase the office portion of the building or increase the intensity of use for the warehouse portion of the building. 4. The shade structure over the outdoor eating area is very minimalist with metal support beams and a metal roof. Staff recommends that the applicant be required to use wood support beams, give the structure a wood fascia, and to add a trash receptacle. 5. The front access gate should be painted to match the adjacent wall. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: All wall-mounted light fixtures shall be shielded to prevent glare and have a maximum height of 25 feet. 2. Show on plans the location of all ground- and roof-mounted equipment including required transformers, standpipes, and/or large sized backflow preventer equipment. All such equipment shall be located and screened from view in an architecturally compatible manner and/or by landscaping to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. • 3. No external downspouts or roof drains shall be permitted. All roof drains/downspouts/gutters shall be incorporated into the structure of the exterior wall or placed entirely within the interior area of the • building. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee, with the changes outlined above, find the project to be acceptable for referral to the Planning Commission for final review. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Munoz, Stewart, Nicholson Staff Planner: Tabe van der Zwaag The Committee continued this item to a later date, which will be determined by staff, to provide the applicant the opportunity to complete the following revisions as requested by the Committee prior to Planning Commission hearing: 1. Revise zero setback along the freeway right-of-way to provide sufficient access for future building maintenance. 2. The Committee members want a Condition of Approval that states that no signs will be allowed on the freeway side of the building. 3. Consider increasing the proposed number of parking spaces to anticipate the possibility of future expansion. • 4. Revise the proposed shade structure to include wood support beams, wood fascia, and addition of a trash receptacle. A-11 • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:10 p.m. Tabe van der Zwagg July 15, 2008 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2006-01012 -CARTER REDISH -Site plan and design review for 28,860 square foot warehouse/office building and associated parking on approximately 1.39 acre of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 13), located at the northeast corner of 6th Street and Charles Smith Avenue - APN: 0229-283-06 and 0229-271-33. This item was continued from the July 1, 2008, Design Review Committee meeting. Design Parameters: The subject site is located at the northeast corner of 6th Street and Charles Smith Avenue. The site is approximately 1.39 acre in size, slopes roughly from the north to south, and is adjacent to the I-15 Freeway on the east side. The site is surrounded by other industrial developments with a number of buildings of similar size and type of construction. The project was originally reviewed by the Design Review Committee on May 6, 2008. At that meeting, the Committee raised the following three main issues that they wanted the applicant to resolve prior to the project being recommended for Planning Commission review: 1) revise the zero setback along the freeway right-of-way in order to provide access to the rear of the building for maintenance purposes; 2) increase. the on-site parking to allow a greater range of potential building tenants; and, 3)'add wood support beams and wood fascia to the shade structure of the outdoor eating area. •The applicant has made the following changes in response to the issues raised by the Committee: 1) increased the setback from the freeway right-of-way to 5 feet and have added landscaping to this area; 2) increased on-site parking by two parking spaces (one over the requirement) and increased the size of the office area from 1,000 to 1,500 square feet (and reduced the warehouse area by 1,340 square feet); and, 3) added wood posts and wood trellis support beams to the shade•structure of the outdoor eating area. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: All issues discussed at the previous meeting on May 6, 2008 (attached). Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee accept the project as presented and to forward it to the Planning Commission for final review. Attachment Design Review Committee Action: , •~, Members Present: Munoz, Wimberly, Henderson Staff Planner: Tabe van der Zwagg •The Committee recommended that the project be forwarded to the Planning Commission for final review as presented. A~12 RESOLUTION NO. 08-34 • A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2006-01012, A PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT A 28,860 SQUARE FOOT WAREHOUSE/OFFICE BUILDING AND ASSOCIATED PARKING ON APPROXIMATELY 1.39 ACRE OF LAND IN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT ., (SUBAREAI3),,LOCATEDATTHENORTHEASTCORNEROF6THSTREETAND CHARLES SMITH AVENUE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 0229-283-06 AND 0229-271-33. A. Recitals. 1. Carter Redish filed an application for the issuance of Development Review DRC2006-01012, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 13th day of August 2008, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on said application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: • 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on August 13, 2008, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The subject site is vacant and is dominated by short grasses and shrubs and is generally level with a subtle slope from the north to south. It is bordered by the I-15 Freeway to the east, by Charles Smith Avenue to the west, by vacant industrially zoned land to the north and by 6th Street to the south; and b. The applicant proposes to construct a 28,860 square foot office/warehouse building. The site is located on and served by a fully developed public street of the appropriate size and configuration to accommodate the proposed use. Vehicular access to the project will be via Charles Smith Avenue. The architecture of the proposed building is consistent with other industrial buildings located along the I-15 Freeway. Key features include building "pop-outs" with vision glass at equal intervals along the building elevations, concrete reveals, sand blasting, and an enhanced primary entrance defined byvision glazing; and c. The proposed building will include one dock-high loading bay and adjacent parking space for a truck and on-site parking for 31 standard size vehicles, one over the minimum requirement; and 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed development is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the • Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The proposed project is to construct an industrial building and is consistent with development in the vianity. A~13 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-34 DRC2006-01012 -CARTER REDISH August 13, 2008 Page 2 b. The proposed development, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The surrounding properties are zoned industrial and the surrounding uses are industrial-oriented. c. The proposed development complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. The proposed development meets all standards outlined in the Development Code and the design and development standards and policies of the Planning Commission and the City. 4. Planning Department staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines. The project qualifies as a Class 32 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, which covers in-fill developments which meet the following criteria: 1) they are consistent with the General Plan; 2) they are of less than 5 acres; 3) they have no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species; 4) they will not have significant effect on the environment (traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality); and, 5) the site is adequately served by all required utilities and public services. Having determined that the project meets all the above limitations, staff finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Planning Department's determination of exemption, and based on its own independent judgment, concurs in staff's determination of exemption. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Planning Department 1) Approval is for the construction of a warehouse/office building with a floor area of 28,860 square feet in the General Industrial District, Subarea 13 - APN: 0229-283-06 and 0229-271-33. 2) Decorative paving is required at the main vehicle entrance, at the entrance to the office area, and at the outdoor eating area. 3) Wall-mounted and freestanding light standards shall be shielded to reduce glare on adjacent properties and have a maximum height of 25 feet above finished the surface. 4) Show the location of all ground- and roof-mounted equipment including required transformers, standpipes, and/or backflow preventer equipment on the plans. All such equipment shall be located and screened from view in an architecturally compatible manner and/or by landscaping to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. 5) All downspouts shall be routed through the interior of the building walls. 6) The maximum height of any wall or fence is 8 feet. Chain link fencing is not permitted. Perimeter walls/fences shall be constructed of wrought iron, concrete block, or tilt-up concrete panels as approved by the Planning Director. • • 7) One truck trailer storage space shall be provided per loading dock door. This • requirement is in addition to the space that already as been provided immediately in front of each dock door. A~14 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-34 DRC2006-01012 -CARTER REDISH • August 13, 2008 Page 3 8) Provide durable street furniture for the outdoor employee eating area including tables, chairs, and a waste receptacle. 9) Landscaping along the shared property line with the I-15 Freeway shall include a ' minimum of one 24-inch box tree per 3 parking stalls, shrubs spaced 18 inches on center, and appropriate ground cover. 10) All ground-mounted equipment, utility boxes including transformers, and back-flow devices shall be surrounded by a minimum of two rows of shrubs spaced a minimum of 18 inches on-center. 11) Landscaping shall be installed prior to release for occupancy. 12) Provide additional trees in the landscaped area to meet the requirements outlined in the Standard Conditions. 13) All trash enclosures shall be surrounded with dense shrub plantings. 14) All signs shall require review and approval of a Sign Permit application by the Planning Director prior to installation. Engineering Department • 1) The 6th Street frontage shall be improved including, but not limited to, curbs and gutters, sidewalks, street lights, street trees, street alignment transition, pavement section to centerline, and traffic signing and striping as required. a) Complete the north side widening of 6th Street including curb and gutter, street pavement, sidewalk, and parkway under the freeway to join with existing improvements east of the freeway. The parkway may have 4 1/2 feet wide curb adjacent sidewalk through the freeway right-of-way. If the bridge abutment interferes, then a special design shall be submitted to the City for consideration. b) Begin the 6th Street transition at the Caltrans right-of-way. Use City Standard 119, with a 60-foot reverse curb, to make the transition from 32 feet to 46 feet half width. c) Improvements on 6th Street shall include removal and reconstruction of existing pavement to the centerline of the street. 2) Sixth Street is a City Major/Secondary Arterial street east of Charles Smith Avenue. Transition from the Major Divided Arterial street west of Charles Smith ., to the Secondary Arterial street at the freeway underpass, subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 3) Charles Smith Avenue is a City Industrial Local street. The Charles Smith Avenue frontage shall be improved including, but not limited to, curbs and • gutters, pavement to the centerline of the street, sidewalks, drive approach, street lights, street trees, and traffic signing and striping as required. A-15 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-34 DRC2006-01012 -CARTER REDISH August 13, 2008 Page 4 a) Complete the improvement to Charles Smith Avenue north of 6th Street to join with Rochester Avenue. The full extent of improvements is subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. b) Provide minimum width drive approaches, 35 feet measured along the right-of-way. Parking stalls perpendicular to the drive aisle shall conform to stacking distances outlines in the City Driveway Policy. On Charles Smith Avenue, the stacking distance shall be at least 25 feet measured from the curb face to the near edge of the parking stall. 4) Vacate the existing Charles Smith Avenue street alignmentthrough the property and reserve easements for all existing utilities. a) When Charles Smith Avenue alignment is vacated, provided a 25-foot wide easement centered along the City storm drain area of the property. i b) Coordinate with other agencies for undergrounding overhead utilities (SCE), relocating existing utilities to the new Charles Smith Avenue street alignment (possibly CVWD 15-inch SS) or providing easements for the utilities within the existing street alignment where needed. • c) Dedicate additional right-of-way along Charles Smith Avenue as needed to achieve 66 total feet and be in accordance with Parcel Map No. 16139. • Vacate Charles Smith Avenue easterly of the dedicated street alignment established by said Parcel Map No. 16139, reserving easements for all existing utilities remaining within the current alignment. 5) Connect the private storm drain to the existing lateral, originating from the Charles Smith Avenue catch basin with no additional connections to the storm drain mainline. 6) Remove existing CSP inlet structure and lateral (Sta. 200+42 per Drawing No. 1049, Sheet 39 of 73) prior to constructing the building. Patch the main storm drain line per City Standards. 7) The existing overhead utilities (telecommunications and electrical, except forthe 66 kV electrical) on the project side of Charles Smith Avenue shall be undergrounded from the first pole on the south side of 6th Street to the first pole off-site north of the north project boundary, prior to public improvement acceptance or occupancy, whichever occurs first. All services crossing Charles Smith Avenue and 6th Street shall be undergrounded at the same time. Parcel Map No. 16139 has paid to the City an in-lieu of underground construction fee for their frontage on the opposite side of Charles Smith Avenue. The amount paid is $92,214.00. Building and Safety (Grading) 1) The Conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan shall be signed and sealed by the • engineer of records. A~16 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-34 DRC2006-01012 -CARTER REDISH • August 13, 2008 Page 5 2) Sections shall be provided at all boundaries drawn to scale. The section along Charles Smith Road shall include the underground utilities in relation to the building foundation. 3) All affected utility purveyors shall approve all plans that impact their easement(s), including utilities, storm drain, slopes, street trees, and landscaping. A note shall be included on all pertinent plans requiring the affected utility purveyors to be notified two working days prior to starting any work in the vicinity of their easement(s). 4) Maintenance of Best Management Practices (BMPs) identified in the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be addressed in the project Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). 5) Provide a WQMP to the satisfaction of the City Building and Safety Official. An updated San Bernardino County WQMP for New Development and Redevelopment Projects can be accessed at the following website: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwgcb8/html/sb wgmp.html.~ This site provides Guidance and Templates that can be filled out electronically and printed. Adhere to these guidelines and use the templates provided. Include the BMPs identified in the plan on Grading Plans when submitted for plan check. • 6) The submitted WQMP dated October 30, 2006, was deemed substantially complete by the Engineering Department. The review and approval of the WOMPs has been transferred to the Building and Safety Department. Include the BMPs identified in the WQMP on the Grading Plan submitted for plan check. The following items from the December 20, 2006, review by the Engineering Department need to be completed: • ~Sectiori Page_ ~ _ Correctidn;ltem?~~~." ' `' ' Cover The WQMP shall be wet signed and sealed by the Page engineer of record. A-2 Use the correct SIC code. 1.1 A-4 Provide contact name or position. 1.2 A-4 Provide permit numbers [List Tract or Parcel Map#, DRC#, PMT#, and WDID#]. 1.2 A-4 Remove the word "preliminary". This is the final WQMP. 2.1 A-4 Complete this section. Guidance pages are available at the Building and Safety front counter. 2.1 A-5 List-the receiving water in the "Pollutant of Concern Summary Table." 3.1.2 A-11 The justification in the last cell of the table does not match the conceptual grading and drainage plan. Please clarify. 3.2 A-13 Provide a coy of educational materials that will be handed out. • Remove reference that the catch basin will be maintained by the City. The WQMP shall address on- site BMPs and maintenance onl . A~17 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-34 DRC2006-01012-CARTER REDISH August 13, 2008 Page 6 Section Page ~ Correctioh Item' ';`~""~ `''`- • Swales shall be installed and maintained per the CASOA Handbook: http~//www cabmphnadbooks com/development asp. Swales are considered a Treatment Control BMP. 3.4 A-20 Refer to-the California Stormwater BMP Handbook for definitions and specifications forTreatment Control BMPs. Verify whether sections in the matrix meet definitions and specifications in the Handbook: http~//www.cabmphnadbooks.com/development.asp. 4 A-21 Provide O&M description and schedule per Section 4.1.1 6 A-24 Remove the certification provided and notarized and record the City's "Memorandum of Agreement of Storm Water Quality Management Plan". Copies are available at the Building and Safety Department front counter. Please send a draft copy to the Building and Safety Department (attention: Matthew Addington) for review priorto recording the document. Plan Locate the proposed BMPs on the Conceptual Grading Review and Drainage Plan. 7) The W QMP should be completed and recorded priorto Planning Commission approval and shall be completed and recorded prior to the.issuance of a grading permit. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2008. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: ATTEST: Richard B. Fletcher, Chairman James R. Troyer, AICP, Secretary I, James R. Troyer, AICP, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of August 2008, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: • • • A-18 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT #: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2006-01012 SUBJECT: 28,860 SQUARE FOOT WAREHOUSE/OFFICE BUILDING AND ASSOCIATED PARKING APPLICANT: CARTER REDISH NORTHEAST CORNER OF 6TH STREET AND CHARLES SMITH AVENUE - LOCATION: APN: 0229-283-06 AND 0229-271-33 ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: General Requirements como~etlon Date 1. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its _/_/_ agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. 2. Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval No. 08-34, Standard _/_/_ Conditions, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet(s) are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect. 3. The applicant shall be required to pay any applicable Fish and Game fees as shown below. The _/_/_ project planner will confirm which fees apply to this project. All checks are to be made payable to the Clerk of the Board Supervisors and submitted to the Planning Commission Secretary prior to the Planning Commission or Planning Director hearing: a) , Notice of Exemption - X50 B. Time Limits 1. Development/Design Review approval shall expire if building permits are not issued or approved _/_/_ use has not commenced within 5 years from the date of approval. No extensions are allowed. • 1 A-19 Protect No.DRC2006-01012 Completion Date C D. Site Development 1. The site shalt be developed and maihtained in accordance with the approved plans which include _/_/_ • site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Department, the conditions contained herein, and Development Code regulations. 2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions _/_/_ of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. 3. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and _/~_ State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Department to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. 4. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be _/_/_ submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for _/_/_ consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all _/~_ other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 7. A detailed on-site lighting plan, including a photometric diagram, shall be reviewed and approved _/_/_ by the Planning Director and Police Department (477-2800) prior to the issuance of building permits. Such plan shall indicate style, illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so • as not to adversely affect adjacent properties. 8. If no centralized trash receptacles are provided, all trash pick-up shall be for individual units with _/_/_ all receptacles shielded from public view. 9. Trash receptacle(s) are required and shall meet City standards. The final design, locations, and _/_/_ the number of trash receptacles shall be subject to Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 10. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be _/_/_ located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. For single-family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults. 11. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, _/_/_ including proper illumination. 12. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property _7_/_ owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall be submitted for Planning Director and City Engineer review and approved prior to the issuance of building permits. Bui lding Design 1. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or _/_/_ projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets as required by the Planning Department. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. . Details shall be included in building plans. AQO Protect No.DRC2006-01012 Comple0on Date 2. For commercial and industrial protects, paint roll-up doors and service doors to match main • building colors. E. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans) 1. All parking spaces shall be 9 feet wide by 18 feet long. W hen a side of any parking space abuts a building, wall, support column, or other obstruction, the space shall be a minimum of 11 feet wide. 2. All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet and shall contain a 12-inch walk adjacent to the parking stall (including curb). 3. Textured pedestrian pathways and textured pavement across circulation aisles shall be provided throughout the development to connect dwellingslunits/buildings with open spaces/plazas/ recreational uses. 4. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances, and exits shall be striped per City standards. 5. Plans for any security gates shall be submitted for the Planning Director, City Engineer, and Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. For residential development, private gated entrances shall provide adequate turn- around space in front of the gate and a separate visitor lane with call box to avoid cars stacking into the public right-of-way. F. Landscaping 1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in • the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. 2. A minimum of 20% of trees planted within industrial projects, and a minimum of 30% within commercial and office projects, shall be specimen size trees - 24-inch box or larger. 3. Within parking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-gallon tree for every three parking stalls. 4. Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent to and along structures at a rate of one tree per 30 linear feet of building. - 5. The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to Planning Director review and approval and coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the Engineering Department. 6. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on the perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer. 7. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Department. 8. Tree maintenance criteria shall be developed and submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. These criteria shall encourage the natural growth characteristics of the selected tree species. , 9. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of • Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the project landscape architect shall certify on the submitted plans that the xeriscape requirements have been met. / / -/-/- . /' , / / / / -/- - -!-! -/-!- -/-/- -/-!- / / / / / / / / / / AQ1 Project No DRC2006-01012 Comoletion Date 10. On projects which abut the I-15 Freeway, the developer shall provide landscaping within the _/_/_ freeway right-ot-way along the boundary of this project or pay an in-lieu of construction cash deposit. The landscape and irrigation plans shall be prepared in conformance with Caltrans and • City Standards through the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director and City Engineer. Landscape and irrigation shall be installed prior to the release of occupancy of the project. If final approvals and/or installation are not complete at that time, the City will accept a cash deposit for future landscaping of the Caltrans right-of-way. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: NOTE: ANY REVISIONS MAY VOID THESE REQUIREMENTS AND NECESSITATE ADDITIONAL REVIEW(S) G. General Requirements 1. Submit five complete sets of plans including the following: _/_/_ a. Site/Plot Plan; b. Foundation Plan; c. Floor Plan; d. Ceiling and Roof Framing Plan; e. Electrical Plans (2 sets, detached) including the size of the main switch, number and size of service entrance conductors, panel schedules, and single line diagrams; f. Plumbing and Sewer Plans, including isometrics, underground diagrams, water and waste diagram, sewer or septic system location, fixture units, gas piping, and heating and air conditioning; and • g. Planning Department Project Number (DRC2006-01012) clearly identified on the outside of all plans. 2. Submit two sets of structural calculations, energy conservation calculations, and a soils report. _/_/_ Architect's/Engineer's stamp and "wet" signature are required prior to plan check submittal. 3. Contractors must show proof of State and City licenses and Workers' Compensation coverage to _/_/_ the City prior to permit issuance. 4. Separate permits are required for fencing and/or walls. _/_/_ 5. Business shall not open for operation prior to posting the Certificate of Occupancy issued by the _/_/_ Building and Safety Department. H. Site Development 1. Plans shall be submitted for plan check and approved prior to construction. All plans shall be _/_/_ marked with the project file number (DRC2006-01012). The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted California Codes, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of permit application. Contact the Building and Safety Department for availability of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new commercial or industrial development project or _/_/_ major addition, the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include but are not limited to: City Beautification Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Transportation Development Fee, Permit and Plan Check Fees, Construction and Demolition Diversion Program deposit and fees and School Fees. Applicant shall provide a copy of the school fees receipt to • 'the Building and Safety Department prior to permits issuance. 4 A-22 Project No.DRC2006-01012 Comoletion Date 3. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building and Safety Official after tracUparcel map _/_/_ • recordation and prior to issuance of building permits. 4. Construction activity shall not occur between the hours of B:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. Monday _/_/_ through Saturday, with no construction on Sunday or holidays. 5. Construct trash enclosure(s) per City Standard (available at the Planning Department's public _/_/_ counter). I. New Structures - 1. Provide compliance with the California Building Code (CBC) for property line clearances _/_/_ considering use, area, and fire-resistiveness. 2. Provide compliance with the California Building Code for required occupancy separations. _/_/_ 3. Provide draft stops in attic areas, not to exceed 3,000 square feet, in accordance with CBC _/_/_ Section 1505. - 4. Exterior walls shall be constructed of the required fire rating in accordance with CBC Table 5-A _/_/_ 5. Openings in exterior walls shall be protected in accordance with CBC Table 5-A. _/_/_ 6. Upon tenant improvement plan check submittal, additional requirements may be needed. _/_/_ J. Grading 1. Grading of the subfect property shall be in accordance with California Building Code, City Grading _/_/_ Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. • 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to _/_/_ perform such work. , 3. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the _/_/_ time of application for grading plan check. 4. The final grading plan, appropriate certifications and compaction reports shall be completed, _/_/_ submitted, and approved by the Building and Safety Official prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. A separate grading plan check submittal is required for all new construction projects and for _/_/_ existing buildings where improvements being proposed will generate 50 cubic yards or more of combined cut and fill. The grading plan shall be prepared, stamped, and signed by a California registered Civil Engineer. K. Additional Requirements/Comments 1. All City of Rancho Cucamonga standard grading conditions apply. _/_/_ 2. Comply with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Dust Control Measures. _/_/_ 3. A drainage study showing a 100-year, AMC 3 design storm event for on-site drainage shall be _/_/_ prepared and submitted to the Building and Safety Official for review and approval for on-site storm water drainage. All reports shall be wet signed and sealed by the Engineer of Record. 4. Obtain written permission to construct a wall on the property line or provide a detail(s) showing _/_/_ the wall offset from the property line. 5. Implement City Standards for on-site construction where possible, provide details for all work not _/_/_ covered by City Standard Drawings. 5 A-23 Project No DRC2006-01012 Comoletion Date 6. All slopes shall be a minimum 2-foot offset from the public right-oi-way. 7. Private sewer, water, and storm drain improvements will be designed per the latest adopted California Plumbing Code. 8. Roof storm water is not permitted to flow over the public parkway. 9. Show existing topography 100 feet beyond the project boundary. 10. Provide a grading agreement for cut and fill combined exceeding 5,000 cubic yards. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: L. Dedication and Vehicular Access Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets (measured from street centerline): 33 total feet on Charles Smith Avenue 44 total feet on 6th Street -Secondary Arterial -Transition per Special Conditions 50 total feet on 6th Street - Malor Divided Arterial -Transition per Soecial Conditions 2. Corner property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards. M. Street Improvements Pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 88-557, no person shall make connections from a source of energy, fuel or power to any building service equipment which is regulated by technical codes and for which a permit is required unless, in addition to any and all other codes, regulations and ordinances, all improvements required by these conditions of development approval have been completed and accepted by the City Council, except: that in developments containing more than one building or unit, the development may have energy connections made to a percentage of those buildings, or units proportionate to the completion of improvements as required by conditions of approval of development. In no case shall more than 95 percent of the buildings or units be connected to energy prior to completion and acceptance of all improvements required by these conditions of approval of development. 2. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: Street Name Curb & Gutter A.C. Pvmt Side- walk Drive Appr. Street Lights Street Trees Comm Trail Median Island Bike Trail Other Charles Smith Avenue X X X X X X 6th Street X X X X X Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan check. (c) If so marked, sidewalk shall be curvilinear per Standard 114. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu of construction fee shall be provided for this item. 3. Improvement Plans and Construction: a. Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. / / _/-/- • / / -~-~- / / / / / / / / / / --- • / / / / A -24 Protect No DRC2006-01012 • Prior to any work being performed In public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any other permits required. c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and Interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR, or any other locations approved by the City Engineer Notes: t) Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200 feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer. 2) Conduit shall be 3-inch galvanized steel with pull rope or as specified. • e. Handicapped access ramps shall be Installed on all corners of intersections per City Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the Clty Engineer. g. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards, except for single family residential lots. h. Street names shall be approved by the Planning Director prior to submittal for first plan check. 4. Install street trees per City street tree design guidelines and standards as follows. The completed legend (box below) and construction notes shall appear on the title page of the street improvement plans. Street improvement plans shall include a line item within the construction legend stating: "Street trees shall be installed per the notes and legend on sheet_(typically sheet t)." Where public landscape plans are required, tree installation in those areas shall be per the public landscape improvement plans. The City Engineer reserves the right to adjust tree species based upon field conditions and other variables. For additional Information, contact the Project Engineer. u Street Name Botanical Name Common Name Min. Grow Space Spacing Size oty. 6th Street P A. 8 feet or more Magnolia grandiflora NCN 8 ft 30 ft, o c 15-gal. Fill-in "Majestic Beauty' P A. less than 8 feet Magnolia grandiflora NCN 3 ft. 20 ft. o.c. 15-gal. Fill-in "St. Mary" ' Charles Smith Avenue BrachychROn populneus Bottle Tree 5 ft. 25 ft. o a- 15-gal Ftll-in Construction Notes for Street Trees: 1) All street trees are to be planted in accordance with City standard plans. 2) Prior to the commencement of any planting, an agronomic soils report shall be furnished to the City inspector. Any unusual toxicities or nutrient deficiencies may require backfill soil amendments, as determined by the Clty Inspector. 3) All street trees are subject to inspection and acceptance by the Engineering Department. 4) Street trees are to be planted per public improvement plans only. Comple4on Date -/-~. / / ./-/ -~-~- -~-~. -~-~- -~-~- -~-~- A-25 Project No DRC2006-01012 Completion Date 5. Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with adopted policy. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project intersections, including driveways. Local residential street intersections and commercial or industrial driveways may have lines of sight plotted as required. 6. A permit shall be obtained from Caltrans for any work within the following right of-way: I-15 Freeway. N. Public Maintenance Areas 1. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. 2. Parkway landscaping on the following street(s) shall conform to the results of the respective Beautification Master Plan 6th Street. O. Drainage and Flood Control Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe measured from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk. P. Utilities 1. Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas, electric power, telephone, and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility Standards. Easements shall be provided as required. 2. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. 3. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the Cucamonga Valley W ater District (CVW D), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from the CVW D is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. 4. Approvals have not been secured from all utilities and other interested agencies involved. Approval of the final parcel map will be subject to any requirements that may be received from them. O. General Requirements and Approvals 1. Anon-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated operating costs for all new streetlights for the first six months of operation, prior to final map approval or prior to building permit issuance if no map is involved. 2. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a Diversion Deposit and related administrative fees shall be paid for the Construction and Demolition Diversion Program. The deposit is fully refundable if at least 50% of all wastes generated during construction and demolition are diverted from landfills, and appropriate documentation is provided to the City. Form CD-1 shall be submitted to the Engineering Department when the first building permit application is submitted to Building and Safety. Form CD-2 shall be submitted to the Engineering Department within 60 days following the completion of the construction and/or demolition project. 3. Prior to approval of the final map, or prior to improvement agreement approval if no map is involved, all Tract Maps, Parcel Maps and public improvement plans shall be submitted to the Engineering Division on a compact disc (CD) in Auto CAD (computer aided design) format. If public improvement plans are completed after map approval, the CD shall be submitted prior to issuance of a construction permit for frontage improvements or a building permit, whichever occurs first. -~-~- • / / / / / / -~-~- • -~-~- / / • A-26 T H E C I T Y O F ' RANCHO CUCAM~ONGA}~ Staff Report DATE: August 13, 2008 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: James R. Troyer, AICP, Planning Director BY: Mike Smith, Associate Planner SUBJECT: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBPTM19091 - MOJABE ENTERPRISES, LLC. - A proposal to subdivide two buildings (under construction) into 16 units for condominium purposes in the Commercial Office (CO) District, Subarea 3, located at 10168 Foothill Boulevard - APN: 0208-331-30. Related file: Development Review DRC2005-00287. The project qualifies as a Class 1 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 Existing Facilities. • BACKGROUND: Construction of two, 2-story buildings with a combined floor area of 21,840 square feet is currently underway on the subject site. The application for buildings within this development was reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission on April 12, 2006, (Related file: Development Review DRC2005-00287). PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Various Commercial Developments; Community Commercial (CC) District, Foothill Boulevard Districts, Subarea 3 South - Single-family residences; Low (L) Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) East - Pre-school; Commercial Office (CO) Subarea 3 West - Restaurant; Commercial Office (CO) Subarea 3 B. General Plan Designations: Project Site - Commercial Office ... , . North - General Commercial District, Foothill Boulevard Districts, District, Foothill Boulevard Districts, South - Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) East - Commercial Office West - Commercial Office • C. Site Characteristics: The project site is on a parcel of about 74,018 square feet (1.7 acre) in the Commercial Office (CO) District, Foothill Boulevard Districts, Subarea 3. The parcel is generally rectangular in shape with a depth (north to south) of about 308 feet and a ITEM B PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM19091 - MOJABE ENTERPRISES, LLC August 13, 2008 Page 2 • width (east to west) of about 239 feet. Construction of the twd office/commercial buildings and the associated improvements is underway. The project site is bound to the south by single-family residences; to the east by Kindercare pre-school; and to the west by Kick Back Jacks/BC Cafe restaurant. The properties to the north of the, subject site, across the street, consist of a variety of commercial development. ANALYSIS A. General: The applicant proposes to subdivide the two buildings into sixteen (16) units for condominium purposes. Note that in the interim period between the date when this development was approved and now, the applicant has elected not to have fast food or retail tenants. Therefore, there will be administrative, medical, and professional offices in these buildings. There will be no physical changes on the project site or to the buildings. Staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the City development standards and the requirements. B. Design. Grading and Technical Review Committees: Staff determined that as there will be no changes to the architecture of the buildings, site grading, or impact on public improvements, no further review by the Committees is necessary. C. Environmental Assessment: The Planning Department staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental • Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines. The project qualifies as a Class 1 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 Existing Facilities as no additional construction beyond what has already been reviewed and approved is proposed or necessary. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 660-foot radius of the project site. No comments have been received. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM19091 through the adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with conditions. ~cttully submitted, ~' R. Troyer, AICP ng Director JRT:MS/ge Attachments: Exhibit A -Location Map Exhibit B -Aerial Photo Exhibit C -Site Plan/Grading Plan . Exhibit D -Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM19091 Exhibit E -Staff Report for Development Review DRC2005-00287 Exhibit F -Resolution of Approval for Development Review DRC2005-00287 Draft Resolution of Approval for Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM19091 B-2 EXHIBIT A B-3 Tentative Parcel Map 19091 C~ • C EXHIBIT B B-4 a aP ~ ~ 2 e d v Q ¢ ~ ~ ~ s ¢ qq J m~P ~. ~I ~~. -p c ~ S W Z N:~ E t I P n z 2 O U ~i~~y o I _. is '. P P° ~ x ~~ -%11_~ su _I Pcsi f 9E°-o ~If° - If ~:_1 1iI~ _I_ ~ ~9 ~~P= PP ~I~ g SIP` i ; i ~ _ . ~, ~ €~ - PPPPP~e39 ~ d a P Peso ~ ~ .«..e.Pe I Ia ~~ P ~~: fP~i -',, ~ti, ~ it . ifs. i i m ~ .Q~ o Z~ o 0 '~~~ Iv 1 ~ ~ ~ / I ~ , O OQ~m ° W ~ i ~. . 67 d~ oio w ~ (7 Q E W O I , ~ I N O O LL j K O ~z , i I~ j z U~ O p a~ ! p, ~ ~~B( J ~ w O ¢ ° ~ U i- ~ ~ p 3~ j Z U ONOw"H = o F °w '°Y i ~'&' ° ~~ U Z v~ N~ i I I . 1 I % ~ ° - ~ WZ=~ I I U W O ` U ~ ~ I OW f- 6 ~ 'a n ii' ~ I '. f Q 3 N LL w , = V ~ Z o l t Z G a o g ae , W Z O Z ~ d 1 I . d ~"a ~,I _~~ I. I _ ~ titiy I R 1, o ~~ t 3 v sP` ~ J ~; I ! ,'~E, (r'~, EXHIBIT C s '. I ' - ~'' ~ I I 11j 8 I;; ' III ~~ ~~ :::Y f ~~~ ~ ~`y i 3) I- _°~, 1 , 1 I __ i~ ~ ) °. Q ~A8 ~~~ P g- ~~, A 6 ~a~ .L~ f-1-f ~ 1 ~ f~ . ~ .4 W6 .- t. I_ _ ~-lty I I v j 9 •~I f;y I~, ~s . f„`t ~i"~«'EJ s ~ _ _ ~ .~ Fes'-'^-~'~' ~ --_-_ '~ ,, - ~Af 3"x-1 GT'~ i ~ ~'~ . °-- ~~~,~ _ ~s W - ~ig ~ ,~ , p ~-' _ ` - .'. ~ _. . .l-..~_ ` _ 6 ?, ~j k+Y -' .,, ~i~~3'7i~T'~=~~~ ~ `-{' ~rp~~~lr ~t'-r_°-x~w-E ~~._yl,. i ~ f 9 V i t F f ~1,1 i~ t ! M. I . ` _ F i I i. F I I, __ ~ x .{. _ pa,~ V:F I I I . 'A.al ~ I I i x I. :..1 _:_1._:. °i-._t_S -; ~i• ~ h ~. 1 _ __ „ 7.1 _ __ _ i ~-~ I >.. I - a i _ r I I. 9 - _.f .1- I 1 1 -'i I I ~~ ~ - ° I i 1 I I I I I R-5 I I I 9 f .,, ~ ~ 1 J~I~ I"~ 'i12 ~~~i ii_'__i'~_ i:f -_ _d 1.. ~~ ~d~ ~ ~~ ba.a_ a Q ~pma m O O O ~U N r ~ LL a °a Q J O V r w Z U ~ w °¢ ~ O O LL ¢ O ~_ O~ O V D V j z U w i p¢ F- ~ J U F ~ ~ a Z W O Now V °i U= U X 6~ u O~ Z p w a o .pi O Py LL Q 2 0 LL N U O~ m ~ w co ; } W F- m i W i K - ~ ~ w 1 Q = N ~ m LL ~ Z O e 3 ~ z a°~ W ~o~ ~ ~ ~ m o UU ¢ ¢ w n`" a n - III II I, ~ P I' J e I e, I, I„ . ~1: I; I II' I• "1' Q I~ I ~ -I' ~ ,I 8 I I III I'„ [JIB s ,•P I .I;; ,, I ' ~, I I ;;; i, I ~C ~ EXHIBIT' D . 7 e E 9 9 - ,$ ~~ a;. 6~3 ;~s 6iy~iy89~E 33-9 ~~ 4 ~ ~pp4 i2f 6y~ 3iFg~ 31':E~4 :53F _5 , sy~ sa~~ tr° ~~{ ~P~~,~~ [[ a~Y1.5 3 qy ? ~''e q' 9 Q577 SiP ~ ie~:}y 4 -.. .. Y P . ~ R d m e Q a ~ q ~~=9~ ~ a ~ ~?~~_ a o~ ~~~! eB~E it f it ! i ' i I I 1 IB I 1 I I i ~ I /I } , I~! i 1 I•! i `, ` • I'' I; III I I ~I n i~ Iii II ' t ~ i I I I „ l' ......... . ...... .~`~ I I A I ~ I- q t '~ I ! ! -- r! .! ~ 1 ~ r I i ' ~. I' I i i 1 ._ a$ - lip I I a ~ : I~ ___ ___________ I __ I~-I- . I ICI I I~ - ~'-~ J ~ I I I ~ I I I ~ I I ,...~a.. I ~ I ~ ` I I 1 ~ 1 ~ I I I I I I ~ I I f ISI I I I •I I •; ~ o~-' I ~'*I 1 a•II " g`8 1 ;il I 1 [ I /I I S C p I I I [ ~ g Ip I I 9. ~ I;I I I Iryl I I I~~ I I q'i I ~ I I G I i i i P I~,~:'9 ~ ~ I I i I I I I I Ili I I I I W° I, I , --- i f' I a 1 1 .' ---- ..a a. I i -- _ x 3 ~ I i l i --~~ ~ - .~ ~ --- a _ _ _ a _. _ .~. I ~t ;fS.I - - _ _, ___ _ _ I r l j .I y - I ~ I I I ~ I t _. I I I I I l l s R_R ~J • Staff Report DATE: April 12, 2006 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Dan Coleman, Acting City Planner BY: Lou LeBlanc, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2005-00287 - DR. ROCKY MOJABE - A request to develop two new buildings totaling 21,846 square feet on 1.8 acre of land in the Commercial Office Zone (CO) within an Activity Center of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan (Subarea 3), located at 10165 Foothill Boulevard - APN: 0208-331-30. Staff has determined the project to be exempt from CEQA under categorical exemption Section 15332 - In-Fill Development Projects. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION A. Surrounding Land Use and Zonin North - Community Commercial South - Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) East - Community Office West - Community Office B. General Plan Designations: Project Site -Commercial Office North - General Commercial South - Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) East - Commercial Office West - Commercial Office C. Site Characteristics: The project is vacant land. No significant vegetation or trees exist on the project site. The property has no unique features. The site has been previously disced. ' EX H 0 ~ I1" E B-7 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2005-00287 • April 12, 2006 Page 2 D. Parkinp Calculations: Number of Number of . Square Parking Spaces ..Spaces TVPe of Use Footage Ratio Required Provided Office 20,540 1/250 82 102 Fast Food 1,300 1/75 17 102 Total 99 102 ANALYSIS: A. General: The project is designated as a "Suburban Parkway Enhancement Area," therefore, is subject to the design specifications found in the Route 66 Foothill Boulevard Visual Improvement Plan. The project has been designed to include enhancements such as, but not limited to, Route 66 pavement treatment and landscaping. The project site is generally rectangular in shape with an overall depth of 307.52 feet north to south by 238.89 feet east to west. The surrounding land uses include Kindercare pre-school to the east, single-family homes to the south, and a BC Cafe restaurant to the west. The proposed buildings are connected on the second floor by central towers and a deck. The Mediterranean style architecture includes stucco, "S" file roofs, Coronado stone veneer, concrete lintels, file window surrounds, and decorative cornices. The buildings will sit approximately 3 feet below Foothill Boulevard because of the existing grades in this • block. Access is shared with Kindercare pre-school. To meet the primary building materials requirement, the applicant has designed the building with stucco and stone veneer. All elevations exhibit a 360 degree architecture and wall movement providing relief and visual interest. The proposed project on the 74,000 square foot site meets or exceeds all development standards of the Community Office District, Foothill Specific Plan' (Subarea 3), and the Route 66 Visual Improvement Plan. The proposed project meets or exceeds the number of parking stalls required for the proposed uses. The applicant is proposing a 2-story 21,840 square foot office building, which includes 1,300 square feet of fast food restaurant space. The project is within an Activity Center of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan and incorporates the required Route 66 enhancements such as, Route 66 street striping and parkway enhancements. The project also incorporates 5 patios, enhanced walkways, and plaza areas facing Foothill Boulevard. B. Design Review Committee: The Design Review Committee reviewed the site, building elevations, materials, and conceptual landscaping on February 28, 2006, (Exhibit F). The Committee (McPhail, Stewart, Coleman) recommended approval of the project as proposed. C. Technical Review/Grading Committee: Both the Technical and Grading Review Committees reviewed the project February 28, 2006, and recommended approval subject to the Standard Conditions outlined in the resolution of approval. • B-8 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT • DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2005-00287 April 12, 2006 Page 3 D. Environmental Assessment; Staff has determined the project to be exempt from CEQA under categorical exemptions section 15332 In-Fill Development Projects. - E. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the project site. RECOMMENDATION: Siaff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review DRC2005-00287 by the adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with ConditiDris-~ Dan Coleman, Acting City Planner Attachments: Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - • Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit F - Exhibit G - Draft Resol Vicinity Map Site Plan Grading Plan Building Elevations Floor Plan Landscape Plan Design Review Committee Action Comments dated February 28, 2006 ution of Approval for Development Review DRC2005-00287 B-9 VICINITY MAP EXHIBIT A ~~'~ ~ ~'~ `a~~ • • B-10 HERMOSA AVENUE • • ~ ~~ I ~ I I I ~ I I ~ _ i I I a !ss g 111 €I v ~ -.>..~. ~ I n,._w~, ,.,._.~.. ~ ,~ _;~.~ ~~~. i b____ J L ~, ILA __ el r i "~ . J ' I v ~ ' ~ I ( I~`' r q ! - 1• G _ x i ? M: ` 'L 0• V~ i Q r I e +® . yy I ? i ~ 7 I ~ r ~ mo F~~€ a ~E ~ s ~. ~ 1- _~ - i I• I~ • l.._ I 4 it Y i_~~r_ i i i i ~ ' - 1 I W II >n- . ~ ~ ~. I ' - I~ I ~i~ ~ ;~ .______ ~, y san w=,i ~ ~ ~~ i :° ` s'~E""" ~ RUNYAN ENGINEERING, INC. I ~ ~o~ _ B-11- a„~~~~,w~ereo~~,~„~ { I 1~ f~f~Fc~ ~ l ~(.. -t~~~~y': ~.'s I ~'uf~ m ~ ~. N ~ zr~fl~ ~~~y~~' ~ ~ [ ~, ` +' P ~r~~--~ U ~ ~ ~ a L I ~' I 1 ~kl~ 4,s~~ ~ "~ ' !I .. e»~. ~.~ ... _ •N _ 1 ` ~4 x~~'Y~ kL.Y ~ ~' /~~` ~ ~~ t W~ S. ~"y"~~S ~ {~~ ' 1 -_ _ ~- T ....... ~ i -~ ~p_.-_ i ?+ 'R ,~ 0 i° r r 0 c m r I A O -- __ -- t _ .,... ~. ~~. ~ 2 __ ._ m.......... a 1 _ .._ EF; ~ >~ ~,~ ~i ~ ~ ~ I a EXHIBIT B ~~ ~- ~ =p'o I I~ ~ ~ , r M ~d;. ;:r. Iy:p¢~Ydv jr~zo2n!n:,.Fy~yG`Oe~y~4y3~ ~{• I, ..ES}e r^C::aaeey.eii3t.;1Si:Ai; i ;3 t ~ 'j 1_ - . ~.~. %.'o I i ~~°Lat. s I I I t I ~, .-I I d. ,I I a - ,.. ++ I ~- I I I I I I , v1 f~ *I l~ Y I I I I +:.. s;~: I I I I ".w, I i ~' i-1 Ifl L-+,. '~~1 ~~ I i j 'era ° ~ ~~ j I :µ~ j yK i I i i I I I I I a~ °~ r I of I I 1; . I L _; I I I I I I , I jl I II It ( `t , I t I ' ' :~ ~,I ar - 3+ n. I .I, ~: x I . 1 ~: I I I ~ - - I L - - -- -- - -1 '` ~ 11 I ' I. I ~, a s'" , ~, ti I I I I I P I I r, 1! ' I ~' t I ! "~ I " 1 t I r .i I ~~ ~ 1 I ~ I I ! ~ I ~4~~ I I ~ i ~ ~I I i °', I ~ Ij 'rjl I I I~ yyi .RI I ~ j ~I ~I I ~~ j ~ I i ~I 1 I c;t j ~ +:I 1 ~>c l l I n!j I~~ .,A I I r ~I ~'u ,,I III ~ I 7 II A._ I Y-0 ~__ iI ~I I! ~i I t -, H I I I y::` I I 't .b. mv., v.s~o \~E~1 I I s„ ~ - \\~\\''ff nll i/II~^~I~° _~ul I II I iii r---~ ~---I II I I I I I I I I ~ ~ EXHIBIT C I ~- I 3" I I ~ _I I J2-.~ 3,a]S ~~ j \ .. 418 9 w-w+ `3: m: o~,.~ ~4 ~~ ~- a aro ~` ~u '~d ~-Y„>''d4' y' qSe. •rv a SS~,,n kq : =v k' or- Z _-~ i in'rc'~. b ~S nn n 4 L u~~ Z m IF . O 4 . E a U ~ i ~ Z u o ~ i+ u ~ o r z e ~ w {; o N . ~ ~ w ~~' u ~ a -~ ~~ r ~ I' o ^ o N m~F: 'e-. °° ~°~5 ~5 N .11°~'^° U C '- O 5 3; o ' o as =„ ..~~hr~ z '~_~+Y~ m ee-: 4. ~ °;k o bd >i ~ "i: .;:. ;1= ~~' o~o=*= I N r ,. <, ~ . I ? ~ - ' c >a= j C N-i a ~_ a ~ ~ ? so< I ~ ~ €r _ i j~ k ea~ '~ i~~ v Y' a r ~O V V " i ,~ & Y~_~ S z t k d ~~~YaSF tr=i=s45; V ''.? 6Y_'~d 66a~Y IS ~,,Sh~b~bo' ~us~e~,A«~ u • B -12 '~NI `JN12i33NIJN3 N`d,lNf121 7. b F Q W IJ W F N W F N Q W t F EXHIBIT D ~r=~ ~ ~z -6~) E p e p Z ( S Wa 4 3 ° k a uws anv iovaviva Hlnos'tev ~1a~7 ~ °~+"~~ 3N1 `9NRi33NIJN3 NtlAN(12i /.~i ~ s~n,~e,.a,3 y z T 2 F U u N Z 0 F Q W W F N ti~. 9\ ep ,be • • 614 ~ I ~ ' eovrvoe9311f15 '3AV 1]VtlV1VD H100S C£b ~ I~I I I '~NI ~JN12133N19N3 N11ANf121 tl31N3J ltlga3WW09 ymmue 6 9 1 i Q Nvld aoov lstlla y yn»: is .. - r ~ ~' .. ~ T ., ~ .-... T -.~ ~~ ~ r l C ~~ ~ l ~ l ! ~ ! ! l i ~,, I ~ ~~ - ; 1---- I- d ~ -- I-~ -- ~I ___ _ 1 _ 1 I I ~~~ _ ._ _ . .~ .. .. ,._._..- -_ I -- I I ~___ , a __ _ __ i I I d __ ;i ~ i ' ~ _ I ~ i, r I~ I Py ~_ ~ -_I. •- _, , ~~ S 9 -^-_ I ~ '' ~ ..11 a)i I li ^~ ~I I oa I II I I I JfI IF i Y~'= - A - J _,_~ =_~ ~ o ~, I.I f•J0 c I t;~ it ~ i --rr ~ 4s' ~ ~~~ a• I ~__~ 1 r,~ --r. L I ~ _ _ -- - .a - °- \ ~~ -_ _' - ', I ~ d -- -- ~ _L_ (b , --_~ I ___~ Cl .~ 1 ~' - I W, ~ _.- _ .__ I - ~,......~.. -..~~~ I 1- .JI_ ni~. ~_-~----- ~` ~~ ~ - - r?_: y-r -- ~ I :_~ ,~;. 4 L'" i d li it I. ,~ ~ i ~ ~9 ~I I~ .. ~1 i I EXHIBIT E _=` ~l~~ !y-/J-OCo, B-15 Z Q J a. O 0 J I,L ~.6 mn~ is ueawww R 5 ~- N .a 9 311[15 '3~b lObetlltlp N1005 LCO ~~"" ~, q ~~~-~-~--~ '~NI `~N12133NIJN3 Nt/ANf12i ~ Nbldtl00lfON0]35 s' , I:~~: c-z2p Z Q J 0 J Li Z 0 U W N • • • B-16 EXHIBIT F C~G ~-~,L-pGo~ B-,~ y mC i+i; ~.~a~n Y.Wi by 'MGNGV1t7GG GH]Ntltl a o , e a J `~ - NHId ass nwiooe Nw ~~=x N31N3~ _ `_ s s a ~NilNHld llHl3b 3~ a HI ~ ` wl ~~ a~ ~ F ~rng.. ~ ~ .: ^. ~\ I V I I n I ~- 'I~" .~ I VV I i I ' ' 618 - ... ~ , fi -;~ ~a i O i~g^ l ~ N - y5 ES s° m ~ p~e sia r"m'~i SSnuo~~.n M .__. et ... T.... ~ 9H0a a aSSaaaas E C _._ _..__ ~ p 3 p` F e df a~ yF E# I tt fi},ii ~ ~~~ ~ F~?~j'j~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ e~ i li9i)i f i 8d l ~ ~asae 95!109! ~1 4I a y p 7~ $ f 9 7" as fl ~ fi C P Ca Y Yi' ¢ S` e~ !~ k~k ~~ E C ~ c 2 aF v~ 3 ~` e, c n 9~ ,a f ~ ~ " Sq KK Y i 2 a e :. 9 e~ ,7 y @~ P ~ 5~5 ~ Y 4 ~~ }4 ~t'gY ~ y~~ ar E Y a q 59E x ~ '~ fy z~ pqp6 5 y~ $S H €~ ~ F f } f e1 ~i 9~ ~ BSc Y1e g a a $ . ~Q Ye as . ;•7 `a E 1 ~ € F , ~ a x 9 C€ ~~" ' k~a Sy e Id E~agg ge'~~-~°E~ ~S _•~ 8~i gq~~YY 5;~~ /// z S c c~ H€€9 •q y !~ €~ e ~ ~ ~ i v ,7 ~9 ga6 e3 _C3 ei v • • • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:30 p.m. Louis LeBlanc February 28, 2006 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2005-00287 - DR. ROCKY MOJABE - A request to develop two new buildings totaling 21,846 square feet on 1.8 acres of land in the Commercial Office Zone (CO) within an Activity Center of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at 10165 Foothill Boulevard - APN: 0208-331-30. Design Parameters: The project is designated as a "Suburban Parkway Enhancement Area," therefore, is subject to the design specifications found in the Route 66 Foothill Boulevard Visual Improvement Plan. The project has been designed to include enhancements such as, but not limited to, Route 66 pavement treatment and landscaping. The project site is generally rectangular in shape with an overall depth of 307.52 feet north-south by 238.89 feet east-west. Surrounding land uses include Kindercare pre-school to the east, single-family homes to the south. and a BC Cafe restaurant to the west. The proposed buildings are connected on the second floor by central towers and a deck. The Mediterranean style architecture includes stucco, "S" file roofs, Coronado stone veneer, concrete lintels, file window surrounds, and decorative cornices. The buildings wilt sit approximately 3 feet below Foothill Boulevard because of the existing grades in this block. • Access is shared with Kindercare pre-school. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: None -The developer and staff have worked to resolve all major issues. Secondary Issues: Since there are no Major Issues, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. The applicant should make a good faith effort to obtain two points of access. This can be accomplished at their southwest corner through the BC Cafe site. This would relieve pressure from the awkward "split" shared access with Kindercare pre-school, allow left-turn access to Foothill Boulevard via Hermosa Avenue, and allow westbound motorists to avoid making a U-turn to enter site. 2. The proposed tenant sign locations and sizes should be re-designed to allow for larger, more visible signs. The architecture is limiting most wall signs to 12 to 18 inches in height. Typically, wall signs are 18 to 24 inches. The developer will be required to submit a Uniform Sign Program prior to issuance of building permits. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion. 1. All trash enclosures shall be built to City standard, including trellis feature and roll-up door. 2. Decorative colored paving shall be required at all entrances and exits. B-19 DRC ACTION AGENDA DRC2005-00287 - DR. ROCKY MOJABE • February 28, 2006 Page 2 Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends .approval of the project with the above listed conditions. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: McPhail, Stewart, Coleman Staff Planner: Louis LeBlanc The Committee recommended approval and requested that the applicant continue to try to obtain joint access through the BC Cafe parking lot. The Committee expressed their appreciation for the significant effort the applicant has already made on this issue. • B ~20 n U RESOLUTION NO. 06-25 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT - -REVIEW, DRC2005-00287 - A REQUEST TO DEVELOP TWO NEW BUILDINGS TOTALING 21,846 SQUARE FEET ON 1.8 ACRE OF LAND IN THE COMMERCIAL OFFICE ZONE WITHIN AN ACTIVITY CENTER OF THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN (SUBAREA 3), LOCATED AT 10165 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, EAST OF HERMOSA AVENUE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF-APN: 0208-331-30. A. Recitals. 1. Dr. Mojabe filed an application for the approval of Development Review DRC2005-00287, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 12th day of April 2006, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a meeting on the application and concluded said meeting on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. • NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically fnds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above referenced public hearing on April 12, 2006, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to the vacant property located at 10165 Foothill Boulevard with a street frontage of 238.73 feet and lot depth of 307.52 feet and is presently improved with curb and gutter; and b. The property to the north of the subject site is developed with existing commercial buildings; the property to the south consists of existing single-family residences; the property to the east is developed with existing commercial,buildings;avd the property to the west is developed with existing commercial buildings; and ` o. The application proposes the construction of a 21,846 square foot building with 20,540 square feet of office and 1,300 square feet of fast food, all permitted uses in the Commercial Office District; and d. The project, togetherwith the recommended conditions of approval, complies with all development standards for the City of Rancho Cucamonga; and • EXHIBIT F ~`a~~- ~-,z_~~21~ PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 06-25 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2005-00287 April 12, 2006 • Page 2 e. The architectural design of the project incorporates stucco and veneer stone. The building meets the design goals of the Community Office District by providing ahigh-level of architectural design with a building that has two primary materials and a variety of exterior colors that provide visual interest to the wall planes. The project incorporates the required Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan elements. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and b. The proposed use is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and c. The proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code; and d. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4. The proposed project is exempt from CEQA under categorical exemptions section 15332 • In-Fill Development Projects. Plannino Department 1) The applicant shall install all design elements required by Route 66 Visual Improvement Plan at this location. 2) Broad canopy trees shall be used to shade all parking areas. Final plant species shall be subject to City Planner review and approval. 3) All retaining walls shall be split-face or decorative block to match the building. 4) Any modifications to the existing property line walls shall be submitted and reviewed by the City Planner prior to construction. 5) All Foothill Districts and Activity Center elements shall be completed prior to occupancy. 6) The applicant should make a good faith effort to obtain a second point of access by connecting to the adjoining BC Cafe site at their southwest corner. This would relieve pressure from the "split' shared access with Kindercare pre-school, allow left-turn access to • B-22 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 06-25 • DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2005-00287 April 12, 2006 Page 3 Foothill Boulevard via Hermosa Avenue, and allow westbound motorists to avoid making a U-tum to enter the site. En gineering Department 1) The .Foothill Boulevard Activity Center parkway improvements, including street trees and ,sidewalk, shall conform to the Foothill Boulevard Districts guidelines outlined in the Development Code and Foothill Boulevard Historic Route 66 Visual Improvement Plan. 2) The parkways shall slope at 2 percent from the top of curb to 1 foot behind the sidewalk along all street frontages. 3) The first 6 feet of driveway behind the public right-of-way shall slope no more than 6 percent. 4) The sumps in the private storm drain system shall be designed for 0100, and the pond depth can be no greater than 12 inches in automobile parking areas (18 inches in truck parking areas).. 5) An in-lieu fee as contribution to'the future undergrounding of the existing overhead utilities (telecommunications and electrical, except ll d h l • evar s a for the 66 kV electrical) on the opposite side of Foothill Bou be paid to the City prior to the issuance of Building permits. The fee shall be one-half the City adopted unit amount times the length of the prciect frontage. 6) Prior to the issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall pay Deva~lopment Fees at the rates adopted by the City Council, which are currently estimated as: a) Transportation Development Fee: $5,487 per thousand square feet (Effective July 18, 2005). b) General City Drainage Fee: $16,190 per acre (Effective January 15, 2006). 7) Public improvement plans shall be 90 percent complete prior to the issuance of Grading Permits. Public improvement plans shall be 100 percent complete, signed by the City Engineer, and an improvement agreement and bonds executed by the developer, prior to Building Permit issuance. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. B-23 PLANNING COMMISSION DEVELOPMENT REVIEW April 12, 2006 Page 4 RESOLUTION NO. 06-25 DRC2005-00287 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2006. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Pam St art, Chairman ATTEST: /%~ sue, v Dan Coleman, Acting Secretary I, Dan Coleman, Acting Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the t2th day of April 2006, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FLETCHER,~MACIAS, McPHAIL, MUNOZ, STEWART NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE • • • B -24 STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT #: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2005-00287 SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR TWO NEW BUILDINGS WITH AN ACTIVITY CENTER APPLICANT: DR. ROCKY LOCATION: 10165 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD-APN: 0208-331-30 ' ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: •A. General Requirements 1. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees maybe required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. 2. Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval No. 06-25, Standard Conditions, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet(s) are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect. B. Time Limits Conditional Use Permit, Variance, or DevelopmenVDesign Review approval shall expire if building permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 5 years from the date of approval. No extensions are allowed. C. Site Development The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Department, the conditions contained herein, Development Code regulations, the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, and the Community Plan. • SC-1-05 Completion Date ~_/- ~-/- _J-/- ~_/ C ~~ G=/z -oG~ B ~25 Project No. DRC2005-00287 ' Completion Date 2 Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions _!-/_ . of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. • 3. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and _/-/_ State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Department to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. 4. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be -/_I- submittedfor City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for -/-/- consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all -/~_ other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 7. A detailed on-site lighting plan, including a photometric diagram, shall be reviewed and approved ~_/- bythe City Planner and Police Department (477-2800) prior to the issuance of building permits. Such plan shall indicate style, illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties. 8. Trash receptacle(s) are required and shall meet City standards. The final design, locations, and _!_1_ the number of trash receptacles shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. g. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be _/-/_ located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete • or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. For single- family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults. 10. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, _/-/_ including proper illumination. D. Shopping Centers 1. The Master Plan is approved in concept only. Future development for (each building pad parcel) ~-/_ shall be subject to separate Development/Design Review process for Planning Commission approval. Modifications to the Shopping Center Master Plan shall be subject to Planning Commission approval. 2. A uniform hardscape and street furniture design including seating benches, trash receptacles, _JJ_ free-standing potted plants, bike racks, light bollards, etc., shall be utilized and be compatible with the architectural style. Detailed designs shall be submitted for Planning Department review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 3. Graffiti shall be removed within 72 hours. -/-/- 4. The entire site shall be kept free from trash and debris at all times and in no event shall trash and -/_/- - debris remain for more than 24 hours. 5. Signs shall be conveniently posted for "no overnight parking" and for "employee parking only." _/-/_ 6. All operations and businesses shall be conducted to comply with the following standards which shall be incorporated into the lease agreements for all tenants: • SC-1-OS B-26 Prgect No. DRC2005-OO287 Completion Date a. Noise Level -All commercial activities shall not create any noise that would exceed an _/_/_ • exterior noise level of 60 d6 during the hours of 10 p.m. until 7 a.m. and 65 dB during the hours of 7 a.m. until 10 p.m. b. Loading and Unloading - No person shall cause the loading, unloading, opening, closing, or _/_/_ other handling of boxes, crates, containers, building materials, garbage cans, or other similar objects between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. unless otherwise specified herein, in a manner which would cause a noise disturbance to a residential area. 7. The lighting fixture design shall compliment the architectural program. It shall include the plaza _/_/_ area lighting fixtures, building lighting fixtures (exterior), and parking lot lighting fixtures. 8. Any outdoor vending machines shall be recessed into the building faces and shall not extend into _/_/_ the pedestrian walkways. The design details shall be reviewed and approved bythe City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits. E. Building Design 1. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or _/_/_ projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets as required by the Planning Department. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Details shall be included in building plans. 2. For commercial and industrial projects, paint roll-up doors and service doors to match main _/_/_ building colors. F. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans) 1. All parking spaces shall be 9 feet wide by 1 B feet long. W hen a side of any parking space abuts _/_/_ . a building, wall, support column, or other obstruction, the space shall be a minimum of 11 feet wide. 2. All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet and shall _!_/_ contain a 12-inch walk adjacent to the parking stall (including curb). 3. Textured pedestrian pathways and textured pavement across circulation aisles shall be provided _/_/_ throughout the development to connect dwellings/units/buildings with open spaces/plazas/ recreational uses. 4. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances, _J-/- and exits shall be striped per City standards. 5. Handicap accessible stalls shall be provided for commercial and office facilities with 25 or more _/_/_ parking stalls. Designate two percent or one stall; whichever is greater, of the total number of stalls for use by the handicapped. 6. Motorcycle parking area shall be provided for commercial and office facilities with 25 or more _/_/_ parking stalls. Developments with over 100 parking stalls shall provide motorcycle parking at the r., rate of one percent. The area for motorcycle parking shall be a minimum of 56 square feet. •SC-1-05 B-27 Protect No DRC2005-00287 Completion Date G H. Trip Reduction 1. Bicycle storage spaces shall be provided in all commercial, office, industrial, and multifamily residential projects of more than 10 units. Minimum spaces equal to five percent of the required automobile parking spaces or three bicycle storage spaces, whichever is greater. After the first 50 bicycle storage spaces are provided, additional storage spaces required are 2.5 percent of the required automobile parking spaces. W arehouse distribution uses shall provide bicycle storage spaces at a rate of 2.5 percent of the required automobile parking spaces with a minimum of a 3-bike rack. In no case shall the total number of bicycle parking spaces required exceed 100. Where this results in a fraction of 0.5 or greater, the number shall be rounded off to the higher whole number. 2. Carpool and vanpool designated off-street parking close to the building shall be provided for commercial, office, and industrial facilities at the rate of 10 percent of the total parking area. If covered, the vertical clearance shall be no less than 9 feet. Landscaping 1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. 2. A minimum of 20% of trees planted within industrial projects, and a minimum of 30% within commercial and office projects, shall be specimen size trees - 24-inch box or larger. 3. Within parking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-gallon tree for every three parking stalls. 4. Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent to and along structures at a rate of one tree per 30 linear feet of building. 5. All private slopes of 5 feet or more in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope, but less than 2:1 slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for erosion control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. 6. All private slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft, of slope area 1-gallon or larger size shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope banks in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and 2:1 or greater slope shall also Include one 5-gallon or larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. 7. For multi-family residential and non-residential development, property owners are responsible for the continual maintenance of all landscaped areas on-site, as well as contiguous planted areas within the public right-of-way. All landscaped areas shall be kept free from weeds and debris and maintained in healthy and thriving condition, and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing, and trimming. Any damaged, dead, diseased, or decaying plant material shall be replaced within 30 days from the date of damage. 8. The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to City Planner review and approval and coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the Engineering Department. SC-1-05 4 B-28 -J-/ u ~~- ~-~_ -~-~- _/-/_ • / / ~-~_ / / ! / • Project No DRC2005-00287 Completion Date • 9. Special landscape features such as mounding, alluvial rock, specimen size trees, meandering sidewalks (with horizontal change), and intensified landscaping, is required along Foothill Boulevard. 10. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on the perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer. 11. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Department. „~ , , 12. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. Signs 1. All of the signs are conceptual only and not a part of this approval. Any signs proposed for this development shall comply with the Sign Ordinance and shall require separate application and approval by the Planning Department prior to installation of any signs. 2. A Uniform Sign Program for this development shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. J. Environmental A final acoustical report shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. The final report shall discuss the level of interior noise attenuation to below 45 CNEL, the building materials and construction techniques provided, and if appropriate, verify the adequacy of the mitigation measures. The building plans will be checked for conformance with the mitigation measures contained in the final report. • 2. The applicant shall submit certification from an acoustical engineer that all recommendations of the acoustical report were implemented in construction, including measurements of interior and exterior noise levels to document compliance with City standards. Certificatiori shall be submitted to the Building & Safety Department prior io final occupancy release of the affected homes. K. Other Agencies The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location of mailboxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for mailboxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mailboxes and the design of the overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACTTHE BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: ,NOTE: ANY REVISIONS MAY VOID THESE REQUIREMENTS AND NECESSITATE ADDITIONAL REVIEW(S) L. General Requirements Submit five conceptual sets of plans including the following: a. Site/Plot Plan; b. Foundation Plan; c. Ceiling, Floor, and Roof Framing Plan. •SC-1-OS / / -/~- -/-/- -J-/- -/-/- -/-/- -/-/- ~-/_ / / -l-/_ B-29 Project No. DRC2005-00287 Comoletion Date d. Floor Plan; e. Electrical Plans (2 sets, detached) including the size of the main switch, number and size of service entrance conductors, panel schedules, and single line diagrams; f. Plumbing and Sewer Plans, including isometrics, underground diagrams, water and waste diagram, sewer or septic system-location, fixture units, gas piping, and heating and air conditioning; and g. Planning Department Project Number (i.e., DRC2005-00287) clearly identified on the outside of all plans. 2. Submit two sets of structural calculations, energy conservation calculations, and a soils report. Architect's/Engineer's stamp and "wet" signature are required prior to plan check submittal. 3. Contractors must show proof of State and City licenses and Workers' Compensation coverage to the City prior to permit issuance. 4. Separate permits are required for fencing and/or walls. 5. Business shall not open for operation prior to posting the Certificate of Occupancy issued by the Building and Safety Department. M. N. Site Development 1. Plans shall be submitted for plan check and approved prior to construction. All plans shall be marked with the project file number (i.e., DRC2005-00278). The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted California Codes, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of permit application. Contact the Building and Safety Department for availability of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new residential project or major addition, the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such tees may include, but are not limited to: City Beautification Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Transportation Development Fee, Permit and Plan Check Fees, Construction and Demolition Diversion Program deposit and fees and School Fees. Applicant shall provide a copy of the school fees receipt to the Building and Safety Department prior to permit issuance. 3. The Building and Safety Official shall provide the street addresses after tracUparcel map recordation and prior to issuance of building permits.. 4. Construction activity shall not occur between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. Monday through Saturday, with no construction on Sunday or holidays. 5- Construct trash enclosure(s) per City Standard (available at the Planning Department's public counter). New Structures 1. Provide compliance with the California Building Code (CBC) for property line clearances considering use, area, and fire-resistiveness. 2. The project shall be designed to comply with the 2001 California Building Codes (CBC), the California Fire Code and with RCFPD Ordinarices 15 and 39. 3. Provide compliance with the California Building Code for required occupancy separations. 4. Provide draft stops in attic areas, not to exceed 3,000 square feet, in accordance with CBC Section 1505. SC-1-05 _/~- -/-/- -J-/- ~~- -/-/- -/-/- /-/- /~_ / / • • -/-/- -/-/- -/-/- -/-/- • B -30 Project No DRC2005-00287 Comolehon Date • 5. Exterior walls shall be constructed of the required fire rating in accordance with CBC Table 5-A 6. Openings in exterior walls shall be protected in accordance with CBC Table 5-A. 7. Provide the required restroom facilities per the CBC Appendix Chapter 29 8. All exit components must comply with the requirements of CBC Chapter 10 (adjoining rooms, rated corridors, door swings, separation of exits, etc.). 9. Ai the time of tenant improvement plan check submittal (for const?action) additional requirements may be required. 10. Clearly indicate on the plans compliance with ADA requirements for the disabled. 11. A registered architect must sign and stamp the plans. O. Grading 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with California Building Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The. final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. 3. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of application for grading plan check. 4. The final grading, appropriate certifications and compaction reports shall be completed, submitted, and approved by the Building and Safety Official prior to the issuance of building • permits. 5. A separate grading plan check submittal is required for all new construction projects and for existing buildings where improvements being proposed will generate 50 cubic yards or more of combined cut and fill. The grading plan shall be prepared, stamped, and signed by a California registered Civil Engineer. Note on the title sheet that tenant improvement plans must be submitted for plan check and be approved prior to construction. The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted California Codes, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of permit application. Contact the Bwlding and Safety Department if you have arty questions about the procedure at (909) 477-2710. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: P. Dedication and Vehicular Access Easements for public sidewalks and/or street trees placed outside the public right-of-wayshall be dedicated to the City. Q. Street Improvements All public improvements (interior streets, drainage facilities, communitytrails, paseos, landscaped areas, etc.) shown on the plans and/or tentative map shall be constructed to City Standards. Interior street improvements shall include, but are not limited to, curb and gutter, AC pavement, drive approaches, sidewalks, street lights, and street trees. •SC-1-OS / / -~-~ -~-~. _J-/- -~-~- _/-/- -~-~- -~-~- ~_/_ 1 B31 Prgect No DRC2005-00287 Completion Date 4. SC-1-OS 2. Pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 88-557, no person shall make connections from a source of energy, fuel or power to any building service equipment which is regulated by technical code: and far which a permit is required unless, in addition to any and all other codes, regulations anc ordinances, all improvements required by these conditions of development approval have beer completed and accepted by the City Council, except: that in developments containing more that one building or unit,.the development may have energy connections made to a percentage o. - those buildings; or units proportionate to the completion of improvements as required b} conditions of approval of development. In rip case shall more than 95 percent of the buildings of units be connected to energy prior to completion and acceptance ofaU improvements required b} these conditions of approval of development. 3. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: ' Street Name Curb & Gutter 0.C. Pvmt Side• walk Drive Appr. Street Lights Streel Trees Comm ~ Trail Median Island Blke Trail Other Foothill Boulevard (c) X 2 X Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan check. (c) If so marked, sidewalk shall be curvilinear per Standard 114. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu of construction fee shall be provided for this item. Improvement Plans and Construction: a. Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shalt be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, priorto final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. b. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any other permits required. c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR, or any other locations approved by the City Engineer Notes: 1) Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200 feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer. 2) Conduit shall be 3-inch galvanized steel with pull rope or as specified. e. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City - Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. '" i. Existing'City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. g , Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards, except for single family residential lots. -~-~- -~~1- • / / -/-/_ • -~-~- - -~- -~-~- -~-~- -~-~- B32 Project No. DRC2005-00287 - Comoletion Date • • h. Street names shall be approved by the City Planner prior to submittal for first plan check. 5. Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in accordance with the City's street tree program. 6. Install street trees per City street tree design guidelines and standards as follows. The completed legend,(box,below) and construction notes shall appear on the title page of the street improvement plans. Street improvement plans shall include a line item within the construction ,legend;stating: "Street trees shall be installed per the notes and legend on sheet_(typically sheet 1)."'Where public landscape plans are required, tree installation in'those areas shall be per the public landscape improvement plans. The City Engineer reserves the right to adjust tree species based upon field conditions and other variables. For additional information, contact the Project Engineer. MIn. Grow Street Name ~ Botanical Name Common Name ~ Space Spacing~ Size Oty. Foothill Boulevard Prunus blueiana NCN 3' 20' O.C. 15 Gal Fill Accent Tree Informal ~ In groupings not more than 25% of total frontage trees Platanus racemosa California Sycamore 8' 35' O.C. 75 Gal Informal groupings Platanus acerifolia London Plane Tree 8' 30' O.C. 15 Gal Informal - groupings Construction N otes for Street Trees: 1) Street trees are to be planted per public improvement plans only. Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with adopted policy. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project intersections, including driveways. Local residential street intersections and commercial or industrial driveways may have lines of sight plotted as required. R. Rublic Maintenance Areas A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. 2. Parkway landscaping on the following street(s) shall conform to the results of the respective Beautification Master Plan Foothill Boulevard. S. General Requirements and Approvals ~C-1-05 A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated operating costs for all new streetlights for the first six months of operation, prior to final map approval or prior to building permit issuance if no map is involved. -~-~- -~-~- -/___/_ ~_~_ ~-~- -~- - -~-/ B -33 Project No. DRC2005-00287 Comolelion Date 2. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a Diversion Deposit and related administrative fees shall be paid for the Construction and Demolition Diversion Program. The deposit is fully refundable if at least 50% of all wastes generated during'construciion and demolition are diverted from landfills, and appropriate documentation is provided to the City. Form CD-1 shall be submitted to the Engineering Department when the first building permit application is submitted to Building and Safety. Form CD-2 shall be submitted to the'Engineering Department within 60 days following the completion'of the construction and/or demolition project. ' APPLICANT SHALL- CONTACT THE FIRE SAFETY DEPARTMENT, FIRE PROTECTION PLANNING SERVICES AT, (909)'477-2770, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: SEE ATTACHED -/-/ • • S C-1-OS • 10 B -34 ''~~,~~.~ y',. Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection ;, e District ,' ___ __ Fire Construction Services STANDARD CONDITIONS October 5, 2005 Dr. Mojabe Commercial Center (2) Two Story Retail Buildings D RC2005-00287 THE FOLLOWING STANDARD CONDITIONS APPLY TO THIS PROJECT. The RCFPD Procedures & Standards which are referenced in this document can be access on the web at htto://www.ci.rancho-cucamonga.ca.us/fire/index.htm under the Fire Safety Division & Fire Construction Services section. Search by article; the preceding number of the standard refers to the article. Chose the appropriate article number then a drop down menu will appear, select the corresponding standard. FSC-1' Public and Private Water Supply 1. Design guidelines for Fire Hydrants: The following provides design guidelines for the • spacing and location of fire hydrants: a. The maximum distance between fire hydrants in commercial/industrial projects is 300-feet. No portion of the exterior wall shall be located more than 150-feet from an approved fire hydrant. For cul-de-sacs, the distance shall not exceed 100-feet. b. Fire hydrants are to be located. The preferred locations for fire hydrants are: i. At the entrance(s) to a commercial, industrial or residential project from the public roadways. ii. At intersections. iii. On the right side of the street, whenever practical and possible. iv. As required by the Fire Safety Division to meet operational needs of the Fire District. v. A minimum of forty-feet (40') from any building c. If any portion of a facility or building is located more than 150-feet from a public fire hydrant measured on an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, additional private or public fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying the required fire flow shall be provided. ' • d. Provide one fire hydrant for each t 000 gpm of required fire flow or fraction thereof. ~/ C ~-/ 02 -O ~~ B-35 FSC-2 Fire Flow The required minimum fire flow for this project, when automatic fire sprinklers are installed • is 1,500 gallons per minute at a minimum residual pressure of 20-pounds per square inch. This flow reflects a'50-percent reduction for the installation df an approved automatic fire sprinkler system in accordance with NFPA 13 with cehtral station monitoring. This requirement is made 'in accordance, with the California Fire Code Appendix, III-A, as adopted by the Fire District Ordinances. Public fire hydrants located within~a 500-foot radius of the prgposed project may be used td provide the required fire flow subject to Fire District review and approval.. Private fire hydrants on adjacent property shall not be used to provide required fire flpw. 3. Firewater plans are required for all projects that must extend the existing water supply to or onto the site. Building permits will not be issued until firewater plans are approved. 4. On all site plans.to be submitted for review, show all fire hydrants located within 600-feet of the proposed project site. FSC-3 Prerequisite for submittal of Overhead Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems 1. Prior to submitting plans for an overhead automatic fire sprinkler system, the applicant shall submit plans, specifications and calculations for the fire sprinkler system underground supply piping. Approval of the underground supply piping system must be obtained prior to submitting the overhead fire sprinkler system plans. FSC-4 Requirement for an Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems • Rancho Cucamonga Fire District Ordinance 15, the 2001 California Fire Code and/or any other applicable standards require an approved automatic fire sprinkler system to be installed in: 1. Commercial or industrial structures greater than 7,500 square feet. 2. Assembly and Educational Occupancy Buildings. 3. "All structures that dd not meet Fire District access requirements (see Fire Access). 4. When required fire flow cannot be provided due to inadequate volume or pressure. 5. When buildings do not meet the requirements of the 2001 California Building Code and the RCFPD Fire Department Access -Fire Lane Standard 9-7 6. When any applicable code or standard requires the structure to be sprinklered. FSC-5 Fire Alarm System RCFPD Ordinance 15, based on' use or floor area (or by other adopted codes or standards) requires an automatic and/or manual fire alarm system. Refer to RCFPD Ordinances 15 and 39, the California Building Code, RCFPD Fire Alarm Standard #10-6 and/or the California Fire Code. 2. Prior to any removal, remodel; modification and/or additions to the building or suite's fire • . alarm system, Fire Construction Services' approval and a building permit must be 636 obtained. Plans and specifications shall be submitted to Fire Construction Services in • accordance with RCFPD Fire Alarm Standard #10-6. 3. Based on the number of sprinkler heads; the sprinkler system is required to monitored by a listed central station fire alarm system. FSC-6 Fire District Site Access Fire 'District acdess'roadways`include,`public roads, streets and highways, as well as private roads, streets drive aisles and/or designated fire lanes. Please reference the RCFPD Fire Lanes Standard 9-7 . 1. Location of Access: All portions of the structures 1st story exterior wall shall be located within 150-feet of Fire District vehicle access, measure on an approved route around the exterior of the building. Landscaped areas, unpaved changes in elevation, gates and fences are deemed obstructions. 2. Specifications for private Fire District access roadways per the RCFPD Standards are: a. The minimum unobstructed width is 26-feet. b. The maximum inside turn radius shall be 20-feet. c. The minimum outside turn radius shall be 46-feet. • d. The minimum radius for cul-de-sacs is 45-feet. e. The minimum vertical clearance is 14-feet, 6-inches. f. At any private entry median, the minimum width of traffic lanes shall be 20-feet on each side. g. The angle of departure and approach shall not exceed 9-degrees or 20 percent. h. The maximum grade of the driving surface shall not exceed 12%. i. Support a minimum load of 70,000 pounds gross vehicle weight (GVW). j. Trees and shrubs planted adjacent to the fire lane shall be kept trimmed to a minimum of 14-feet, 6-inches from the ground up. Vegetation shall not be allowed to obstruct Fire Department apparatus. 3. Access Doorways: Approved doorways, accessible without the use of a ladder, shall be provided as follows: , .. - a. - In buildings without high-piled storage, access shall be provided in accordance with the 2001 California Building Code, Fire and/or any other applicable standards. b. In buildings with high-piled storage access doors shall be provided in each 100 lineal feet or major fraction thereof, of the exterior wall that faces the required access • roadways. When railways are installed provisions shall be made to maintain Fire District access to all required openings., 3 B-37 4. Access Walkways: Hardscaped access walkways shall be provided from the fire 'apparatus access road to all required building exterior openings. 5. Commercial/Industrial Gates: Any gate installed across a Fire Department access road shall be in accordance with Fire District Standard #9-2. The following design requirements apply: a. Prior to the .fabrication ahd installation of the ,gates, plans are required to be submitted to Fire Construction Services (FCS) for approval. Upon the completion of the installation and before placing the gates in service, inspection_ and final acceptance"must be requested from FCS. b. Gates must slide open horizontally or swing inward. c. Gates may be motorized or manual. d. When fully open, the minimum clearance dimension of drive access shall be 20 feet. e. Manual gates must be equipped with a RCFPD lock available at the Fire Safety Office for $20.00. f. Motorized gates must open at the rate of one-foot per second. g. The motorized gate actuation mechanism must be equipped with a manual override device and afail-safe or battery backup feature to open the gate or release the locking Mechanism in case of power failure or mechanical malfunction. h. Motorized gates shall be equipped with a Knox override key switch. The switch must be installed outside the gate in a visible and unobstructed location. i. For motorized gates, a traffic loop device must be installed to allow exiting from the complex. If traffic pre-emption devices (TPD) are to be installed, the device, location and operation must be approved by the Fire Chief prior to installation. Bi-directional or multiple sensors may be required due to complexity of the various entry configurations. 6. Fire Lane Identification: Red curbing and/or signage shall identify the fire lanes. A site plan illustrating the proposed delineation that meets the minimum, Fire District standards shall be included in the architectural plans submitted to B&S for approval. 7. Approved Fire Department Access: Any approved mitigation measures must be clearly noted on the site plan. A copy of the approved Alternative Method application, if applicable, must be reproduced on the architectural plans submitted to B&S for plan review. 8. Roof Access: There shall be a means of fire department access from the exterior walls of the buildings on to the roofs of all commercial, industrial and multi-family residential structures with roofs less than 75' above the level of the fire access road. a. This access must be reachable by either fire department ground ladders or by an aerial ladder. • u 4 B -38 - b. A minimum of one ladder point with a fixed ladder shall be provided in buildings with • construction features, or high parapets that inhibit roof access. c. The number of ladder points may be required to be increased, depending on the building size and configuration. '~ °='~ d. Regardless of the parapet height or construction features the approved ladder point shall be identified in accordance to the roof access standard. e. Where the entire roof access is restricted by high parapet walls or other obstructions, a permanently mounted access ladder is required. f. Multiple access ladders may be required for larger buildings. g. Ladder construction must be in accordance with the RCFPD Roof Access Standard 9-9 Appendix A and drawings 9-9a and 9-9b. h. A site plan showing the locations of the_roof ladder shall be submitted during plan check. i. Ladder points shall face a fire access roadway(s). FSC-10 Occupancy and Hazard Control Permits Listed are those Fire Code permits commonly associated with the business operations and/or building construction. Plan check submittal is required with the permit application for approval • of the permit; field inspection is required prior to permit issuance. General Use Permit shall be required for any activity or operation not specifically described below, which in the judgment of the Fire Chief is likely to produce conditions that may be hazardous to life or property. • Battery Systems • Candles and open flames in public assemblies • Compressed Gases • Public Assembly • Cryogenics • Dry Cleaning Plants •' Refrigeration Systems • Repair Garages • Flammable and Combustible Liquids • Spraying or Dipping Operations • Hazardous Materials ' •.~, -Tents,'Canopies and/or Air Supported Structures • Liquefied Petroleum Gases • LPG or Gas Fuel Vehicles in Assembly Buildings • 5 B ~39 FSC-11 Hazardous Materials -Submittal to the County of San Bernardino The San Bernardino County Fire Department shall review your Business • Emergency/Contingency Plan for compliance with minimum standards. Contact the San Bernardino County Fire, Hazardous Materials Division at (909) 387-4631 for forms and assistance. The County Fire Department .is the Cal/EPA Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) for the City of Rancho Cucamonga. If the facility is a NEW business, a Certificate of Occupancy issued by Building & Safety will 'not be finalized untjl the San Bernardino County Fire Department reviews your Business Emergency/Contingency Plan. California Government Code, Section 65850.2 prohibits the City from issuing a final Certificate of Occupancy unless the applicant has met or is meeting specific hazardous materials disclosure requirements. A Risk Management Program (RMF) may also be required if regulation substances are to be used or stored at the new facility. 2. Any business that operates on rented or leased property which is required to submit a Plan, is also required to submit a notice to the owner of the property in writing stating that the business is subject to the Business Emergency/Contingency Plan mandates and has complied with the provisions.. The tenant must provide a copy of the Plan to the property owner within five (5) working days; if requested by the owner. FSC-12 Hazardous Materials -Submittal to Fire Construction Services Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction of buildings and/or the installation of equipment designed to store, use or dispense hazardous materials in accordance with the 2001 California Building, Fire, Mechanical, Plumbing, Electrical Codes, RCFPD Ordinances FD15 and FD39 and other implemented and/or adopted standards. • FSC-13 Alternate Method Application Fire Construction Services staff and the Fire Marshal will review all requests for alternate method, when submitted. The request must be submitted on the Fire District "Application for Alternate Method" form along with supporting documents and payment of the $92 review fee. FCS-14 Map Recordation RECIPROCAL AGREEMENTS for Fire Department Emergency Access and Water Supply are required on this project. The project appears to be located on a property that is being subdivided. The reciprocal agreement is required to be recorded between property owners and the Fire District. The recorded agreement shall include a copy of the site plan. The Fire Construction Services shall approve the agreement, prior to recordation. The agreement shall be recorded with the County of San Bernardino, Recorders Office. Reciprocal access agreement -Please provide a permanent access agreement between the owners granting irrevocable and anon-exclusive easement, favoring the Fire District to gain access to the subject property. The agreement shall include a statement that no obstruction, gate, fence, building or other structure shall be placed within the dedicated access, without Fire Department approval. The agreement shall have provisions for emergency situations and the assessing of cost recovery to the property by the fire District. Reciprocal water covenant -Please provide a permanent maintenarice and service covenant between the owners granting an irrevocable and non-exclusive easement, • favoring the Fire District for the purpose of accessing and maintaining the private water 6 B -40 U mains, valves and fire hydrants (fire protection systems facilities in general). The covenant shall have provisions for emergency situations and the assessing of cost recovery to the property by the fire District. FCS-15 Annexation of the parcel map: Annexation of the parcel map into the Community Facilities District #85-1 or.#88-1 is required prior to the issuance of grading or building permits. Chronological Summary of RCFPD Standard Conditions ' PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS- Please complete the following prior to the issuance of any building permits: Private Water Supply (Fire) Systems: The applicant shall submit construction plans, specifications, flow test data and calculations for the private water main system for review and approval by the Fire District. Plans and installation shall comply with Fire District Standards. Approval of the on-site (private) fire underground and water plans is required prior to any building permit issuance for any structure on the site. Private on-site combination domestic and fire supply system must be designed in accordance with RCFPD Standards # 9-4, #10-2 and #10-4. The Building & Safety Division and Fire Construction Services will perform plan checks and inspections. All private on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed and operable prior to delivering any combustible framing materials to the site. Fire construction Services will inspect the installation, witness hydrant flushing and grant a clearance before lumber is dropped. 2. Public Water Supply (Domestic/Fire) Systems: The applicant shall submit a plan showing the locations of all new public fire hydrants for the review and approval by the Fire District and CCWD. ~On the plan, show all existing fire hydrants within a 600-foot radius of the project. Please reference the RCFPD Water Plan Submittal Procedure Standard 9-8. All required public fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed and operable prior to delivering any combustible framing materials to the site. CCWD personnel shall inspect the installation and witness the hydrant flushing. Fire Construction Services shall inspect the site after acceptance of the public water system by CCWD. Fire Construction Services must grant a clearance before lumber is dropped. • 3. Construction Access: The access roads must be paved in accordance with~all the requirements of the RCFPD Fire Lane Standard #9-7. All temporary utilities over access roads must be installed at least 14' 6" above the finished surface of the road. 4. Fire Flow: A current fire flow letter from CCWD must be received. The applicant is responsible for obtaining the fire flow information from CCWD and submitting the letter to Fire Construction Services. 5..- .Easements, and Reciprocal Agreements: All easements and agreements must be ,. „ , recorded with the County of San Bernardino. PRIOR TO THE RELEASE OF TEMPORARY POWER The building construction must be substantially completed in accordance with Fire Construction Services' "Temporary Power Release Checklist and Procedures". B ~41 7 PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY OR FINAL INSPECTION -Please complete the following: Hydrant Markers: All fire hydrants shall have a blue reflective pavement marker • indicating the fire hydrant locatior on the street or driveway in accordance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Standard Plan 134, "Installation of Reflective Hydrant Markers". On private property, the markers shall be installed at the centerline of the fire access road, at each hydrant location. 2. Private Fire Hydrants: For the purpose of final acceptance, a licensed sprinkler contractor, in the presence of Fire Construction Services, shall conduct a test of the most hydraulically remote on-site fire hydrants. The underground fire line contractor, developer and/or owner are responsible for hiring the company to perform the test. A final test report shall be submitted to Fire Construction Services verifying the fire flow available. The fire flow available must meet or exceed the required fire flow in accordance with the California Fire Code. 3. Fire Sprinkler System: Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the fire sprinkler system(s) shall be tested and accepted by Fire Construction Services. 4. Fire Sprinkler Monitoring: Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the fire sprinkler monitoring system must be tested and accepted by Fire Construction Services. The fire sprinkler monitoring system shall be installed, tested and operational immediately following the completion of the fire sprinkler system (subject to the release of power). 5. Fire Suppression Systems and/or other special hazard protection systems shall be inspected, tested and accepted by Fire Construction Services before occupancy is granted and/or equipment is placed in service. 6. Fire Alarm System: Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the fire alarm • system shall be installed, inspected, tested and accepted by Fire Construction Services. 7. Access Control Gates: Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, vehicular gates must be inspected, tested and accepted in accordance with RCFPD Standards #9-1 or #9-2 by Fire Construction Services. 8. ~ Fire Access Roadways: Prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, the fire access roadways must be installed in accordance with the approved plans and acceptable fo Fire Construction Services. 9. The CC&R's, the reciprocal agreement and/or other approved documehts shall be recorded and contain an approved fire access roadway map with provisions that prohibit parking, specify the method of enforcement and identifies who is responsible for the required annual inspections and the maintenance of all required fire access roadways. 10. Address: Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, commercial/industrial and multi-family buildings shall post the address with minimum 8-inch numbers on contrasting background, visible from the street and electrically, illuminated during periods of darkness. _.... When the building setback exceeds 200 feet from the public street, an additional non- illuminated 6-inch minimum number address shall be provided at the property entrance. Larger address numbers will be required on buildings located on wide streets or built with large setbacks in multi-tenant commercial and industrial buildings. The suite designation numbers and/or letters shall be provided on the front and back of all suites. 11. Hazardous Materials: Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant • must demonstrate (in writing from the County) that the facility has met or is meeting the B ~42 Risk Management Plan (RMP) or Business Emergency/Contingency Plan with the San • Bernardino County Fire Department, Hazardous Materials/Emergency Response and Enforcement Division. The applicant must also obtain inspection and acceptance by Fire Construction Services. 12. Confidential 'Business Occupancy Information: The applicant shall complete the Rancho Cucamonga Fire District "Confidential Business Occupancy Information" form. This form provides contact information for Fire District use in the event of an emergency at the subject building or property. This form must be presented to the Fire Construction Services Inspector. 13. Mapping Site Plan: Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, a 8 Yz" x 11" or 11" x 17" site plan of the site in accordance with RCFPD Standard #13-1 shall be revised by the applicant to reflect the actual location of all devices and building features as required in the standard. The site plan must be reviewed and accepted by the Fire Inspector. • 9 B-43 RESOLUTION NO. 08-33 • A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP' SUBTPM19091, A PROPOSAL TO SUBDIVIDE TWO BUILDINGS (UNDER CONSTRUCTION) INTO 16 UNITS FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES IN THE COMMERCIAL OFFICE (CO) DISTRICT, SUBAREA 3, LOCATED AT 10165 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD; - AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 0208-331-30. A. Recitals. 1. Loren Phillips and Associates, on behalf of Dr. Rockny Mojabe, filed an application for the approval of Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM19091, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Tentative Parcel Map request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 13th day of August 2008, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. • NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on August 13, 2008, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to two buildings of about 22,000 square feet that are under construction in the Commercial Office (CO) District, Foothill Boulevard Districts, Subarea 3, located at 10165 Foothill Boulevard; b. The office/commercial complex, Development Review DRC2005-00287, was reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission on April 12, 2006; c. The application proposes the subdivision of two buildings into sixteen (16) , condominium units; d. No physical changes to the project site or the buildings are proposed; e. The subject property has a street frontage along Foothill Boulevard of about 239 feet with an overall depth of about 308 feet; f. The properties to the north of the subject site, across the street, consist of a variety of commercial development; the property to the west is a restaurant; the property to the east is a pre-school; and the properties to the south are developed with single-family residences; and B-44 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-33 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM19091 - MOJABE ENTERPRISES, LLC August 13, 2008 Page 2 • g. The properties to the east and west are zoned Commercial Office (CO) District, Foothill Boulevard Districts, Subarea 3; the properties to the south are zoned Low (L) Residential District; and the properties to the north are zoned Community Commercial (CC) District, z ,. Foothill Boulevard Districts, Subarea 3; and h. The subdivisioh, togetherwith the recommended conditions of approval, meets the development standards for the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed Tentative Parcel Map is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The proposed project is to subdivide two office/commercial buildings that currently under construction into sixteen (16) units for condominium purposes and is consistent with development in the vicinity. b. The proposed Tentative Parcel Map, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or imprdvements in the vicinity. The proposed parcel map will not cause, or require, a) any physical changes to the project site, b) revisions to the architecture or design of the subject • buildings, or c) any impacts on the surrounding properties. c. The proposed Tentative Parcel Map complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. The proposed subdivision meets all standards outlined in the Development Code and the design and development standards and policies of the Planning Commission and the City. 4. The Planning Department staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines. The project qualifies under the Class 1 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 Existing Facilities because the application proposes to subdivide existing structures into condominium units that will have result in no physical changes to the subject buildings. In addition, there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Planning Department's determination of exemption, and based on its own independent judgment, concurs in the staff's determination of exemption. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Planning Department 1) Approval is for the subdivision of two buildings in the Commercial Office (CO) District, Foothill Boulevard Districts, Subarea 3, at • 10165 Foothill Boulevard into sixteen (16) condominium units. B -45 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-33 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM19091 - MOJABE ENTERPRISES, LLC August 13, 2008 • Page 3 2) All conditions of approval applicable to Development Review DRC2005-00287 shall apply.- 3) Proposed land uses requiring a Conditional Use Permit, as identified in Table 17.32.030 of the Development Code, shall require a separate review and approval by the Plannirig Director and/or Planning Commission prior 4o submittal of documents for plan check and occupancy. 4) Shared access, parking, and maintenance shall be incorporated in the project Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). 5) Prior to the modification of the boundaries of a unit on the condominium plan, the applicant shall submit the proposal to the City for review and approval prior to approval of any tenant improvement's related to that modification. 6) Any increase in the number of condominium units shall require the submittal of a revised parcel map application for review and approval by the Planning Commission and the City Council. 7) The minimum floor area of each condominium unit shall be 750 square • feet. 8) Each condominium unit shall have direct access to common areas and facilities such as lobbies, restrooms, elevators, and stairways. 9) Interior improvements including, but not limited to, construction or relocation of demising walls. that separate condominium units and revisions to the location, size, or layout of common areas and facilities such as lobbies, restrooms, elevators, stairways, etc. shall require review and approval by the City to ensure compliance with alf conditions of approval and applicable building and fire safety/prevention codes and regulations. Enqineerinq Department 1) Revise City Street Improvement Plans, Drawing No. 2130, to affect an approximate 8-foot westward relocation of the Foothill Boulevard Visual Improvement Plan Route 66 street improvements (the new station of parkway improvements is available from the Engineering Department). No plan check fee will be assessed as the relocation is per the request of the engineer for-the development on the opposing side and the revision is graphically simple. The City has made a preliminary determination that the relocation can be done without adverse effects to the development. • B-46 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-33 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM19091 - MOJABE ENTERPRISES, LLC August 13, 2008 Page 4 • Building and Safety Department 1) The proposed Parcel Map must comply with Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Sections 17.22.030.A thru E; 17.22.030.G and H. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2008. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Richard B. Fletcher, Chairman ATTEST: James R. Troyer, Secretary I, James R. Troyer, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do • hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of Augus12008, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: • B ~47 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT #: SUBTPM19091 SUBJECT: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP APPLICANT: LORN PHILLIPS AND ASSOCIATES FOR DR. ROCKNY MOJABE LOCATION: 10165 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD - APN: 0208-331-30 ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: • General Requirements 1. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees maybe required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. 2. Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval No. 08-33, Standard Conditions, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet(s) are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect. 3. The applicant shall be required to pay any applicable Fish and Game fees as shown below. The project planner will confirm which fees apply to this project. All checks are to be made payable to the Clerk of the Board Supervisors and submitted to the Planning Commission Secretary prior to the Planning Commission or Planning Director hearing: a) Notice of Exemption - $50 ~ X a,.,_...,-. _...... b) Notice of Determination - $50 • SC-1-OS c) Mitigated Negative Declaration - $ 1,926.75 d) Environmental Impact Report - $2,656.75 I.\PLANNING\FINAL\PLNGCOMM\2008 Res & Stf rep1SUBTPM19091 Std Cond 6-13.doc Completion Date -/-/- -/-/- -/-/ B-48 Protect No SUBTPM19091 Comoletion Date B. Time Limits • 1. This tentative tract map or tentative parcel map shall expire, unless extended by the Planning _/_/_ Commission, unless a complete final map is filed with the Clty Engineer within 3 years from the date of the approval. C. Site Development ' ~ t. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include _/_/_ site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials'and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Department, the conditions contained herein, and the Development Code regulations. 2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions _/~_ of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. 3. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and _/_/_ State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Department to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. 4. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with alt sections of the Development Code, all _/_/_ other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 5. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be _/_/_ located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. For single-family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults. • 6. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, _/_/_ including proper illumination. 7. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Articles of Incorporation of the _/_/_ Homeowners' Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering Departments and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Map or prior to the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City Engineer. The Homeowners' Association shall submit to the Planning Department a list of the name and address of their officers on or before January 1 of each and every year and whenever said information changes. 8. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property _/_/_ owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall be submitted for Planning Director and City Engineer review and approved prior to the issuance of building permits. D. Shopping Centers - •= 1. Graffiti shall be removed within 72 hours. /-/- 2. The entire site shall be kept free from trash and debris at all times and in no event shall trash and _/_/_ debris remain for more than 24 hours. 3. Signs shall be conveniently posted for "no overnight parking" and for "employee parking only." _/_/_ • L\PLANNING\FINAL\PLNGCOMM\2008 Res & Stt rep\SUBTPM79091 Std Cond B-13.doc B-49 Protect No SUBTPM19091 4. All operations and businesses shall be conducted to comply with the following standards which • shall be incorporated into the lease agreements for all tenants: a. Noise Level -All commercial activities shall not create any noise that would exceed an exterior noise level of 60 dB during the hours of 10 p.m. until 7 a.m. and 65 dB during the hours of 7 a.m. until 10 p.m. b. Loading and Unloading - No person shall cause the loading, unloading, opening, closing, or other handling of boxes, crates, containers, building materials, garbage cans, or other ;similar objects between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. unless otherwise specified herein, in a manner which would cause a noise disturbance to a residential area. E. Signs The signs indicated on the submitted plans are conceptual only and not a part of this approval. Any signs proposed for this development shall comply with the Sign Ordinance and shall require separate application and approval by the Planning Department prior to installation of any signs. 2. A Uniform Sign Program for this development shall be submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: F. u • Dedication and Vehicular Access Reciprocal access easements shall be provided ensuring access to all parcels by CC&Rs or by deeds and shall be recorded concurrently with the map or prior to the issuance of building permits, where no map is involved. 2. Reciprocal parking agreements for all parcels and maintenance agreements ensuring joint maintenance of all common roads, drives, or parking areas shall be provided by CC & R's or deeds and shall be recorded prior to, or concurrent with, the final parcel map. I \PLANNING\FINAL\PLNGCOMM\2008 Res & Stf rep\SUBTPM19091 Std Cond 8-13 tloc Completion Date -~-~- -~-~. -~-~- -~-~- -~-~- B-50 ra ~' Z~. • T H E C I T Y O F !,'~eWnr7'.u RANCFIO CUCAMONGh Staff Report DATE: August 13, 2008 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: James R. Troyer, AICP, Planning Director BY Lois J. Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2007-00283 - EL LOCO CANTINA (FORMERLY FELIPE'S MEXICAN RESTAURANT) - A public hearing to examine the business operation to ensure that it is being operated in a manner consistent with the conditions of approval and in a manner which is not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties in the vicinity. The Planning Commission will consider modifications of the approved Conditional Use Permit. The subject restaurant is located in the Masi Plaza commercial center at 11815 Foothill Boulevard; APN: 0229-011-38 - CONTINUANCE • REQUESTED ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT DRC2007-00284 - EL LOCO CANTINA (FORMERLY FELIPE'S MEXICAN RESTAURANT) - A public hearing to examine the business operation to ensure that it is being operated in a manner consistent with the conditions of approval and in a manner which is not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties in the vicinity. The Planning Commission will consider revocation of the approved Entertainment Permit. The subject restaurant is located in the Masi Plaza commercial center at 11815 Foothill Boulevard; APN: 0229-011-38 -CONTINUANCE REQUESTED BACKGROUND: On July 29, 2008, staff received a letter from the applicant's legal counsel requesting a continuance of the items shown above to the August 13, 2008 meeting. The letter indicates their willingness to comply with the conditions of approval for both Conditional Use Permit DRC2007-00283 and Entertainment Permit DRC2007-00284. Afield inspection on August 5, 2008 however, revealed that none of the concerns or items for correction had been addressed as yet. Staff subsequently contacted the applicant's legal counsel to clarify their intentions. Their counsel responded with the attached letter with an assurance of compliance for the majority of the conditions by August 11, 2008 and with a request of a continuance to the August 27, 2008 Planning Commission meeting to allow more time to comply with the remainder of Planning Staff's concerns. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was continued from the July 9, 2008 to the specific date of August 13, 2008 and therefore no additional advertising was required for the continued hearing. • ITEMS C & D PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP DRC2007-00283 & ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT DRC20078-D0284 August 13, 2008 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the items be continued to the August 27, 2008 meeting of the Planning Commission per the applicant's request. Respectfully submitted, James R. toyer, AICP Planning Director LJS/LJS Attachments: Exhibit A: Letter dated July 29, 2008 Exhibit B: Letter dated August 6, 2008 • • • C i~~-Z 07/30/2008 13:29 3108223512 SSJ LAW LAW OFFICES OF SOLOMON, SALTSMAN & ,iAMIE50N A Partnership InclvAinF Profcv~innal Corpomlions • 426 CULVER BOULEVARD PLAYA DEL REY, CA 90293 (310) 922-9848 FAX (310) 622.3512 July 29, 2008 • VIA U.S. Mail & FACSIM~L>C - 909-477-2847 Ivlr. James Troyer, ATOP , Planning Director City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 PAGE 01/02 CITY OF RANCHO CUCgMONGA JUL 3'0 2008 RECEIVED -PLANNING RE: Loco Cantina & Grill, 1.1815 Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Conditional Use Permit ARC2007-00283 Entertainment Permit DRC2007-00284 Dear Nlr. Troyer: It was a pleasure meeting with you on July.10, 2008 to discuss this matter. I have listed below the concezlts you raised about the operation of EI Loco Cantina during our meeting and my clients' response to address those concerns: Issue # I) Possible "cover charge" required for admission to tmmises: El Loco Cantina Response: El Loco Cantina has never implemented a cover charge and has no interition of doing so in the future. Any information you have received about El Loco Cantina having a cover chazge is inwrrect. Issue #2) "Entertainment Area" including area for dancing and DJ Booth exceeds 150 Sq Ft: El Loco Cantina Response: El Loco Cantina will mark off a 150 sq ft Entertainment Area. Both the DJ Booth and dance area shall be confYned to this 150 sq ft azea. Additionally, signs shall be posted reminding patrons that dancing is only permitted within the designated area and speakers which produce sound for "live entertainment" shall be situated within the 150 sq ft area- Issue #3 Circular Tables and "Bar Stools" in middle portion of tremises: You expressed concerns about the circular tables situated in the middle portion of the premise and the bar stool type chairs which you believe are not characteristic of a restaurant operation. EI Loco Cantina Response: Although the circular tables were on the original plans • submitted to the City as part of the CUP package, to address your concerns El Loco Cantina will replace the circular tables with larger square tables (approximately .i0" by 30") of similar design to the square tables on the perimeter of the premises raw which measure 36" by 36". The slight rcduotion in size of the tables in the middle of tine ~~~O~Oj ~ CAD-3 07/30/2008 13;29 Page 2 o'f 2 3108223512 SSJ LAW PAGE 02/02 premises is necessary to maintain adequate space for foot traffic of patrons and restaurant staff. Additionally, the round baz stool type chairs will be replaced with chairs with a back rest. Because the tables and chairs must be castom ordered to match existing furniture and the costs to do so is several thousand dollars, please confirm that these replacement will address your concern so my client can place the order For the new tables and chairs. Finally, a[I tables will be set v~~ith diming utensils and menus during normal meal times. 1`ssuc # 4. Utilize Hostess Podium shown on Plans: You requested El Loco Cantina have a Hostess Podium shown on the plans submitted to the City. EI Loco Cantina Resoonse: E1 Loco Cantina has placed a F-lostess Podium inside fhe premises as shown on the Plans. Issue #5. Descrintion of security as "Bouncers" in Security Plan: You expressed concern about El Loco Cantina utilizing Bouncers for security. El Loco Cantina Response: Please be advised that the security plan was prepared by Alma De La Piedre (wife of Felipe) prior to El Loco Cantina ever havmg offered hve entertainment and was intended as a general description only of security that El Loco Cantina expected to provide. El Loco Cantina does not employ bouncers, but rather a security person who is licensed by the California Department of Consumer Affairs, Bureau of Security and Investigative Services. El Loco Cantina's Security Personnel weaz clothing identifying them as security personnel (as required by the ABC license). Additionally, when entertainment is offered during the late evening hours, EI Loco Cantina sometimes utilizes door hosts to help monitor the premises, check identification, watch for signs of intoxication, and make sure guests enjoy themselves in a responsible and safe manner. If you have any additional concerns not raised in this letter, please let me know, lrr sum, the steps outlined in this letter show El Loco Cantina has undertaken good faith corrective action to address the City's concerns and will continue to fine tune its operation with feed back from the Ciiy. We hope the corrective steps outlined in this letter will obviate the aced for a public heazing to consider revocation ofmy ciients' CUP and Entertainment Permit I cook forward to hearing from you after you have an opportunity to review this letter. very truly yours, SOLOAhO~.SALTSMAN &.1AMIESON R. BRUCE EvANS • u • C ~~+-+~ 08/06/2006 16:35 3106223512 55J LAW LAW OFFICES OF SOLOMON, SALTSMAN & ,TAMIESON • A Partncsship Including Pmf~siannl Corporations 426 CULVER BOULEVARD PLAYA DEL REY, CA 9D293 (3,0)822.9846 FAX (310) 822-3512 August 6, 2008 VIA U.S. Mail & FACSIMILE - 909-477-2847 Mr. James Troyer, AICP Planning Director City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 PAGE 01/01 12E: El Loco Cantina & Grill, 11815 Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91,730 Conditional Use Permit ARC2007-00283 Entertainment Permit AItC2007-00284 Dear Mr. Troyer: This letter is in follow up to our conversation today. First, the corrective measures outlined in my July 29, 2008 letter will be completed by 5:00 pm Monday, August 11, 2008, however, the round tables mentioned in Item # 3 will be custom ordered and my clients will increase the sire of the tables • per your request to 36" X 36". Additionally, today you requested the following additional corrective steps to address Staff's concerns: 1. The ]igirting bar must be situated within the 150 Sq F't entertainment area 2. The 4 .BL speakers must be situated within the 150 5q Ft entertainment area. This requires that the speakers be moved two feet so they are within the 150 Sq Ft entertainment area, which El Loco Cantina will do. 3. The premises must have the hostess both as shown on the plans. The above three items will be completed by Monday, August 11, 2008. You indicated in our discussion today that it was not necessary for El Loco Cantina to mark of£ or paint the 150 SQ Ft area El Loco Cantina will take the above steps to make sure the DJ Booth, lightizig, and any dancing are all within the 150 Sq Ft entertainment azea and will determine whether or oat it is beneficial to some i,ow mark off this area as well. You indicated the Planning Department will. be satisfied provided the above rr>heasures are completed.. Because the Staff Report will be distributed tomorrow for the August 13i heazing, l suggested that the August 13 hearing be continued far two weeks so that you have time to verify completion of these corrective steps before this matter is presented to the Planning Comnussion. Please let me know as soon as you can if Staff is agreeaUle to the continuance. Very truly yours, . CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA • 50LOMON SALT5MAN & JA,Iv11ESON AUG 0 6 2008 R RRIJCE EVANS ~ ~,p-s RECEIVED -PLANNING EXHIBi3 B T H E C I T Y O F R A N C FI O C U C A M O N C A Staff Report DATE: August 13, 2008 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: James R. Troyer, AICP, Planning Director BY: Lois J. Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2008-00196 -CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the Development Code Sections 17.08 - Residential Districts; 17.10 -Commercial/Office Districts; and Section 17.30 - Industrial Districts, prohibiting public storage facilities including recreational vehicle storage and mini-storage in Residential Districts (with the exception of the provision for such facilities permitted or conditionally permitted within the Terra Vista' Community Plan) and Commercial Districts. The proposed amendment • also amends Section 17.30 from permitting storage facilities "by right" and to require a Conditional Use Permit for all storage facility applications. Staff has determined that the project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15061 (b) (3). Related files: Victoria Community Plan Amendment DRC2008-00561. This item will be forwarded to the City Council for final action. VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2008-00561 -CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the Victoria Community Plan revoking Ordinance No. 287 and prohibiting public storage facilities including recreational vehicle storage and mini-storage in all Residential Districts. Staff has determined that the project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15061 (b) (3). Related files: Development Code Amendment DRC2008-00196. This item will be forwarded to the City Council for fnal action. ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2008-00566 -CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the use regulations for the Residential Districts of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan to prohibit recreational vehicle storage facilities within the planned community. Staff has determined that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15061 (b) (3). Related files: Development Code Amendment DRC2008- 000196 and Victoria Community Plan Amendment DRC2008-00561. This item will be forwarded to the City Council for final action. • ITEM E,F & G PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2008-00196, VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2008-00561, AND ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2008-00566 • August 13, 2008 Page 2 BACKGROUND: In July of 2007, the Planning Department performed a survey of self storage facilities citywide at the request of the City Council. Following this initial report another staff report was prepared for the Council on October 17, 2007, which provided a comprehensive study of the various regulations for such facilities currently used by ten neighboring cities. Additionally, the impacts of these facilities on Residential and Commercial/Office zones were considered both from concerns expressed by residents as well as land use development impacts and compatibility issues experienced in the Commercial/Office zones. The resulting conclusions discussed below led staff to prepare this amendment for the consideration of the Planning Commission, and if approval is recommended, it will subsequently be forwarded to the City Council for final action. ANALYSIS: As part of the City Council's goals for 2007, the Planning Department was asked to conduct a survey and analysis of self storage facilities citywide. The details of that survey and analysis are included in the attached staff reports dated July 2, 2007, October 17, 2007 and a memorandum dated October 22, 2007. Staff's research indicated the majority of facilities are located south of Foothill Boulevard in the Industrial zones. Additionally, it was found that most storage facilities had a 50 percent or higher occupancy rate at the time of the study and that staff would provide additional review to ensure that new storage facilities are not placed in locations of high commercial viability. A subsequent report was prepared on October 17, 2007. This report comprehensively compared the regulations of ten neighboring cities. The result of • this research concluded that the majority of cities surveyed allow self-service storage facilities in industrial and commercial type zones; that the City of Rancho Cucamonga is alone in allowing such facilities within residential zones; and that most cities require a Conditional Use Permit regardless of the zone. Additionally, it was found that many storage facilities in other cities are limited to commercial parcels that are freeway or highway adjacent. Another consideration of staff's analysis has been the impacts of such facilities on residents. With the approval of Ordinance No. 719, self-storage facilities are currently permitted with a Conditional Use Permit within residential zones under certain circumstances. It was thought that these facilities could provide a buffer or transition area between existing residential neighborhoods and adjacent non-residential land uses. Since the adoption of this Ordinance and the subsequent development of a facility in the Residential District, staff has received many complaints about noise, security, night time lights, a perceived loss of property value, and glare directly resultant of the facility operation located adjacent to homes/residences. Various avenues of mitigation were explored including more restrictive hours of operation, shielded/dimmed lighting, security gates, higher perimeter walls, muted exterior paint colors and varied roof materials. None of these measures proved to be entirely successful. It has been concluded that there are inherent conflicts between residential and storage facility uses that cannot be satisfactorily mitigated. Because commercial zones are often located adjacent to residential zones, the permitting of storage facilities in commercial/office zones also needed to be evaluated. Staffs research revealed that not only do storage facilities in commercial zones that are adjacent to homes/residences affect the residents; they also impact the City's ability to develop commercial • areas with more compatible uses. Storage facilities, when located in commercial zones, can t,F~-G-Z PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2008-00196, VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2008-00561, AND • ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2008-00566 August 13, 2008 Page 3 detract from other commercial uses, often creating a less than desirable mix of business operations that could lead to a failure of certain commercial areas. The development of these facilities in such zones can also preclude other, more compatible, uses to be developed in the remaining space available in those same commercial areas. Further, with the approximate 90 percent buildout of the City, careful consideration should be given when evaluating possible uses that may ultimately affect the overall health of the commercial core. Finally, the proposed amendment considers storage facility applications overall. Currently, in the Industrial Districts, storage facilities are permitted "by right" in the General Industrial District, Subareas 3 and 8, and in the Heavy Industrial District, Subarea 15. The research revealed the possibility of an over concentration of public storage areas within the Industrial Districts. In staff's opinion, such applications regardless of the applicable district should be subject to the granting of a Conditional Use Permit rather than permitting "by right." This would allow for a more appropriate planning process to address any potential over concentration issues as well as ensuring that the operating characteristics of these storage facilities are compatible with the surrounding area. Therefore, Staff has determined that preparing an amendment to the Development Code prohibiting storage facilities within the Residential and Commercial/Office zones as well as • requiring a Conditional Use Permit for any new applications for such facilities for Commission and Council consideration would be in order. EXCEPTION OF FACILITIES PERMITTED WITHIN THE TERRA VISTA COMMUNITY PLAN: The Terra Vista Community Plan adopted in 1983, incorporates a specific development agreement between the City and Lewis Development. Amendments to the agreement can be made with the consent of the Lewis Companies. Currently, the plan allows for storage facilities in the Residential, Commercial and Mixed-Use zones with a Conditional Use Permit. Although there are parcels of open land in these zones along Foothill Boulevard, the visibility of these properties along Historic Route 66 as well as the commercial viability of these properties are such that development of storage facilities there would not be supported by staff and would preclude any new storage facilities from being developed in these locations. Staff has determined that with the current standards in place, an amendment to the development agreement need not be pursued at this time. VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT: The Victoria Community Plan adopted in 1980, employs a development concept which encourages walkable neighborhoods, wooded vistas, and bike trails with the idea of minimizing use of automobile travel. The overall design of the community restricts the parking of recreational vehicles. Because of the recognized need for residents to store their recreation vehicles within close proximity of their dwellings, an amendment to the plan (85-01, Ordinance No. 287) provides for storage facilities located within the boundaries of the planned community • in the Medium-High and High Residential land use categories. The facilities are provided for on a capped (25% of lots contained within the plan), per dwelling unit percentage basis which can E,F +G-3 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2008-00196, VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2008-00561, AND ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2008-00566 • August 13, 2008 Page 4 be adjusted yearly at the direction of the Planning Commission. Such facilities may only be developed with a Conditional Use Permit and additional findings must be made prior to the approval of the permit. Although the majority of the community is built out, there are viable locations within the plan boundaries that could currently allow development of new storage facilities. Considering the possible impacts to adjacent residences, staff believes including the Victoria Planned Community in the overall amendment restrictions would be in order. ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT: This community area has an emphasis on reflecting the historical nature of the original Etiwanda Colonies as well as promoting the rural character of the area with the incorporation of equestrian trails and many larger residential properties. Additionally, this area provides opportunities to preserve open space and for the annexation of lands located in the City's sphere of influence. The Etiwanda North Specific Plan, adopted in' 1992, currently permits recreational vehicle storage yards within the Low (L) Residential District with a Conditional Use Permit. In keeping with the proposed Development Code Amendment, staff believes for consistency purposes, the current provision for storage facilities be removed from the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, Table 3 -Use .Regulations for Residential Districts. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: 'The Planning Department Staff has determined that the project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) • Section 15061 (b) (3). In this case, the ordinance constitutes a text amendment that further restricts and/or limits the possible locations of future storage facilities that will serve to reduce potential significant impacts and there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Planning Commission should review the Planning Department's conclusion and make its own determination of exemption. FACTS FOR FINDING: Staff's research produced substantial evidence of fact to support this amendment proposal. Under the current Development Code text there have been some public storage facilities allowed that have resulted in some negative impacts on residents such as noise, light, glare, security and a perceived loss of property value, which does not reflect appropriate development within the Residential District. Permitting such facilities in the Commercial/Office District contributes to such impacts on adjacent residential properties in addition to limiting the development of more compatible uses commonly found in commercial zones. Additionally, permitting such facilities "by right" within the Industrial Districts could result in an over concentration within these areas. Hence, with the requirement of a Conditional Use Permit, any new storage facilities will be appropriately evaluated for possible impacts to neighboring uses and/or prevent the possibility of the over concentration of these uses in the Industrial Districts. CORRESPONDENCE: Because the proposed amendments affect various large areas of the City and possibly more than 1,000 residents, the items were advertised as a public hearirig in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaperwith a 1/8th page legal ad. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of • Development Code Amendment DRC2008-00196, Victoria Community Plan Amendment E,F+G-y PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2008-00196, VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2008-00561, AND • ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2008-00566 August 13, 2008 Page 5 DRC2008-00561, and Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2008-00566, through adoption of the attached Resolutions recommending approval of the draft Ordinances including the related Exhibits. The Planning Commission may move for action on each of the items individually or as a whole and act accordingly. Following the Planning Commission's recommendations, the amendments will be forwarded to the City Council for final action. Respectfully submitted, ~. - Jam s .Troyer, AICP Plan g Director JRT/LS Attachments: Exhibit A -City Council staff report dated July 2, 2007 Exhibit B -City Council staff report dated October 17, 2007 Exhibit C -Memorandum/Review of Self-Storage Facilities dated October 22, 2007 • Draft Resolution of Approval for Development Code Amendment DRC2008 - 00196 Draft Resolution of Approval for Victoria Community Plan Amendment DRC2008-00561 Draft Resolution of Approval for Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2008-00566 • E,P+G-5 • ~~~~ :~,; ..= ~`~ - ~_: T H E C I T Y O F rr. ~.n a^ -. ~ . P' p .. RANCBO CUCAMONG}Af Staff Report DATE: July 2, 2007 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: James R. Troyer, AICP, Planning Director BY: Yasmin Flores, Planning Aide SUBJECT: SELF STORAGE FACILITY SURVEY IN RANCHO CUCAMONGA As part of the City Council goals for 2007 the City Council asked for the Planning Department to do a survey and analysis of self storage facilities citywide. Attached is a spreadsheet and map outlining self storage facilities in Rancho Cucamonga. As of July 3, 2007 there are thirteen self-storage facilities located in the City of Rancho • Cucamonga. As demographics play a factor in where these businesses can be located; the majority of facilities are located south of Foothill Boulevard in the Industrial Zoned areas. The storage facilities contain anywhere from 335 to 2000 units. Each facility caters to the different needs of its clientele; from boat/RV parking to enclosed square footage for personal belongings. The majority of the storage facilities have 50 percent or higher in occupancy rates, with exceptions being those that have just recently opened or will be opening in the near future. Staff will review our self storage requirements in the future to ensure that storage facilities are not placed in locations of high commercial viability. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this report. • Attachments: Survey of Self-Storage spreadsheet Map EXHIBIT A ~,r ~G-b • ..,- ... if =:Ke ; ;°~ ~`;'` Busirie'ss Name/Aiidiess >; ~ r,r ; ;._, :F.acili :T " e_. ! .;No: ofUnifs7S aces? ~`Occu ans~;'Rate~ A Cardinal Self Storage Enclosed 550 85% 9605 Arrow Route B Aim All Storaqe IV Enclosed 759 90% 10005 Arrow Route C Public Storage Enclosed 971 74% 10701 Arrow Route D Stor-N-Lock Self Storaqe Enclosed 658 27% 10975 Arrow Route E Stor Quest Selt Storaqe Enclosed 579 88% 11998 Arrow Route 335 F Rancho Cucamonga RV & Boat RV & Boai 31 uncovered 92% 12050 Arrow Route 32 covered • 272 Enclosed G All-In-Storaqe Enclosed 430 under 12330 Arrow Route construction Victoria RV Self Storage 450 H 12360 Base Line Road RV zzs covered gq°/, • 225 uncovered I Storage Max Enclosed 2000 BO% 8363 Foothill Blvd J Storguesi Rancho Enclosed 669 75% 9419 Ham shire St K Aim All Storaqe Enclosed 1234 62% 6599 Haven Avenue L Hermosa Storaqe Center Enclosed 1029 85% 8949 Hermosa Ave M Let's Store It RV & Enclosed 978 8866 Utica Ave 95a Enclosed g5% • 20 RVs aces '5elf~servlce'Storage;Factllty,~mdans eny~real; ptopertyae ;igned~and .usetl,tor the~p uFpose;of!renting or9easing, lndlvitlaalstorage spaces:. ~,io occu ants,wlth access,to such.foiahe~ u ose oEstorir ig and,iemoving~peisonal ~pioperty ~`;,,.~zF~g~ ~_ ~: .{; IY~_ - ~ ,~:,,' , Who's Using Self-Storage? Understanding renter characteristics ~s the key to predicting self-sorage demand and growth markets. Like all commercial real estate segments, demand is tied to several factors, including population growth, household formation, rental household growth, and acceptance of self-storage as a viable option for space needs. Sett-storage's pervasiveness is apparent through user market studies. For instance, of the estimated 112 million U.S. households, approximately 10 million, or about 9 percent, currently are renting sell-storage for personal use. This is up from 6 percent a decade ago. Another 1.4 million commercial businesses also are estimated to be renting self-storage. Additionally, 24.5 million households have used self-storage in the past five years, with an estimated 7.3 million renters intending to lease self-storage space wdhin the next 12 months. Source Self-Storage Assoaation's 2005 Self-Storage Demand Studv • E.F~G-`~ Self Service Storage Facilities in • Rancho Cucamonga • 19TH ` ~ Fi K BASE LINE ,~r CHURCH FOOTHILL O I ~ R (ARROW W 8TH 2 -+ 0 . J J m _ ' ' ~ i iw 4TH A B IL M C O E,F G (.J N • June 27, 2007 E, r ~ G-8 ..., -~ C! ~'Ry .~ T H E C I T Y O F ~.~ R A N C U O C U C A M O N G A Staff Report DATE: October 17, 2007 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, Cit y Manager FROM: James R. Troyer, AICP Planning Director BY: Jennifer Nakamura, Associate Planner SUBJECT: SELF-SERVICE STORAGE FACILTIES SURVEY RECOMMENDATION: That Planning staff present to City Council a recommendation to process a Development Code Amendment requiring all self storage facilities to require a Conditional Use Permit and prohibit self storage facilities in all residential and general commercial zones. • BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: As a follow-up to aself-service storage facility survey completed in July 2007, staff is providing a comparison of self-service storage facility regulations from surrounding cities for a comparison to Rancho Cucamonga's self-service storage facility regulations. Staff reviewed the self-service storage facility regulations of ten neighboring cities (Fontana, Claremont, San Bernardino, Chino, Upland, Redlands, San Dimas, Montclair, Moreno Valley and Corona) and found three characteristics of most self-storage regulations. 1. Location: Nine of the surveyed cities allowed self-service storage facilities in industrial and commercial type zones. Rancho Cucamonga allows these facilities in residential, industrial and general commercial zones. 2. Permit: Seven of the ten surveyed cities required conditional use permits for all zones. Some cities allowed self-service storage facilities as a permitted use in Industrial zones, or for ancillary uses. Rancho Cucamonga allows these facilities as a permitted use in industrial zones and requires a conditional use permit for the General Commercial and Residential zones. 3. Use: All of the cities except for Fontana allowed self-service facilities as a primary use within their city. One city, Claremont, restricted the use as ancillary only within specified commercial zones. Rancho Cucamonga allows self-service storage facilities to be a primary use in all approved zones. A closer look at the cities shows that self-service storage facilities are allowed in similar zones. Every city allowed self-service storage facilities in some of their Commercial and Industrial • zones, except for Corona which allowed them in Light Industrial zones only. The cities were also --EXHIBIT B e,F ~ G- ~ very similar in their uses. Every city except Fontana, Chino and Claremont allowed primary use in all approved zones. Claremont allowed primary use in two zones, but ancillary use only in Commercial Freeway and Commercial Highway. Chino allowed primary use in Industrial zones but ancillary use only (max 5,000 sq.ft.) in their Business Park. Fontana did not allow self- • service storage facilities to be a primary use anywhere in the city, allowing them only as ancillary uses to commercial units with a maximum size of 5,000 square feet. Seven of the ten cities (Fontana, Claremont, San Bernardino, Chino, Montclair, San Dimas and Corona) required Conditional Use Permits for all approved zones. Self-service storage facilities are a permitted use in the Industrial zones of Redlands, Upland and Moreno Valley, yet the commercial districts required a conditional use permit. Within the City of Rancho Cucamonga, self-service storage facilities require a conditional use permit for all zones except for General Industrial (Subareas 2 & 8) and Heavy Industrial (Subarea 15), where these uses are permitted by right. Rancho Cucamonga is the only city in our study that permits self-storage facilities within a residential zone. On November 19, 2003, Ordinance 719 was approved, amending the Development Code to allow self-storage facilities within residential zones, under specific circumstances, with approval of a Conditional Use Permit. One such facility has been constructed under the current standards and staff has been working with both the storage facility and the adjacent neighbors through conflicts with noise, security and lighting that have occurred on site. While the intent of the Ordinance was to provide an opportunity to mitigate land use conflicts where there is a transition between an existing residential neighborhood and adjacent non-residential land uses. Based on the survey and our experience, these types of facilities, originally designed to be a transitional land use, have inherent conflicts with residential uses that cannot be mitigated. Staff recommends amending the Development Code to eliminate this conflict. A closer review of our General Commercial zone indicates that 53% of all General Commercial parcels currently zoned in the City of Rancho Cucamonga are adjacent to at least one residential zoned parcel. Operation of a self storage facility adjacent to residential uses creates conflicts due to the lighting and security .requirements of the self-storage facility. Most of the • cities that permitted self-service storage facilities within commercial zones reflected commercial zones that were highway or freeway adjacent. The majority of our General Commercial zone runs along Foothill Boulevard. There are many similarities between the City's self-service storage regulations and those of neighboring cities. Most cities require conditional use permits for all self-storage facilities and many self-storage facilities are limited to commercial parcels that are freeway or highway adjacent. Existing self-storage facilities in General Commercial zones adjacent to residential have proven to have compatibility issues between the two uses. Prohibiting self-storage facilities in all Residential zones and the General Commercial zone will prevent future compatibility issues with residential uses and preserve our commercial core. Requiring a conditional use permit for any self-storage facility in industrial zones prevents over concentration of self-storage facilities in any one industrial zone or area. Respectfully submittedl,,, - . , ,~ Jam R. Troyer 0 Plan ing Director JT: JN/BT • E F~G-~o • • 'O c ' C N C N ~ T m N N ' N ~ LL N ~ ~ ~ O L N C N f0 3 O (0 N ~ C N~ _ C L >, O > ~ d (9 O) Ul U V ~ N N> O) > N C C ~ 'O N ~ N -O m N K ~ N~ j .0I N C B N N f0 ~ N R U N N > T^ C O C m R > U N 2~ N~ d E ° (0 m °~ O ~ N (0 ~ a~ m N Lp f6 m ~ m? E m ` m m N X a m /9 ~ E _ g~ ~~ x N m O) ~= N E O 2 C L . O~ ... U N N V1 ... ~ E ~ '` "O 00 ~ C C LL C E ~ ~ ... - c N Z' E C E U T C N l 4 O C N >. N U '~ C (0 N N N `-' O E- .C N .N E L t0 01 N (0 Vl N Q `l N~> ~ ~ c o~ ~ m j -' ~~ Z' rn o Z` ~ Z` Z' ~ 3 o N ~ ~ L E C O N N O C Z C ~ j ? .~ V i N j N C~ ~ C ~p ~ C C D_ N 0 ~ N U N Z' N ~ ~ Z' O ~ Z• "' ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, d ~, ~ N O ~ E o ~ E N' E E~ E ' E E ~'~ E f6 E s c Q m u '- ~ m ~ Y ' ~ E ' o ,J a` c ¢ Ern ° c o a`m¢U a` ~' c c m a¢a. 'c o a~ aU~ .- o v a` ~o .- a`ci m o m a`~m ~' ~ ~ = m ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ v. ~ ~ ~ ~ m C7 ~ E ~ ~ ~_ E E rn m N .N. ~ ~ E E U a ~ N E E J ° N ~ ~ -° C7 N a N a N a N o_ ~ c y m C~ m '~ N d U/ a l:d ~ o o a~ a~ ~ m~ m o Q~ V1 N O] Q = = O C ~ C N T J J ~ ~E ow~~ c c c c ~° ~m f6 m W d N .... ~ a E O : .~ .0 .~ C "O c C= ,O O d ~~ E °? a~ o c ~ ~ ~ L o >` > m ... 'v a a o c 0 0 0 o~U ~'` E o 0 ;aE~~ N -o v U N U U -~R Salm a U U O NN %n c n ~ N N ,~ ~ ,~ E a~ ~ m ~ In o = N ° ~ _ > _ > o.~ O N mE N _ > _ > ~/~ v/ ~ C f0 (0 =~ N N ~ N ~ N N ~~ N° ~ U O N ~ N W N O N O~~ Ul N N T N N C N N N N N N C~° E N N °N N E L E j 'D ~ N ~U~¢U ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ D_2 d ~ ~ ¢ ¢ W ~ ~ N f0 N .~ T N l9 = N L T T L (0 .~ 0/ ' ~ N ` ~ N ~ O) > O ~ U C ~ ~ J C ° N _~ j E L rn C~ m J N L m ~ 1D ( p ¢ > E C a - W m E m o d ~ ' 2 o~ i m a ' T L U m ~ m ~ w E 'o o,o2 U 2L co Y~ m2 ~2 m~ o m mo~Y U B O O ~ ~ ,N f0 N U C N . R ' (U f0 ~ N J 2 ~ ~ N C d. m ~ ~ . Iq C~ ~ m . N O U C 2 f0 'C C~ d ~ v U C U ~ N v o - ~ N ' ~ ` (4 N S W t6 ` 'O ~ C l0 U m f6 E E 'v .u ~ U U ~p ~p m> a`~ w E N ~~ ~ N E aNi ;n 3 E N N E E in in c a i N ~ E ~ a..• E N ....~ c T ~ N E w w m c m c ~ E E o°° E E E> > n 'u >> s E m> > E ~ R °~ ~ E ~ ~.c an d a~ C72C~ m o ~U o 'o ~ 0 U ~ 0 0~ 'o c , ~ -o 'o c m o o -o o ~ ~~ 'm o m m~ a u_U UU ~ m ~ .7 V 2 ~U ~U~E U~~m m 0 E o ~ C U 'p U ~ U ~ c N N E O m ° . ~ U W N m O C (6 ~ U ~ CO ~ C C R ~ C ~ ~ ti U rn U ~ ~ cn g E,F a-G- 1~ a E ~ E s o m N U N .J ~ C ` - N C - N ~ N N 'O N ~ C ~ ~ ~' m ~ m N ~ ~ c . 0 ~ ~ ~ _ ~ E E E Q `v ` J a a W c ~ ~ ~ E m ~ U `~ J o c U a ~ ~ V J W d ~ N O ~ a N E E ~~ a ~ - a~ m f"' w7- ~ ~ ~ m v ~ ~ c W ooo g '' E .. ~ ~ E a~oo c o ~ ac~c~ c> W ~ (n U I ~ E -~ ~ E W ° o ~ ~ U ~ ~ '~ U >` .~ N J ~ ~ '=o c -o c E c - E-o _ ~ o c m U m _~ ~ U j o ~ c ~ c o 0 0 ~ V • • E,r ~ G- 12 ~_,. yes `} • Ya I2Y:. .:~ T H E C I T Y O F R A N C U O C U C!A M~ O N G A Memorandum DATE: October 22, 2007 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: James R. Troyer, AIC~ Planning Director BY: Jennifer Nakamura, Associate Planner SUBJECT: REVIEW OF SELF-SERVICE STORAGE FACILTIES RECOMMENDATION: That Planning staff be directed to hold study sessions with the Planning Commission to finalize a Development Code Amendment implementing recommendations on self storage facilities to be forwarded to City Council for consideration at a later date. • BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: As part of the City Council goals for 2007, the City Council asked for the Planning Department to conduct a survey and analysis of self storage facilities citywide. On July 2, 2007, staff submitted a staff report to Council and found a total of 13 self storage facilities with a total of 10,642 available units/spaces (Attachment A). On October 17, 2007 staff presented a follow up report, recommending that self storage facilities be prohibited in all residential and commercial zones and requiring a conditional use permit for all self storage facilities in all zones (Attachment B). In order for staff to be able to fully evaluate the proposed development code amendment and its implications on property owners and the development community, staff proposes to hold study sessions with the Planning Commission to review and refine the proposed changes to self storage standards. Attachment A: Staff Report -Self Storage Facility Survey in Rancho Cucamonga Attachment B: Staff Report -Self Storage Facilities Survey • EXHIBIT C E, r ~ G - t3 • RESOLUTION NO. 08-35 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2008-00196, AMENDING PORTIONS OF SECTION 17.08 - RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS; SECTION 17.10 - COMMERCIAL/OFFICE DISTRICTS; AND SECTION 17.30 -INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA DEVELOPMENT CODE, PROHIBITING PUBLIC STORAGE FACILITIES INCLUDING RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTSAND COMMERCIALZONES (WITH EXCEPTION OF THE PROVISION FOR SUCH FACILITIES PERMITTED OR CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED WITHIN THE TERRA VISTA COMMUNITY PLAN). THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT ALSO AMENDS SECTION 17.30 FROM PERMITTING STORAGE FACILITIES "BY RIGHT" AND TO REQUIRE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ALL STORAGE FACILITY APPLICATIONS; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. 1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga filed an application for Development Code Amendment No. DRC2008-00196, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Code Amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 13th day of August 2008, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing • on that date. 3. The proposed amendment contemplates revoking previously approved Development Code Amendment DRC2003-00709 which was adopted by the Planning Commission by their Resolution 03-138, and subsequently adopted by the City Council on November 19, 2003 by their Ordinance No. 719, which currently allows public storage facilities within residential zones; and 4. .The application applies to properties located within all residential land use districts as defined in Section 17.08 of the Development Code as shown in Table 17.08.030 -Use Regulations for Residential Districts (except where permitted within the boundaries defined by the Terra Vista Community Plan) within the City; and 5. The application additionally applies to properties located within the Commercial/Office Districts, Section 17.10.030 -Use Regulations, and as shown on Table 17.10.030 Use Regulations for Commercial/Office Districts: and 6. The application further applies to properties located within the Industrial Districts (General Industrial and Heavy Industrial), Section 17.30.030 as shown on Table 17.30.030 -Use Regulations for Industrial Districts; and 7. The application contemplates the requirement of a Conditional Use Permit be issued for all future storage facility applications regardless of the zone designation; and 8. This amendment specifically excludes provisions for such storage facilities already provided for in the Terra Vista Community Plan; and • E,F+G- ~~{ PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. OS-35 DCA DRC2008-00196 -CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA August 13, 2008 Page 2 9. The proposed amendment is filed in concert with the related Victoria Community Plan Amendment DRC2008-00561 and the Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2008-00566; and 10. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on August 13, 2008, including written and oral staff reports, togetherwith public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: u a. Because the current text in the Development Code allows such uses in residential zones, storage facilities have been developed in these areas. Subsequent to that development, impacts such as noise, glare, night time lights, security and a perceived loss of property value to residents located near or adjacent to such facilities are found to be detrimental to their health, safety and could be materially injurious to those residential property owners; and • b. Additionally, the current text in the Development Code allows such uses in the Commercial/Office (CO) District, which also limits the potential for compatible uses within that zone and by restricting these uses in this district provides for development more consistent with the intent of the Development Code and the possible adjacent uses allowed within that district; and c. The current table in the Development Code for use regulations within the Industrial Districts allows for such facilities to be permitted by right within the General Industrial (GI) zone, Subareas 3 and 8, and the Heavy Industrial (HI) zone, Subarea 15, which could result in an over concentration of storage facilities in any one industrial zone or area. d. Further, the proposed text amendment allows the establishment and permitting of any public or self Storage Facility only with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit, regardless of the zone designation; and 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will provide for future development which is more compatible within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; and and b. This amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Development Code; • e,F ~G-~5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-35 DCA DRC2008-00196 -CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA August 13, 2008 Page 3 • c. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and The proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan. 4. The Planning Department Staff has determined that the project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15061 (b) (3). Because the current text in the Development Code allows such uses in residential zones, storage facilities have been developed in these areas. Subsequent to that development, impacts such as noise, glare, night time lights, security and a perceived loss of property value to residents located near or adjacent to such facilities are found to be detrimental to their health, safety and could be materially injurious to those residential property owners. In this case, the ordinance constitutes a text amendment that further restricts and/or limits the possible locations of future storage facilities that will serve to reduce potential significant impacts. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Planning Departments determination of exemption, and based on its own independent judgment, concurs in the staffs determination of exemption. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby recommends approval of Development Code Amendment No. DRC2008-00196 by the adoption of the attached City Council Ordinance amending Section 17.08.030, Table17.08.030 -Use Regulations for Residential Districts as shown on Exhibit A and Section 17.10.030, Table 17.10.030 -Use Regulations for Commercial/Office Districts and Table 17.30.030 -Use Regulations for Industrial Districts as shown on Exhibit C of the attached draft • Ordinance . 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2008. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: ATTEST: Richard B. Fletcher, Chairman James R. Troyer, AICP, Secretary I, James R. Troyer, AICP, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the13th day of August 2008, by the following vote-to-wit: • C, F k G- IMP PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-35 DCA DRC2008-00196 -CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA August 13, 2008 ' Page 4 C~ J AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: • u E,F tG -11 ORDINANCE NO. • AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2008-00196; AMENDING PORTIONS OF SECTION 17.08 - RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS; SECTION 17.10 - COMMERCIAL/OFFICE DISTRICTS; AND SECTION 17.30 - INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA DEVELOPMENT CODE, PROHIBITING PUBLIC STORAGE FACILTIES INCLUDING RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS AND COMMERCIAL ZONES (WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE PROVISION FOR SUCH FACILITIES PERMITTED OR CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED WITHIN THE TERRA VISTA COMMUNITY PLAN) THE AMENDMENT ALSO AMENDS SECTION 17.30 FROM PERMITTING STORAGE FACILITIES "BY RIGHT" AND TO REQUIRE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ALL STORAGE FACILITY APPLICATIONS; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. 1. On August 13, 2008, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing with respect to the above referenced Development Code Amendment DRC2008-00196 and, following the conclusion thereof, adopted its • Resolution No. 08-35, recommending that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopt said Development Code Amendment. 2. On ".'**', 2008, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Development Code Amendment. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain as follows: SECTION 1: This City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct. SECTION 2: Based upon substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above-referenced public hearing on '**'", 2008, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, the City Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The proposed amendment applies to properties within the City of Rancho Cucamonga; and b. The proposed amendment contemplates amending text in the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Section 17.08 ,Use Regulations for Residential Districts as • shown in Table 17.08.030, Section 17.10.030, Use Regulations for Commercial/Office Districts as shown in Table 17.10.030, to prohibit storage facilities in all Residential Districts (except E,F ~G- IS CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2008-00196 ""* 2008 Page 2 where already provided for by the Terra Vista Community Plan) and in the CommerciallOffice Districts. The amendment also amends Section 17.30.030 -Use Regulations for Industrial Districts and removes the provision for storage facilities "by right" and further requires a Conditional Use Permit for all storage facility applications; and c. Additionally, the current text in the Development Code allows such uses in the Commercial Office (CO) District, which also limits the potential for compatible uses within that zone and by restricting these uses in this district provides for development more consistent with the intent of the Development Code and the possible adjacent uses allowed within that district; and d. The current table in the Development Code for use regulations within the Industrial Districts allows for such facilities to be permitted "by right" within the General Industrial (GI) zone, Subareas 3 and 8, and the Heavy Industrial (HI) zone, Subarea 15, which could result in an over concentration of storage facilities in any one industrial zone or area. e. The application further requires a Conditional Use Permit be issued for all future storage facility applications regardless of the zone designation; and f. The subject amendment identified in this Ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15061 (b) (3). Because the current text in the Development Code allows such uses in residential zones, storage facilities have been developed in these areas. Subsequent to that development, the impacts to residents located near or adjacent to such facilities such as noise, glare, night time lights, security and perceived loss of property value are found to be detrimental to their health, safety and could be materially injurious to those residential property owners. In this case, the ordinance constitutes a text amendment that further restricts and/or limits the possible locations of future storage facilities that will serve to reduce potential significant impacts. The City Council has reviewed Staff's determination of exemption, the Planning Commission's adoption of that exemption, and further concurs with the determination of exemption. SECTION 3: Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Council hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; and Code, and b. This amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Development c. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and d. The proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan. • u • Ear ~~~ ~~ CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2008-00196 **** 2008 • Page 3 SECTION 4: Development Code Section 17.08, Table 17.08.030 -Use Regulations for Residential Districts, is hereby amended to change, in wards and figures, as shown in the attached Exhibit "A." SECTION 5: Development Code Section 17.10, Table 17.10.030 -Use Regulations for Commercial/Office Districts, is hereby amended to read, in words and figures, as shown in Exhibit "B." SECTION 6: Development Code Section 17.30 Table 17.30.030 -Use Regulations for Industrial Districts, is hereby amended to read, in words and figures, as shown in Exhibit "C." SECTION 7: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this Ordinance is, for any reason, deemed or held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, or preempted by legislative enactment, such decision or legislation shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or words thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, clauses, phrases, or words might subsequently be declared invalid or unconstitutional or preempted by subsequent legislation. • SECTION 8: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published within 15 days after its passage at least once in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. • CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2008-00196 '*** 2008 • Page 4 EXHIBIT A Table 17.08.030 -Use Regulations for Residential Districts ~~ • USE VL L LM M MH H 1. ility or Service Facility C C C C C C 6 6 6 6 S C Accessory Uses 1. Accessory Structure P P p p p p 2. Antenna p p p p p p 3. Caretaker's Residence C C C C C C 4. Guest House p p p _ _ _ 5. Home Occupation P p p p p p 6. Lodging Unit P P P - - _ 7. Other Accessory Uses p p p p p p 8. Private Garage p p p p p p 9. Private Swimming Pool P p p p p p 10. Second Dwelling Unit (including P elder cottage) p p P p p 11. Feed & Tack Store (if accessory to commeraal stable) C - - - - 12. Dormitory (if accessory to college or school) C C C C C C 13. Uses in Historic Structures C C C C C C D Temporary Uses 1. Temporary Uses as prescribed in Section 17.04.070 and subject to P P P P p p those provisions. 2. Temporary trailers for use in conjunction with religious and C C C C C C agricultural uses for a specified interim period. ~.~~G. oynw~~ uiwcaies permiaee in con~uncuon witn opuonai development standards only. P =Permitted Use ~', Y ~ 6-'21 CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC20b8-00'196 •wwx 2008 Page 5 C =Conditional Use Permit required EXHIBIT B Table 17.10.030 -Use Regulations for Commercial/Office Districts 17e I e.~ ~ 42. Locksmith shop. - P P age e h - - C - 6 45. Mortuaries a s.. C 46. Music, dance, and martial arts studio. - P P 47 Newspaper and magazine stores. P P P 48. Nurseries and garden supply stores; provided, in the NC district, all equipment, supplies and material are kept within an enclosed area, and provided that fertilizer is stored in acka ed form onl . P P 49. Office and business machine stores. P P P 50. Office supply stores. P - P 51. Parking facilities (commercial) where fees are char ed. P P 52. Pawn shops. - - C 53. Pet shop. - P P 54. Political or philanthropic headquarters. P P P 55. Plumbing shop and supplies. - - P 56. Photocopy. P P P 57. P ing shop - teFage-~Fa~ - - s 9. estauran s (ot n oo a. With entertainment and/or cocktail lounge and bar. b Incidental serving of beer and wine but without a cocktail lounge, bar, entertainment, or dancin . C P C P C P 60. Shoe stores, sales and repair. , - P P 61. Second-hand store. - C C • • E,i- kG- 22 • CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2008-00196 **** 2008 Page 6 EXHIBIT C Table 17.30.030 -Use Regulations for Industrial Qistricts SUMMARY OF LAND USE TYPE BY SUBAREA • USE TYPES LAND USE IP GI GI GI G GI IP IP GI MIIHI GI GI IP GI GI HI I IP MU/OS SUBAREAS HO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 77 18 MANUFAC TURI NG Custom P P P P P P P P P P P P P C P Light P P P P P P P P P P P P P C P Medum C C C P P' C P P P P P P Heavy P Minimum Impact Heavy P P Z OFFICE PROFESSIONAL DES IGN&,RESEARCFi '. ~ - Administrative80ffce P P P P P P P C P C C P P :Il '~ B Design Se ices P P P P P P P C P C C P P ~'U Research Serv s P P P P P P P P P P P LL WHOLESALE, STORAGE, 8'DISTRIBUTION ~ ~ ~~ V Public Storage C C C C C C C C C C C P P P P P P P P P Medium C P P C P P' P P P P P ~ Heavy C P C P r MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITIES ~ Q,; Collection FacihUes P P P P P P P P P P P P lL Processing Facilities C C C C C C C C Q Scrap Operation C m • CIVIC ,. ~ N Administrative Civic Services P P p P p P P p p p p p p Convention Centers C C C O _ F, Cultural P C C P C C ~ Day Care Facility C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C lil Emergency Shelter C C C C .~ Extensive Impact Ulihty Facilities C C C C C C C l!J Flood Control/Utility Corridor P P p P P P P P P P p p p p p p p p Public Assembly C C C C C C C C C C C C C Public Safety 8 Utility Services C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Religious Assembly ~ C C C C C C C C C C C C C Schools C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C NOTES: IP - Industrial Park P -Permitted Use HO - Haven Avenue Overlay District C -Conditionally Permitted Use GI - General Industrial ^ -Non-Marked Uses not permitted MI/HI - Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial A -Adult Entertainment Zoning Permit Required HI - Heavy Industrial MU/OS -Mixed Use/Open Space P' -Permitted with Master Plan approval for 35 acre minimum ~`a^'SE E,F ~-G-23 • RESOLUTION NO. 08-36 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDINGAPPROVAL OF VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2008-00561, AMENDING THE PLAN TEXT TO PROHIBIT PUBLIC STORAGE FACILITIES, INCLUDING RECREATIONAL VEHICLE AND MINI-STORAGE IN ALL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS AND REVOKING ORDINANCE NO 287 (VCPA 85-01) AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. 1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga filed an application for Victoria Community Plan Amendment No. DRC2008-00561, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Code Amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 13th day of August 2008, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. The proposed amendment contemplates revoking previously approved Victoria Community Plan Amendment 85-01 (Ordinance No. 287) which was adopted bythe City Council on March 5, 1986 by their Ordinance No. 287, which allows public storage facilities within the Medium High and High residential zones; and • 4. The application applies to properties located within all residential land use districts within the Victoria Community Plan; and 5. The application contemplates the requirement of a Conditional Use Permit be issued for all future storage facility applications regardless of the zone designation; and 6. This amendment is in concert with the related Development Code Amendment DRC2008-00196; and 7 All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby speafically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on August 13, 2008, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: • a. Because the current text in the Victoria Community Plan allows such uses within the Medium-High and High Residential land use categories, impacts such as noise, glare, night time lights, security and a perceived loss of property value to residents located near or adjacent to such PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-36 VCPA DRC2008-00561 -CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA August 13, 2008 Page 2 facilities are found to be detrimental to their health, safety and could be materially injurious to those residential property owners; and b. The proposed amendment will not have a significant impact on the environment in that allowing self storage facilities within residential and commercial districts could have the potential for noise, glare, and aesthetic impacts and by further restricting this use, the potential impacts are decreased; and 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will provide for future development which is more compatible within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; and b. This amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Development Code and is in concert with Development Code Amendment DRC2008-00196; and c. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and • d. The proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan. • 4. The Planning Department Staff has determined that the project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15061 (b) (3). In this case, the ordinance constitutes a text amendment that further restricts and/or limits the possible locations of future storage facilities that will serve to reduce potential significant impacts. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Planning Department's determination of exemption, and based on its own independent judgment, concurs in the staff's determination of exemption. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby recommends approval of Victoria Community Plan Amendment No. DRC2008-00561 by the adoption of the attached City Council Ordinance by revoking Ordinance No. 287 which currently permits such uses in the Medium-High and High residential land use categories. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2008. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA C, F ~ G -25 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-36 VCPA DRC2008-00561 -CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA August 13, 2008 Page 3 • BY: ATTEST: Richard B. Fletcher, Chairman James R. Troyer, AICP, Secretary I, James R. Troyer, AICP, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting ofthe Planning Commission held on the13th day of August 2008, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: \J • E , t= ar G - 2 In ORDINANCE NO. L J AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2008-00561, TO PROHIBIT PUBLIC STORAGE FACILITIES, INCLUDING MINI- STORAGE IN ALL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS AND REVOKING ORDINANCE NO 287 (VCPA 85-01) A. Recitals. 1. On August 13, 2008, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucambnga conducted a duly noticed public hearing with respect to the above referenced Victoria Community Plan Amendment DRC2008-00561 and, following the conclusion thereof, adopted its Resolution No. 08-36, recommending that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopt said Victoria Community Plan Amendment. 2. Also on August 13, 2008, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga considered the related Development Code Amendment DRC2008-00196 and recommended approval of that amendment. 3. On ****, 2008, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed Victoria Community Plan Amendment. 4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. • B. Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain as follows: SECTION 1: This City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct. SECTION 2: Based upon substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above-referenced public hearing on *."**", 2008, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, the City Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The proposed amendment applies to properties within the Victoria Community Plan area of the City of Rancho Cucamonga; and b. The proposed amendment contemplates revoking Ordinance No. 287 which currently provides for such storage facilities within the Medium-High and High residential land use categories, thereby prohibiting public storage facilities, including mini-storage from the Medium-High and High residential land use categories; and c. Because the current text in the Victoria Community Plan allows such uses in residential zones, storage facilities have been developed in these areas. Subsequent to that development, the impacts to residents located near or adjacent to such facilities such as noise, glare, night time lights, security and perceived loss of property value are found to be detrimental to their health, safety and could be materially injurious to those residential property owners; and d. The application further requires a Conditional Use Permit be issued for all future storage facility applications regardless of the zone designation; and E~F~G- 2'1 CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2008-00561 **'*, 2008 Page 2 e. The subject amendment identified in this Ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15061 (b) (3). In this case, the ordinance constitutes a text amendment that further restricts and/or limits the possible locations of future storage facilities that will serve to reduce potential significant impacts. The City Council has reviewed Staff's determination of exemption, the Planning Commission's adoption of that exemption, and further concurs with the determination of exemption. SECTION 3: Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Council hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; and Code; and b. This amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Development u c. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and d. The proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan. • SECTION 4: Ordinance No. 287 is hereby revoked. SECTION 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this Ordinance is, for any reason, deemed or held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, or preempted by legislative enactment, such decision or legislation shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or words thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, clauses, phrases, or words might subsequently be declared invalid or unconstitutional or preempted by subsequent legislation. SECTION 6: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published within 15 days after its passage at least once in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. E ~ F ~r ~_ - 2.~ • RESOLUTION NO. 08-37 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2008-00566, AMENDING THE PLAN TEXT TO PROHIBIT PUBLIC STORAGE FACILITIES, INCLUDING RECREATIONAL VEHICLEANDMINI-STORAGE IN ALL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. 1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga filed an application for Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment No. DRC2008-00566, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Code Amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 13th day of August 2008, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. The proposed amendment contemplates amending Section 10.2.3 -Use Regulations, Table 3; and 4. The application applies to properties located within all residential land use districts within the Etiwanda North Specific Plan; and • 5. This amendment is in concert with the related Development Code Amendment DRC2008-00196 and Victoria Community Plan Amendment DRC2008-00561; and 6. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on August 13, 2008, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. Because the current text in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan allows such uses within the Low (L) Residential land use category with an approved Conditional Use Permit, impacts such as noise, glare, night time lights, security and a perceived loss of property value to residents located near or adjacent to such facilities may arise to be detrimental to their health, safety and could be materially injurious to those residential property owners; and • b. The development of additional storage facilities within the Residential land use category could be found to be incompatible with the goal of reflecting the rural setting of the area; and E, r' ~(T-29 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-37 ENSPA DRC2008-00566 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA August 13, 2008 Page 2 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will provide for future development which is more compatible within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; and b. This amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Development Code and is in concert with Development Code Amendment DRC2008-00196 and Victoria Community Plan Amendment DRC2008-00561; and c. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in th'e vicinity; and . The proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan. 4. The Planning Department Staff has determined that the project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15061 (b) (3). Because the current text in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan allows such facilities in the Low (L) Residential District, future impacts such as noise, glare, night time lights, security and a perceived loss of property value to residents located near or adjacent to such facilities are found to be detrimental to • their health, safety and could be materially injurious to those residential property owners. In this case, the ordinance constitutes a text amendment that further restricts and/or limits the possible locations of future storage facilities that will serye to reduce potential significant impacts. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Planning Department's determination of exemption, and based on its own independent judgment, concurs in the staff's determination of exemption. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby recommends approval of Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment No. DRC2008-00566 by the adoption of the attached City Council Ordinance. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2008. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Richard B. Fletcher, Chairman ATTEST: • James R. Troyer, AICP, Secretary E , y-- + G - 30 • • l J PLANNING COMMISSION ENSPA DRC2008-00566 - August 13, 2008 Page 3 RESOLUTION NO. 08-37 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA I, James R. Troyer, AICP, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting ofthe Planning Commission held on the13th day of August 2008, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: E,~ } G-31 ORDINANCE NO. • AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2008-00566, TO PROHIBIT PUBLIC STORAGE FACILITIES, INCLUDING RECREATIONAL VEHICLE AND MINI-STORAGE IN ALL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS A. Recitals. 1. On August 13, 2008, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing with respect to the above referenced Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2008-00566 and, following the conclusion thereof, adopted its Resolution No. 08-37, recommending that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopt said amendment. 2. Also on August 13, 2008, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga considered the related Development Code Amendment DRC2008-00196 and Victoria Community Plan Amendment DRC2008-00561 and recommended approval of those amendments. 3. On *'"", 2008, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed Victoria Community Plan Amendment. • 4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. B. Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain as follows: SECTION 1: This City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct. SECTION 2: Based upon substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above-referenced public hearing on **'**, 2008, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, the City Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The proposed amendment applies to properties within the Etiwanda North Specific Plan area of the City of Rancho Cucamonga; and b. The proposed amendment contemplates prohibiting public storage facilities, including recreational vehicle and mini-storage from the Low (L) Residential land use category; and c. Because the current text in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan allows such uses in the Low (L) residential zone with an approved Conditional Use Permit, impacts to residents located near or adjacent to such facilities such as noise, glare, night time lights, security and perceived loss of property value may arise to be detrimental to their health, safety and could be • materially injurious to those residential property owners; and ~ F } ~.-3Z CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2008-00566 "`" 2008 Page 2 d. The development of additional storage facilities within the Residential land use category could be found to be incompatible with the goal of reflecting the rural setting of the area; and e. The subject amendment identified in this Ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15061 (b) (3). Because the current text in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan allows such uses in the Law (L) residential zone, impacts to residents located near or adjacent to such facilities such as noise, glare, night time lights, security and perceived loss of property value are found to be detrimental to their health, safety and could be materially injurious to those residential property owners. In this case, the ordinance constitutes a text amendment that further restricts and/or limits the possible locations of future storage facilities that will serve to reduce potential significant impacts. The City Council has reviewed Staff's determination of exemption, the Planning Commission's adoption of that exemption, and further concurs with the determination of exemption. SECTION 3: Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Council hereby finds and concludes as follows: • a. This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the • General Plan and with related development; and b. This amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Development Cade: and c. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and SECTION 4: Section 10.2.3, Table 3 -Use Regulations for Residential Districts is hereby amended as shown on the attached Exhibit A. SECTION 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this Ordinance is, for any reason, deemed or held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, or preempted by legislative enactment, such decision or legislation shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or words thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, clauses, phrases, or words might subsequently be declared invalid or unconstitutional or preempted by subsequent legislation. SECTION 6: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published within 15 days after its passage at least once in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. • E,F~-~,--33 EXHIBIT A • TABLE 3 -USE REGULATIONS FOR RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS • • USE HRE VLE HR VL L A. Residential Uses 1. Single Family Detached P P P P P B. Other Uses 1. Church C C C 2. Club, Lodge, Fraternity and Sorority C 3. College or University C C C 4. Public Facility - C C C C 5. Day Caze Facility Accessory - 6 or less P P P P P Non-Accessory - 7 or more C C ~C 6. Fire and Police Station C C C C 7, Golf Course, Tennis Club, Country Club (private) C C C C C 8. Public Pazk and Playground P P P P 9. Residential Caze Facility Accessory - 6 or less P P P P P Non-Accessory - 7 or more 10. Schools, Private and Pazochial C C C 11. Stable, Commercial C C - 12. Stable, Private (min. 20,000 SF lot siu) P P , P P 13. Utility or Service Facility C C C C C C. Accessorv Uses 1. Accessory Structure P P P P P 2. Antenna P P P P P 3. Cazetaker's Residence C C C C C 4. Guest House P P P P P III-8 ~,F~G-3y TABLE 3 - (CONTINUED) USE REGULATIONS FOR RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS USE HRE VLE HR VL L 5. Home Occupation P P P P P 6. Lodging Unit P P P 7. Other Accessory Uses p p p p p 8. Private Garage p p p p p 9. Private Swimmiag Pool P P p p p o ding elder cottage) C C C C 11. Recreational Vehicle Storage Yard 1 ee ack tore (if accessory to co ercial stable) C 13. Dormitory (if accessory to college or school) C C C D. Temoorarv Uses 1. Temporary Uses as prescribed in Development Code Section 17.04.070 aad subject to those provision. P P P P P 1. Temporary trailers for use is conjunction with religious aad agricultural uses for a specified interim period. C C C NOTE: For deFmitions see Development Code, Sectioa 17.02.140 ZII-9 u ~LP~uC i • u i;~F ~rG-35 ~~.~, THE CITY O F __ _ , x- RANCHO CUCAMO.NGA Staff Report DATE: August 13, 2008 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: James R. Troyer, AICP, Planning Director BY: Candyce Burnett, Senior Planner SUBJECT: PUBLIC SLOPING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) DRC2008-00263 FOR DEVELOPMENT REIVIEW DRC2007-00951 - HOGLE IRELAND INC. - An opportunity to give public testimony pertaining to the environmental issues to be addressed in an EIR for the demolition of the former Biane Winery (originally Padre Winery), and the construction of a 240,740 square foot industrial warehouse building with two office spaces within the General Industrial District on 10.41 acres, located at 10013 East 8th Street - APN: 0209-201-19 and 20. • PURPOSE: The City received an application from Hogle Ireland Inc. to demolish an existing winery facility to develop a 240,740 square foot industrial warehouse building on a 10.41-acre parcel, referred to herein'as "Biane Business Park," located at 10013 East 8th Street, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730. The existing winery facility, Biane Winery, consists of approximately 13 industrial buildings including a winery building, bottling plant and warehouse, grape crushing building, distillery, bonded warehouse, and three single-family homes that range from 900 to 1,200 square feet in size. Additionally, there is approximately 1.14 acre of active grape vineyards on the subject site. The Biane Winery was originally established circa 1910 as the Cucamonga Vintage Co. and was identified in previous cultural reports (1987 and 2001) as appearing to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Based on the potential historic significance of the existing winery facility and actions that are being requested by the City, it was determined that the proposed project could have significant effects on the environment; therefore, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is being prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an EIR was mailed on July 14, 2008, and the public comment period was noted as beginning on July 14, 2008, and ending on August 14, 2008. The purpose of the public scoping meeting is to allow the general public an opportunity to comment on the scope of what should be covered in the EIR for the proposed project and to all proposed actions related to the project. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: The current project site is designated as General Industrial (GI), Subarea 5, on the Land Use Map and General Industrial on the City's General Plan. No Development District Amendment or General Plan • Amendment is required to accommodate the proposed project. ITEM H PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2007-00951 - HOGLE IRELAND INC. August 13, 2008 ' Page 2 A. -Surrounding Land-Use and Zoning: - - - - North - The Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) and Metrolink rail alignments exist north of 8th Street designated General Industrial. Residential uses and Old Town Park exist north of the railroad alignments and are designated Low (L) and Low-Medium Residential (LM). South - APL Logistics, an industrial facility, is located directly to the south with a vacant and unimproved area located adjacent to the southwest; these areas are designated General Industrial. East - Mizkan America's Inc., an industrial use, and Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church designated General Industrial. West - A railroad spur from the BNSF alignment exists to the west of the project site. Karl's Transmissions, an industrial complex, is located between the rail spur and Cottage Avenue designated General Industrial. B. General Plan Designations: North - Low (L) and Low-medium Residential (LM), and Park South - General Industrial East - Generallndustrial West - Generallndustrial u BACKGROUND AND PROJECT STATUS: On January 17, 2008, LSA Associates, Inc. was selected to prepare the Cultural Resources Assessment of the Biane Winery and update the State of California Department of Parks and Recreation Forms (DPR 523A and 5236) for the property as part of the Cultural Assessment. Staff received the completed report on March 24, 2008, from LSA Associates. • Based on findings in the report, 10 of the 15 buildings were found to contribute to the winery and that the winery appears to be eligible for not only City of Rancho Cucamonga Landmark designation but it is also eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Additionally, on January 17, 2008, staff released the Request for Proposal (RFP) to several environmental consulting firms in Southern California, to prepare an Initial Study for the Biane Business Park and determine the appropriate California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document required for the project. Based on a review of the proposals submitted for Scope of Services/Work with cost estimates, RBF Consulting was selected. It was determined that an EIR was required based on the Cultural Assessment and Initial Study. In compliance with the EIR preparation process as outlined in CEQA, the EIR consultant, RBF Consulting, prepared the Notice of Preparation (NOP). The NOP serves as the public notification that an EIR is being prepared and requests comment and input from responsible agencies and other interested parties regarding environmental issues to be addressed in the document. In addition to the NOP, CEQA recommends conducting a scoping meeting for the purposes of identifying the range of potential significant impacts that should be analyzed within the scope of the Draft EIR. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all responsible and trustee agencies and property owners within a 660-foot radius of the project site. u H-2 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2007-00951 - HOGLE IRELAND INC. August 13, 2008 • Page 3 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission accept public testimony ,pertaining to the environmental issues to be addressed in the EIR (DRC2008-00263) being prepared for Development Review DRC2007-00951. Respe ully submitted, Jam .Troyer, AICP ~Jl/Z~ Plan g Director Attachments: Exhibit A -Notice of Preparation dated July 8, 2008 Exhibit B -Initial Study Part II Exhibit C -Management Summary of the Cultural Resources Assessment prepared by LSA Associates Inc. dated March 19, 2008 • - ,il. • H-3 • r ~ ~J • CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE CALIFORNIA, 91730 Notice of Preparation To: Agencies. Organizations and Interes(ed Parties Subject: Notice of Preoarafion of a Draft Environmental Imoaci Reoort Lead Agency: Applicant: Agency Name: City of Rancho Cucamonga Street Address: 10500 Civic Center Drive CitylState/Zip: Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Contact: Ms. Candyce Burnett Senior Planner Consulting Flrm: Firm Name: RBF Consulting Street Address: 14725 Alton Parkway City/StatelZip: Irvine, CA 92618 Contact: Mr. Alan Ashimine CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONO~; JUL 1 4 2008 RECEIVED -PLANNING The City of Rancho Cucamonga will be the Lead Agency and will prepare an environmental impact report for the project identified below. We need to know the views of your agency as to the scope and content of (he environmental information which is germane to your agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Your agency will need to use the EIR prepared by our agency when considering your permit or other approval for the project. A copy of the Initial Study (® is ^ is not) attached. Copies of the Initial Study are available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California, 91730. Public Review Period: The NOP/Initial Study will be available for public review and comment for 30 days, commencing July 14, 2008 and ending August 14, 2008. Written comments on the NOP/Initial Study mus! be submitted fo Ms. Candyce Burnett at the address listed above by no later than 5:00 p.m., August 14, 2008. We will need the name for a contact person in your agency. Project Title: Biane Business Park Protect Project Location: 10013 East B"~ Street. Rancho Cucamonga California Project Description: The proposed Biane Business Park Project would consist of the demolition of the former Biane Winery (originally called the Padre Winery), and the construction of a 240,740 square-foot industrial warehousing structure. The structure would include 227,740 square feet of warehousing space, 9,D00 square feet of first-floor office space, and 4,000 square feet of mezzanine office space. In order (o support industriallwarehousing uses, the facility would include 33 truck loading ramps/docks and 41 frailer parking stalls (along the southern side of the structure). A total of 183 passenger vehicle parking spaces would be•provided, primarily along the eastern and western sides of the structure. The proposed structure would be a concrete till•up building, with a maximum height of 50 feet (to the top of the parapet). The structure would feature contemporary architectural design and articulated building elements, such as window treatments, amulti- tone color scheme matching surrounding industrial facilities, stacked stone veneer, recessed building entrances, and a varied rootline. Landscaping would be provided throughout the site, with the majority of landscaping occurring along fhe 8~^ Street frontage. Landscaping would occur over 45,964 square feet of the site, which represents approximately 10 percent coverage of ' the site. Potential Environmental Effects: The Initial Study describes the potential environmental effects o(the proposed project. The following issues have been identified as having the potential for significant environmental impact if the project is implemented as proposed. Each issue will be given further consideration in the Draft Environmental Impact Repor((EIR): EXHIBIT A Name: Biane Family Properties LLC Street Address: P.O. Box 607 CifylStafe/Zip: Rancho Cucamonga CA 91729 H-4 • Aesthetics: The proposed project may result in the degradation of the existing visual character or quality of the project • Bile and its surroundings, and could- create a new source of light and-glare. The potential aesthetic impacts will be - - evalualed wlthln the EIR. • Air ualit : The proposed project may result in impacts due to both short-term (construction) and long-term (operational) emissions. Impacts from these emissions will be evaluated within the EIR. • Cultural Resources: The Biane Winery (also known as the Padre Winery) is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historic Resources, and meets the criterion for designation as a local Historic Landmark. The project proposes the demolition of all existing on-site structures which would have the potential fo result In a significant impact. This issue will be further analyzed within the EIR. • Hazards and Hazardous Materials: The project Bile may contain hazardous materials due to existing industrial operations on-site and past winery activities on the property. The potential hazards from exis(ing hazardous materials on-site and future operations of the proposed project will be analyzed within the EIR. • Hvdrology and Water Quality Implementation of the project would cause an increase of impervious surfaces, disturbance of on-site lolls, and changes in drainage patterns. These Hydrology and wafer quality issues will be further discussed within the EIR. • Land Use and Plannine: The EIR will analyze the proposed project's consistency with the goals, policies, and objectives of the City's General Plan and development standards within the Development Code. • Noise: The project's short-term (construction) and long-term (operational) noise generation could expose nearby sensitive receptors to noise levels exceeding the City's Noise Ordinance. These impacts will be analyzed within the EIR. • Population and Housing: The proposed project has the potential to attract numerous enterprises fo the vicinity and generate new job growth beyond the project site's current operations. Thus, project implementation has the polenfial to induce population growth in the area. Additional analysis will be provided within the EIR. • • Public Services: The proposed project has the pofenlial to increase demand upon public services within the City, such as fre protection, police protection, schools, and parks. Implemen(ation of the proposed project and the impacts fo public services will be analyzed wi(hin the EIR. • Recreation: As the proposed project has the potential to increase growth population in the area, a potential impact could occur to existing recreational facilities due to increased usage and demand. Further analysis will be provided within the EIR. • Transoortation and Traffic: The proposed project could increase traffic volumes in the vicinity during construction and operational acfivities. Further analysis is necessary within the EIR to determine whether future operations would be a significan( impact. • Utilities and Service Systems: Short-term construction and long-term operational impacts have the pofenlial fo significantly impact utilities and service systems. Analysis within the EIR will discuss (hose potential impacts with implementation of the proposed project. Public Scoping Meeting: A public scoping meeting for Ihis project has been scheduled for August 13, 2008, al 7:00 p.m. The meeting will beheld of a regularly scheduled Planning Commission hearing (o be held at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center Council Chambers, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Date: ~ ~ ~ l~~j Signature: Candyce B ell Title: Senior Pla er Telephone: 9091477-2750 • Reference: California Code of Regulations, Title 14, (CEDA Guidelines) Secllons 15082(a), 15103, 15375. H-5 • INITIAL STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Biane Business Park Project LEAD AGENCY: City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 • Contact: Candyce Burnett, Senior Planner (909) 477-2750 CONSULTANT: RBF Consulting 14725 Alton Parkway Irvine, CA 92618 Contact: Alan Ashimine, Project Manager Michelle M. Dunn, Environmental Analyst (949) 472-3505 July 14, 2008 JN 10-106152 • H-6 ~~ Initial StudylEnvironmental Checklist Biane Business Park Project TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND .........................................................................................................................1 1. Project File ................................................................................. ............................1 2. Related Files ............................................................................... ............................1 3. Description of Project .................................................................. ............................1 4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address ........................................ ............................6 5. General Plan Designation ........................................................... ............................6 6. Zoning ........................................................................................ ............................8 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting ........................................... ............................8 8. Lead Agency Name and Address ............................................... ............................8 9. Contact Person and Phone Number ........................................... ............................8 10. Anticipated Agency Approvals .................................................... ............................8 GLOSSAR Y .................................................................................................... ............................ 8 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ......................... ............................9 DETERMINATION .......................................................................................... ............................9 EVALUATI ON OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS .......................................... ..........................10 1. Aesthetics ................................................................................... ..........................10 2. Agricultural Resources ................................................................ ..........................11 3. Air Quality ................................................................................... ..........................11 4. Biological Resources .................................................................. ..........................13 5. Cultural Resources ..................................................................... ..........................14 6. Geology and Soils ...................................................................... ..........................15 7. Hazards and Waste Materials ...................................................... .........................17 8. Hydrology and Water Quality ....................................................... .........................19 9. Land Use and Planning ............................................................... .........................21 10. Mineral Resources ....................................................................... .........................21 11. Noise ........................................................................................... .........................22 12. Population and Housing ............................................................... .........................23 13. Public Services ............................................................................ .........................24 14. Recreation ................................................................................... .........................25 15. Transportation/Traffic ................................................................... .........................25 16. Utilities and Service Systems ....................................................... .........................27 17. Mandatory Findings of Significance ............................................. .........................28 EARLIER ANALYSES ..............................................................................................................30 • • • July 14, 2008 i Ciiy of Rancho Cucamonga H-7 _ Initial StudylEnvironmental Checklist Biane Business Park Project • LIST OF EXHIBITS 1 Regional Vicinity Map ......................................................................................................2 2 Current Tenant Operations ..............................................................................................5 • July 14, 2008 ii City of Rancho Cucamonga H-8 __ BACKGROUND City of Rancho Cucamonga INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Project File: DRC2008-00263 2. Related Files: DRC2007-00951 (Design Review and Cultural Assessment File) 3. Description of Project (Describe the whole action involved, including, but not limited to, later phases of the project and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary): PROJECT LOCATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 3.1.1 Project Location The proposed Biane Business Park Project site is located in the City of Rancho Cucamonga (City) at 10013 8t" Street. The City is located in the southwestern portion of San Bernardino County (County) at the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains, approximately 40 miles east of downtown Los Angeles. Exhibit 1, Regional Vicinity Map, illustrates the project site in a regional context. The 10.41-acre project site is generally located south of 8`h Street, west of Hermosa Avenue, and east of Archibald Avenue. Exhibit 2, Site Vicinity Map, illustrates the project site vicinity 3.1.2 Environmental Setting (Existing Conditions) • There are various former winery buildings on-site including three residential dwelling units. Additional features on-site include grapevines, orange trees, grapefruit trees, outdoor storage areas, and paved parking; refer to Exhibit 3, Aerial Photograph, and Table 1, On-Site Uses. Vacant space is leased to various independent companies. Tenant operations vary and include storage, distribution, banquet facility, offices, machine shop, auto garage, and repairs; refer to Table 2, Current Tenant Operations. Table 1 On-Site Uses • ~. ~~ :~:-g-r'~b~"f:;:.,' ~,~,.. + `BUildm (Structure..,^', Square r ~t~=~ "', r ',;.. ytCurr ntU R non ~r_ ~'`n .1 Winery Building 48,730 Ciboria International, Good Company Senior, Bollinger Production, Biane Family Pra ert LLC Offices, Jewel Auta OfFce Bottling Plant and Warehouse 25,020 All Star Insulation, Color Floors, BE Pressure Gra e Crushin Buildin and Gra e Pits 3,000 Vacant Distillery and Shops 6,000 C+D Computer, Fidel Martinez, TB Enterprises Bonded Warehouse 9,910 Scott's Tires, Ciboria International Sherr Room 900 Vacant ' Dr Wine Bottlin 2,000 Sea Enter rises Coo era e Sho 3,220 Im ressions Caterin Chemical Room 1,000 Ciboria International Offices Dwellin Unit near bonded warehouse 1,000 Scott's Tires Curator Western Dwelling Unit 1,000 Fidel Martinez, Former Maintenance Worker Southwestern Dwellin Unit 1,200 Member of Biane Famil Pro ert LLC July 14, 2008 1 City of Rancho Cucamonga EXHIBIT B H-g ~~ Initial StudylEnvironmental Checklist Biane Business Park Project Exhibit 1 Regional Vicinity Map 8.5x11 B&W July City of Rancho Cucamonga • • • H-10 • u J Initial StudylEnvironmental Checklist Biane Business Park Project Exhibit 2 _ Site Vicinity Map 8.5x11 Color July 14, 2008 3 City of Rancho Cucamonga H ~11 Initial StudylEnvironmental Checklist Biane Business Park Project Exhibit 3 Aerial Photograph 8.5x11 Color 2008 City of Rancho Cucamonga • • • H-12 Table 1 (Continued) __ __ - _ _ _ ___ On-Site_Uses Initial StudylEnvironmental Checklist Biane Business Park Project ~~~"Builtlin ISt~ucture ~.~~'ik, n~q~~,,. g yr .~.~n~z:~'~~,~:~;~s:~~~,~v~"~~.°t FSqu~a'~e~ , ~ nFEeet ~" r~;~~'"''~''"``~.~''` rte, -~;.r• «;CGrrent?UselTenarit t"~, ~'-7~r.~~a~ss7~- ar:~~r:!,~«~' Restroom 130 Outdoor Restroom Lunch Shelter t,770 Lunch Area Gra evines 47,095 Owners roduce wine for rivate use Oran e Trees 9,460 -- Grapefruit Trees 9,230 -- Source' RBF Consultin site visit on Ma 14, 2008, information also rovided b the A Iicanl Table 2 Current Tenant Operations • ~~ ~ ~.~;:r?~.«~.~.~ ~,~~' , Tenants( ~,~%~s`"~' ~rtType,ofj Company:~?r• CCSijuaFes= a,~~ r,-~~ tf5~~- y~Emplo ees, ,_`~Weelily"r~~ ;ar..,,..~ £?'-. ~s~<~:r,t~" ~Y'' Hours!of 01 • pebation ~ , _~ kfi~x~ - ~ , r:~s:ds;z r~:,Feet - ~r.~z~ri„~Y~~ TrucligTlriPs , ., > ~ ~„3:~~,a All Star Insulation Insulation Storage and 4 300 4 1 Varies Distribution , Color Floors Floorin Wholesale 5,820 3 11 Varies BE Pressure Pressure Washer 10 500 3 2 M-F! Stora a and Distribution , 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM C+D Computer Computer Repairs 1,000 2 __ M-F~ 8:00 AM - 6.00 PM Fidel Martinez Auto Bod Sho 750 2 -- Varies Scott's Tires Tires and Auto 5 690 3 2p M-Ft Maintenance , 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM Scott's Tires Outside Recreational Vehicle Stora e Yard RV Stora e 35,000 1 -- 24 hours Im ressions Caterin Ban uet Facilit 3,220 Varies -- Varies Sea Enter rises Water Bottle Stora e 2,000 2 1 Varies Cibaria International Olive Oil Processing 30 400 14 50 M-F~ and Distribution , 7 00 AM - 4.00 PM TB Enter rises Machine Sho 5,000 1 10 Varies Good Com an Senior Senior Care Offices 1,000 3 -- Varies Bollin er Production Theater Prop Stora e 7,500 Varies -- Varies Jewel Auto Office Office S ace 1,000 -- -- Varies 1 - M-F: Monda throw h Frida Source, RBF Consultin site visit on May 14, 2008; information also provided by the Applicant. 3.1.2.1 Surrounding Land Uses Land uses surrounding the project site are a mixture of park, residential, and industrial uses (refer to Exhibit 3, Aerial Photograph). These uses, and their respective land use designations in the City of Rancho Cucamonga's General Plan, if applicable, are described as follows: • North: 8`h Street exists directly north of the project site. The Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) and Metrolink rail alignments exist north of 8`h Street. Residential uses and Old Town Park exist north of the railroad alignments. July 14, 2008 5 City of Rancho Cucamonga H~13 _ Initial StudylEnvironmental Checklist Biane Business Park Project • South: An industrial facility, APL Logistics, is located directly to the south, with a vacant and unimproved area located adjacent to the southwest. These areas are designated General Industrial. • East: An industrial' use, Mizkan America's Inc., and Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church (designated General Industrial) are located to the east between the project site and Hermosa Avenue. • West: A railroad spur from the BNSF alignment exists to the west of the project site. An industrial complex, Karl's Transmissions, is located is located between the rail spur and Cottage Avenue. 3.2 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS The proposed Biane Business Park Project would consist of the demolition all existing structures at the former Biane Winery (originally called the Padre Winery), and the construction of a 240,740 square-foot industrial warehousing structure. The structure would include 227,740 square feet of warehousing space, 9,000 square feet of first-floor office space, and 4,000 square feet of mezzanine office space; refer to Exhibit 4, Conceptual Site Plan. In order to support industrial/warehousing uses, the facility would include 33 truck loading ramps/docks and 41 trailer parking stalls (along the southern side of the structure). A total of 183 passenger vehicle parking spaces would be provided, primarily along the eastern and western sides of the structure. Access to the proposed facility would be provided from 8`" Street, via two 35-foot driveways. The two driveways are proposed at the northeastern and northwestern corners of the project site, and would serve as the ingress/egress points for internal circulation road/fire lane traveling along the perimeter of the structure. The proposed structure would be a concrete tilt-up building, with a maximum height of 50 feet (to the top of the parapet). The structure would feature contemporary architectural design and articulated building elements, such as window treatments, amulti-tone color scheme matching surrounding industrial facilities, stacked stone veneer, recessed building entrances, and a varied roofline. Landscapinq~ would be provided throughout the site, with the majority of landscaping occurring along the 8` Street frontage. Landscaping would occur over 45,964 square feet of the site, which represents approximately 10 percent coverage of the site. The conceptual site plan, as shown in Exhibit 4, will require further review by the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department to determine the project's consistency with building requirements under the City's Development Code. 3.2.1 Phasing Demolition and construction activities would occur upon receipt of project approvals and permits from the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Construction of the project would occur in a single, eight- month phase, where demolition and grading would occur in the first two months and building construction would occur in the remaining six months. 4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Biane Family Properties, LLC P.O. Box 607 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 5. General Plan Designation: General Industrial July 14, 2008 6 Cify of Rancho Cucamonga • • H-14 J ~J • Insert Exhibit 4 Conceptual Site Plan 8.5x11' BS:W Initial StudylEnvironmental Checklist Biane Business Park.Project July 14, 2008 H-15 City of Rancho Cucamonga ~~ Initial StudylEnvironmental Checklist Biane Business Park Project 6. Zoning: Industrial District Subarea 5 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting (Briefly describe the project's surroundings): Residential, park, and railroad uses are located to the north, industrial and vacant/unimproved uses to the south and southwest, industrial and institutional uses to the east, and industrial/railroad uses to the west. 8. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 9. Contact Person and Phone Number: Candyce Burnett Senior Planner 909.477.2750 10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board South Coast Air Quality Management District City of Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Other agencies may be identified in the future as part of the EIR scoping process. GLOSSARY -The following abbreviations are used in this report: ac -acre Assessment -Cultural Resources Assessment Basin -South Coast Air Basin California Register- California Register of Historical Resources CARB -California Air Resources Board CEQA -California Environmental Quality Act CVW D -Cucamonga Valley W ater District EIR -Environmental Impact Report FEMA -Federal Emergency Management Agency FEIR -Final Environmental Impact Report FIRM -Flood Insurance Rate Map Historic Landmark -City of Rancho Cucamonga Historic Landmark IBC -International Building Code IFC -International Fire Code National Register -National Register of Historic Places NPDES -National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System SCAQMD -South Coast Air Quality Management District July 14, 2008 City of Rancho Cucamonga • • • H-16 • • ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED Initial StudylEnvironmental Checklist Biane Business Park Project The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. / Aesthetics Agricultural Resources / Air Quality Biological Resources / Cultural Resources Geology and Soils / Hazards and Waste Materials / Hydrology and Water Quality / Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources / Noise / Population and Housing / Public Services / Recreation / Transportation and Traffic / Utilities and Service Systems / Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: ( ) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ( ) I find that, although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the projecChave been made by, or agreed to, by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. (/) I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ( ) I find that the proposed project MAY have a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standard and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ( ) I find that, although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Prepared By: Alan Ashimine. RBF Consulting Reviewed By: Candyce Burriett City of Rancho Cucamonga Date: Julv 14 2008 Date. July 14, 2008 July 14, 2008 9 City of Rancho Cucamonga H-17 Initial StudylEnvironmental Checklist Biane Business Park Project EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ;t:.r'~v'`w-.-- r~-.~~^,s ~.sa ~';:~~::'`•-.- =`ypy::,y'. ~="s',7~iT~",n`sb`,i'~="-.,z`e°W-~2 ~r~ i, 't~{ ~. ~,. gSk" v r ~a~'~f 'e k' c. ~'~'La~t4°s xe~" iY~f+y,~T,~9~;-.', ~~s ` ' f.+.;~,'";~R~y- a wr ~ .v ~ '~ ~P''~=""d„:~._~ LeS~sFThan'7~- ~ aii?a~«~~*ntl'~ r - n",~ F ~ T~y~, ~ ~ ~~ " -_ '~ iy.:=t-~-.~.. °` '~ ~` -~1~ i' ~ ~ ~ -c ~ t, ~y, To+~h y° -x~ ~~ vt a5~ ;a ~t lwT1^ ~N,,. '~ aF ^:: #`a'~' '°~ w 9^ ~ ' ` Potential ~ ..~ Si mficant ^ Y., ge. LessThan ~ " ' a -~. ~- ' ~ v; c. . .. - y ~ , :Issues and Supporting:fnformation Sources:i4~' ",:~,~' ~~~ "°~,~ +xray=; ~~_- ~`.~~.~'e'B's.;eA=~'~a.,:,s~b-. ;.~:~ar'~;t~,~;;;C`!~.', ~,;,-~ i;r-~-~ ` t € - s . ~ ' x~ r .~ jk ~~a _ ~ - ~Sigriifcant~ .cy a~mpacl :,i ilmp t ~ .. -. ~~MHigatiori , oan t Sgni,,,,fi &` [. ~f~ ~-~Impact..~„5~~~ m yNo.lmpactu "~sz`'y.~vi'" ~,~~ ,~ - ., , ; ~ 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial affect a scenic wsta? / b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within / a State Scenic Highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of / the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would / adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? - Comments: a) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is fully urbanized and is not located within a view corridor, according to Exhibit III-15 of the General Plan (Major Community Design Features). Although the project site includes structures that qualify as historic resources, the primarily industrial nature of the site vicinity does not represent a scenic vista. b) No Impact. There are no State Scenic Highways near the project site or within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Thus, no impact would occur in this regard. c) Potentially Significant Impact. The site is located south of 8'" Street, west of Hermosa Avenue, east of Archibald Avenue, and north of 6'h Street; refer to Exhibit 2. Land uses surrounding the project site include a mixture of park, single-family detached and single-family attached residential uses, and general industrial uses. Implementation of the proposed project would 'change the existing visual character of the site by demolishing structures eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (National Register), California Register of Historic Resources (California Register), and meet the criterion for designation as a City of Rancho Cucamonga Historic Landmark (Historic Landmark). The existing structures would be replaced with a contemporary industrial warehouse structure. The maximum structure height would not exceed 75 feet and is proposed to be 50 feet high to the top of the parapet. The project may result in a substantial change in the visual character of the site, and the EIR will evaluate whether a substantial degradation of the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings could occur. d) Potentially Significant Impact. Existing views of the project site from surrounding areas would be altered as a result of the proposed project. Potential light and glare impacts as a result of the proposed project could also impact the views from surrounding receptors, such as reflective material associated with project structures, nighttime security lighting, and headlights due to vehicle trips generated by the project. Thus, the EIR will evaluate the potential for protect implementation to adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area from new sources of light or glare. July 14, 2008 10 Cify of Rancho Cucamonga u • H -18 • • r 1 ~J _~r, Initial StudylEnvironmental Checklist Biane Business Park Project ~ ° - e ~ "~^ Th ~' ' ° ~;~ ~ .,,k _~~ ~~ * ' ~ = ~rlssues andtSupportmg Information SouYCes,,,,; ` v ^` ,~° .. ~~vrs "z a ~~ " ~ Pol kia ~r psjgniAc~an~ ~I mp aci'l ~ Signiflcar t .I pent WW~Ii,, ~Mgaticn i ~~~Le ss an € gnt'icanf Impact a = rv No Imp~acf~~ ~ ~ ~. ~^ ~i r~Cw,. r .~ ~'~* ~`,~',~rs~rz, ,~~,>ti' ~..s ~ - ;t i~~ ..mss ~~. ~, c _.:~¢ ~.tw .:,,~_.~.x~..: ~ ~ ~4'-'~ -.,~. Incorporated ~;~ ° ~T n ,. ,u _~--"~`r..'-.:~.,'..~~:-; 2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring / Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson / Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, / to non-agricultural use? Comments: a) Less Than Significant Impact. Although grapevines, orange trees, and grapefruit trees occupy small portions of the site, the site is not designated as'Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. b) Less Than Significant Impact. There is no agriculturally zoned land within the City of Rancho Cucamonga or the protect site. There are also no Williamson Act contracts within the City. c) Less Than Significant Impact. Although there is approximately one acre of project site utilized to grow grapes, oranges, and grapefruit, there is no mapped Farmland on the project site or on any adjacent properties that would be converted to non-agricultural uses as a result of changes in the existing environment caused by implementation of the project. _. ~ 5'~r ~t ,d ' " R ~~r- " ~ - -r -~~ ~ ` g' e+''~ ,~PoSentralry ~Le-ss~],'ban ~ Slgnificant ~ ~ ~Less T~han~ ~ ' '~ x ~-t: ,~ ~ ~~, ,~ ~. ,,, ,~ - y ~I'ssires and SuppoRmg InformationGSources ~ ~'~""~-~" `r''=~~`~ "'~"`' "~ ;t`~- ~' ~ : ~ ~'Siginficant Impact ,~ tl~mpact~itfi~" '~Mrtigation ~ y ~Sigmfi nt ~ Impact ~No Impac " ~;. .~ ,, ~ ~ o+ ~' "'. ~ ~~zz ncdrporated~ ?a ?ry~ 4~~ . :.Y~m~ii i-''~«. ~x v^~. Ar.11.'~'a ^a^....a ~ ..:~ ~.. +4., . m .N'n xi ~%. `Nl5'§fa 3. AIR QUALITY. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air / quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an / existing or protected an quality wolation~ c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any cntena pollutant for which the protect region is non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard / (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds far ozone precursors? July 14, 2008 H -19 City of Rancho Cucamonga ti ,~ Initial StudylEnvironmental Checklist Biane Business Park Project ..-e'~'C+r. h"siL~.x~ti~dr'3~"C~ .'-~ - "~ i1&1'~a.#-P~"t n..'~" *Td ~- . _, " ° _ "' ~` -,~-~c,~". - a.~. ,~„x,~, ~ }~~,~~ „~ ~~~,?~.~. ~,~^ ;~ InfomatlonSour'ces ~~a> nlssuesandPSuppo mg yY'h.„.. -'t5 ~Po ntialty Sigm~capt~w 1 . Less3Than,T. °~SigMficanl,~ atW7tht- Rlmp 3~' ~~'.' ,~tess~Tha.,,an Sign(~;canf MJ ..~µ~~°i ~-~ t~Nollmpactra , a„r" ~ ~ ~ - `x ia` '~ ~ "~ ~ .~ ' ~ l PacyW . , ~ Mitigatn~ Incorporeted ~1mPacte~~ s~ ^~ ~°~~~ s .r~g.. >A a~~ ~= tt~ ~ +. x vt .~~.F.-3~- ~~s'' a:.:~ ..,~~. ^~3'aa,_ i .~^v-~m.~$'o-'` iYis ,. ,.~, ..-.....4+ __ d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ~ concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of ~ people? Comments a) Potentially Significant Impact. The project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin), an area monitored by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The Basin is in attainment for carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NOz), lead (Pb), and' sulfur dioxide (SOz) for both State and Federal standards. The Basin is in nonattainment for ozone (Os), coarse particulate matter (PMio), and fine particulate matter (PMzs) under both Federal and State standards. Although the project would be consistent with the City's land use and zoning designations for the site, an analysis of long-term operational air quality impacts will be required to determine consistency with the SCAQMD's Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). b) Potentially Significant Impact. The project proposes to redevelop an existing former winery (currently occupied by a range of commercial/industrial users) with a warehouse building with office space. Future operations would include truck distribution activities. Implementation of the project would emit air pollutants from three different sources: (1) short-term emissions during construction activities, (2) long-term mobile emissions from vehicles traveling to and from the site once the project is operational, and (3) long-term stationary emissions from power and gas consumption by machinery and equipment on-site. These long-term stationary emissions would be caused from typical warehouse building and office space operations (i.e., lighting, heat, water, loading docks, etc.). As stated above, the Basin is in attainment for carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NOz), lead (Pb), and sulfur dioxide (SOz) for both State and Federal standards. The Basin is in nonattainment for ozone (Os), coarse particulate matter (PMio), and fine particulate matter (PMzs) under both Federal and State standards. The greatest potential for air quality impacts from the project would be attributed to short-term construction activities and mobile-source emissions. The project's potential air quality impacts on a local and regional level require an evaluation pursuant to the SCAQMD and California Air Resources Board (GARB) thresholds and methodology. Additional analysis is necessary to quantify potential project-related air quality impacts (both short-term and long-term) and to identify appropriate mitigation that would be effective in avoiding or reducing pollutant emissions. In addition, quantification of carbon dioxide emissions from short-term construction activities and long-term operational activities is necessary. , c) Potentially Significant Impact Refer to Responses 3(a) and 3(b) d) Potentially Significant Impact. Sensitive receptors are defined as populations that are more susceptible to the effects of pollution than the population at large. The SCAQMD identifies the following as sensitive receptors: long-term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, retirement homes, residences, schools, parks, playgrounds, child care centers, and athletic faalities. According to the SCAQMD, projects have the potential to create significant impacts if they are located within 0.25 mile of sensitive receptors. The sensitive receptors located in proximity to the protect site are the existing residences to the north, east, and west, in addition to Old Town July 14, 2008 12 City of Rancho Cucamonga • J • H ~20 • • Initial StudylEnvironmental Checklist Biane Business Park Project Park and Rancho Cucamonga Middle School to the north. Construction and operation of project- related activities would increase vehicle trips on area roadways and resultant air pollutants. Grading and excavation operations may also have air quality impacts in the absence of mitigation. These impacts require additional analysis to assess their level of significance. e) Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project has the potential to generate objectionable odors from both short-term construction and long-term operations. Short-term construction-related impacts could occur due to exhaust emissions associated with construction equipment. Potential long-term impacts could occur should the project involve on-site equipment or vehicles generating substantial emissions. The EIR will evaluate fhe potential for project implementation to create objectionable odors. :tn•, t v ~~ca ~; r«~('? a>,c~;.,..._ r...s~r ,yn~ !x~y'w "C"~"Ee^~`' ~cY 'k#S s~~ ~A` '"~ ~`7 ''ham ~ q~n ~i~`41 f' ~RdS r~~ ~~~ ~ ~'~~,w ~,~ ~'._' ~, "a~ v. ~f.r.~ ~ Cz,~,' '~:" "~~ ~ ' ~ m ""' b- t ~~ ").r~^ ~~r-~ Patentlall ! ,,ry~~. M~'~94 LessgThan Si nlflcant -e,w 'g gs a •r =-~. J-i Less Tha~ 3., Frn.,.-- q~ 3i..yt i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~:* ~..; %, _ ,x,~ f; ,.~; ~~,ISSUes?dlidSUpportingtinformation'Sources: =-~',+s=,~ ~'re~; ~.•„ ~r:y ° " ' ~ y s~slgnificant. g 'Impac6With-' ~ { :Significant ~.,~ No`llm_ pact~~,? ~'~~" ` ".. "s:.a1b ~~ ~,.~ ~ fa ~-~'~~~..~T,'xea~A~ + ~ asa ~.m, ~ ;~~ ;jt »~~'y" ax ~ "t~: '~ ^' 4 linipa~t r ` Mdlgatlon~ orated Incor ~rnpactf ^ a' ~ , r ~'a,~ - , ,, , _ , t~ ~N .a.~l ....AUn11_il~vJ.-']1~iw:i'~~n'~L"~3"`~va s_l~ni.".X+T~ti~' ~ {, ~~ ~NC1-t~s. p ~.C~.'iti4x'~ri-SSW ~ ~[~4~'`a"t~Y~'+~~ ~ -~ 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either dnectly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, / policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish - and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services b) Have a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identifed in local or regional plans, / policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defned by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) / through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native / resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or / ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community conservation Plan, or other approved / local, regional, or State habitat conservation plans Comments: a) No Impact. The project site formerly operated as a winery and is currently occupied by a range of • commercial/industrial users. The majority of the site is covered with structures, paved areas, and ornamental landscaping. Approximately one acre of the protect site is occupied by grapevines, orange trees, and grapefruit trees. The site does not support habitat for sensitive speaes, and July 14, 2008 13 H -21 City of Rancho - Initial StudylEnvironmental Checklist Biane Business Park Project there are no special status or sensitive species located on the protect site. In addition, the project site is not identified as a Sensitive Biological Resource by Exhibit IV-3 of the General Plan (Sensitive Biological Resources). b) No Impact. The project site is developed and designated as General Industrial by the City's General Plan. There are no sensitive natural communities or riparian habitats located on the protect site. c) No Impact. The project site is developed, there are no wetlands located on-site. Refer to Responses 4(a) and 4(b). d) No Impact. The site vicinity is urbanized and is primarily industrial in nature. In addition, the BNSF rail alignment exists north and west of the project site. Thus, there are no wildlife corridors within or surrounding the project site. Refer to Response 4(a) and 4(b). e) Less Than Significant Impact. On-site vegetation consists primarily of grapevines, orange trees, grapefruit trees, and ornamental landscaping. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has a Tree Preservation Ordinance to protect trees within the City to preserve the scenic beauty, prevent soil erosion, provide shade and wind protection, and screening and counteracting air pollution. According to Section 19.08.040 of the City's Municipal Code, fruit bearing trees are exempt from the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance. Palm trees are not exempt from the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance; however, the Tree Preservation Ordinance would be adhered to during project design and construction. Any Palm trees would be relocated or replaced in accordance with the Tree Preservation Ordinance. Refer also to Response 4(a). No Impact. The project site is not located within an existing or proposed habitat conservation plan area, according to Exhibit IV-3, Sensitive Biological Resources, of the General Plan. Project implementation would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State Habitat Conservation Plan. ,~ ~, m~$;'z::. } u !~~, ~. _~-~ ~Fq r4 ~~_'..: fi+ti~. 9{R ~!'f'SF'§ ~ y4o:'.r jg k~~~'it ~~ ~ I+~ ~ ~~~~~~'!~ ~ § 4YT ~1~f `r r- A ~' N Jai '~ ~ ~+. " ~~ Potential ~ N L'essS5Thanr'I ~ „+.w ~f ;:sign ficanl ya a;s--?-.. v Sv~~ •~ I~S~,Tha.~ ~,;° S id ~+"'' ~.;~r;r} "~- t YY ~ )tlss es andiSugporting Informatlon~5 arC ~e~s'.~n "' r~~ ' -'~ z ~.~;~ , a~~s~~~ :~' rr '" E ~' n5ignfficant~ ,Impact~a~ ` Impect,WKhk~ ~Miligat7pn Slgnin,Flcant~ Impact Q ~No Impact ,~- i ~ '" g ` '-, =1.~,1 (`(`''. r }} s ' `" ~~~-' . ~ "'~~' ; ty . f ; ' ' 4ncorporate~ ~'~ ~~`~ ~ '~~~s ~ ~ , ~ P . _ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ v . _ + ~ 1 ~.~ic. ~~. H~.Wm~`W. Y7~ +'i i'}~~..~tr '"! ' u~,~~~ ~ 'tYWP ' . x ~ 3 3 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a ~ historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an ~ archeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource ~ or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of ~ formal cemeteries? Comments: a) Potentially Significant Impact. A Cultural Resources Assessment (Assessment) was performed for the entire project site on March 19, 2008. The Assessment concluded that 10 of the 15 July 14, 2008 14 City of Rancho Cucamonga J • • H-22 • n; Initial StudylEnvironmental Checklist Biane Business Park Project structures and features-in the project,area_were found_to contribute to-the cultural significance of the former Biane Winery (originally called the Padre Winery). In 2001, the winery was evaluated and these former winery structures were determined to be eligible for listing in the National Register and _ 'the California Register. In addition, the winery is eligible for designation as a local Historical Landmark. The project proposes the demolition of existing structures and features and construction of industrial uses The EIR will evaluate project implementation's impact upon the existing historical resources. • ~J b) Potentially Significant Impact. According to the Assessment, no significant archaeological resources were identified on the project site. However, trace amounts of historic glass suggest there is a potential for additional subsurface resources associated with the 1910-1920 winery/cannery workers' housing. The EIR will evaluate project implementation's impact upon the archaeological resources. c) Less Than Significant Impact. The General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report indicates that the Rancho Cucamonga area is on an alluvial fan. According to the San Bernardino County database, no paleontological sites or resources have been recorded within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. In addition, the project site has been previously disturbed as part of development of the Biane Winery. Thus, it is not expected that the project would impact paleontological resources. d) Less Than Significant Impact. No known religious or sacred sites exist within the project area and there is no evidence that suggests that the project site has been used for human burials. Human remains in a previously unknown burial site could be encountered during construction activities associated with the project. In the event human remains are encountered during earth removal or disturbance, all activity shall cease immediately and a qualified archaeologist and Native American monitor shall be immediately contacted, pursuant to the California Health and Safety Code (Section 7050.5). The County Coroner shall be contacted pursuant to Section 5097.98 and 5097 99 of the Public Resources Code relative to Native American remains. Should the Coroner determine the human remains to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted. With adherence to State law, a less than significant impact would occur regarding potential disturbance of human remains. ~yt~., +S-`~ , - ~ ~ ' r ?~: --~r ~ y~~~4~`~k 'Less~Than~'c ~,%r ~ ~'Y )r 3cZ-''^~ " tlp W ;' Yp' < Y s• ^45, TY M I X"ttsY'~dn aF ~R L+..~4~. 7;w~~~~~„ a , '~ h - -*s+ y,,+~. y~ p a w g ftPotenhalty 1$ignificant+~~ "Less Thanz~ .~ +~e , ~3~a~ ~ "' r~ ~ ' y „ .,. 'l . ~ J ^.F,~Q t #e4~ fN" ~ L~ -wz• ,p~' ~i-. _.v.~.._,.. .. "Er "FA?~ Mf, h 'ii ~~c ~ ficantwNotlmpact ;, -~r, ~ l a signmcant Impact+Wi{h'~~ Sign Sources Iss e dlSu orting Information ... :~ . ~. l pp , u s,an xa.5 z. 1, ,tr ,~,°4~'57.:.+'."~k°+. ~ta~~. ~ s?. _~ cg. ~, ~`+".°,>,._.,,wvar fi.c.a>. F ,z•e- a~ >s' + ~~-~~'-'~"'~~~ .z:>~ -;G:tian-°'3?'~~~:Impa~~~;~MilRigatlonw.Impact~i~k: 'Kl~.-W ~'i `rte:- -c` '~ ~ ~'--"¢i?r ~zr'b`, ~ u'~, `f~ 'v.._-.~„~_ > ~ ~.ra -a,-, °~-~~x `~ ~.i, P~ ~~ ~~ _a,- ~~ .~z:ra a`ti~~ ~ Inco ra't e d r ~ ~ a+ ~ >> S a %- ~+'~ Ct ` ~ * ~~ , . . _ ~ ~ ~~. ~ y cv ~ F h KI49P G'i~li' ~3 ~~' c~35~a-.:YSC ~:.~~~ _ d ~~L }+~~_'~1~'J ~~ee r~ ~ 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map °- °-::, + issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on / other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer fo Diwsion of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? / iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefactions / iv) Landslides / July 14, 2008 15 City of Rancho Cucamonga H ~23 -~ Initial StudylEnvironmental Checklist Biane Business Park Project S•~"~r';~ ' mow`' <Y?m"aY3:4_"~"i .n."„wi~'.sYS'ac~eR'n fi ~3 at~~' -- 'a. m~Ytl .:x.,< , i , v ~.., ~,: ._ . ,u r ~ ~.~,,~.,~~~ ~m - a ~~~ ~.-•w ;~,r ~* ~~Y''~`-p°~r` a ~ t". , v.~f'~'., i Ar t s,, ,FM~f ,~ ~ -r ,~-~-im'i it w al§sueS.andSu 'ortiii dlnformatioitSources:".,,~,q ~~~~`~~~'~ PP 9 m~tj~~ ~r'r;,p:a~g~s'.n:t„~~~ ~'~_ '~~ +c~ 4 -k `~r ~ l~Z"e""- f.y~~*9r ~ ~'`" ~ h41 ~' w~ r~ ~fi ~ .~,` - ~.~-. ' - ~-~ ~~. hA-.'~w~.a~''. C"S +.as~si~~,:-`~..~_k~~`E•..a x , ~~'t ,~ H1 r°~ z- Potentially _ sw. ,slgnificant~, Impact ~ ~r.. i~ az~ ~i~~ F ~` ~r_~ s A a~',."4Etra`^.a~vt". ~LessgThanas~.~ ~Signifcani'~ w,.^.-•r Impact;Wkh;f ~Mitigat~on~ Incorporated ~_ ~~a.,~i, ke °-~ - Fm'-~ ~L"ess Thanes --+.a. ~- .S MSigmficant~- almpact~`~i C ~..a4 *ra~ P `~~a - ~ ~a~F~..-a ,.-~ 3""ru. '~ ~"" de .x w r~ , t,i ~ ~"~~' ' e+iarri' ~ ~Nu'Impac'tym- '~„",~. ~; ~-tz'~+d'Tj '-fti s.~=.u'.~5~ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoils / c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, / liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life / or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers / are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Comments: a) Faul[ Rupture Less Than Significant Impact. A Geotechnical Engineering Investigation (dated March 7, 2007) was prepared for the proposed project by NorCal Engineering. According to the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, there are no known active or potentially active faults trending toward or through the site The Alquist Priolo Fault Zone for the Cucamonga Fault is located approximately six miles north of the project site. The proposed project lies outside of any Alquist Priolo Special Studies Zone and the potential for damage due to direct a fault rupture is considered low. ii) Strong Seismic Ground Shaking Less Than Significant Impact. The site is located in a seismically active area, as is the case throughout southern California There are a number of faults in the region that could generate earthquake-induced ground shaking that could be felt at the site. Notable faults located nearest to the project site are the Cucamonga and Demens Creek, San Jose, Red Hill, Sierra Madre, and Chino faults. The proposed project would be designed in conformance with the latest International Building Code (IBC) provisions for earthquake design to minimize potential ground shaking hazards that are typical to Southern California. iii) Seismic-Related Ground Failure Less Than Significant Impact. The City is located within a seismically active area of southern California. The City's General Plan EIR states that the City's potential for liquefaction as low. In addition, according to the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, the potential for liquefaction is considered to be very low due to the depth of groundwater (over 200 feet) in the project area. The proposed project would be subject to IBC standards to minimize any potential ground failure or liquefaction hazards: Therefore, project implementation is not anticipated to result in the exposure of people or structures to potential impacts related to seismic ground failure or liquefaction. Impacts are considered less than significant. July 14, 2006 16 City of Rancho Cucamonga • H ~24 J • • ~~ Initial StudylEnvironmental Checklist Biane Business Park Project iv) Seismically-Induced Landslides __ Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is not located on a hillside or mountain. The project site is developed and the topography is generally flat with no slopes capable of producing a landslide. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is currently developed with former winery facilities, a warehouse building, scattered structures, surface parking, grapevines, orange trees, and grapefruit trees. Project implementation would not significantly alter the impermeable surface area of the site. Project construction would produce loose soils, which would be subject to erosion during on-site grading and excavation. Grading and trenching for construction may expose soils to short-term wind and water erosion. The project would be required to comply with all requirements set forth in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for construction activities reducing potential impacts to less than significant levels. c) Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response 6(a), above. d) Less Than Significant Impact. According to the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation prepared for the proposed project, expansive soils occur beneath the project site. Expansive soils are fine- grained silts and clays subject to swelling and contracting However, the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation includes several standard engineering measures to be implemented during design and construction to minimize potential impacts. e) No Impact. No septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems are proposed. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated in this regards. ~.~ q-~._v-r^^.. ...r '^# -'~. ~'^"vaa. _°~" .y :tea ~;; ~i`^='-- =_;d:. .-Me .K:~~wStic~„ -~~,~+~~~~~~T# ;"g`" ` a1'2~ _ ~ :;'~l, ~,}.~..,y~i~"~~' y!. }~ l ~~i~jie'"'r~ ~' l~.j ~Fl' T -Y ' '~+ r" ~M ~ r' ~ ~ %'~t' G$j~ m'^. ~,.u,.»{[ ,~'>'" ~ ._ ~ ~ ^;- i 'i`'='= sh3» L'ess3Ttia~n~'. ~ ~~ r k.;A"r~'~'-. C,t." ~',.: y f ` a :;z _ ,~_., f.-~ ~i~.. ~, s~ .%M ~ ' r . y., ~~'%A ~ h ~ $ 1 5 I~ k . ,fir vn xp', `K"4 °• .r4 j. 4` € ' y.u y ~i:ie-'$f§ ~55~~nv'1 :}qW~/°. ~~1.~ 3i~ i "a~ XS ~, andtSupporting;In~rmation~S~~~es~;~y~s~~s'a ~ ~ ~. AI ~Potentiaflyfyl ' M i nt Slgnlficant:~; Pitt 3LesstTh n,~-~ P-~T "+~=aF"_ ~i g ~ ~t ~ ~ ~a,~A- v~ u'r4~yi. 4 ` ~ ~ ~ . ~ i Ct ~P 4 4 Ni4 > a~cx~' e n , 9m act :~ 2 '[' p _ ~ ' l?~M~IzaLon"~ '.~./M Jl ~ v l mt ct " ~ ` ~ ~ ' ' ' ~+~`` r 11 rr}}~~''yy?? ~~((~~-- x : Yc. ~ k G-++,.. ,.,,M b ~ zS4F4`.~XW.+..~ M.#'.`...:._. 4dx3 Sv. ~~d~ac. Y R%~/s..J~ ~~L.~ . ~1~ i Y 4+~~ ~ Incorporated,~ ~rt+i'vn{sue"~.~r1u~ ~~~ t.C h.A'M1a F~'TV~' s~N~Y.-'Jf~3e " 4...az q..~ 7 MN`..~c -!~`ki.= 7. HAZARDS AND WASTE MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or'the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous / materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions / involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 1i4 mile of an / existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section / 65962 5 and, as a result, would it create a signifcant hazard to the public ar the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public / airport or public use airport, would the protect result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the protect area? July 14, 2008 H ~25 17 City of Rancho Cucamonga T ~3dL ~w~u, xa ~`~„ ~ W`~'-ti iFii-SXcT ~Tr,~ ''.k`ry"°N'~~~-..3 ~'tk~~3~~' ~rvv -~e .,,~ ~ ~ s ~ rb- ~. ~''~;~'~` ~ v~ ~ a,„, ~~w ~ ~"~y- ' ~~ F ~ ="~ a^Y.'- Lk'?Nr -'-~~~ "Pntia l ~ i~ ~""^.~1°+.~^"61i', T3 Less Than ~Sig nificent~ e~cltt".`~M~A~` ` p.~ Less han r~ .ss -E M.~;I ~;- ~ 3~~ -~ .~., r - Ylssues~and~Supportmg~InformabonSourcea r>~'~4yt*;tf x,W ~^, . ~.. ~+- „ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ '~ ' ' ` ~ g ~Slgniflcagt ~~Ilnp a t ' .. ~ ~Iinpac~tWith~r Mdiga tmon,~' ~ °t A r5ignificant Impact . , ( ~ )TNOlmpactyy, c` -s,~'~~ ` ~ { „ .u.:~ ,~ ~ max ~ ~;~- ' i4 ~~.~ ,; rcy ~',5,~,, ,r~~ ~ ~(~F°~`' r, trt~ 4. $J n'-,'"t,.."4~'a:'3:e 51#~^~- j, A,~S.;~S~ °i=' ~tFf~ai.~°~'?°-~'4"<:„~vr,-4--~;a~.xt2&'2.x....x`wd~.tx",'v-..*~_::.="ri':~':Ss._.'~/~ti::9',:;b't+':~~5~"i:.h^; ~ .__ ~ - ~-, 9":w. _- t G'.tv, .v'~.5 ~ : _ d Inco ora"ted rp k x-:..F~~~~V'S::? ~ , ~~ ~ ... v ~"n'.~i :.1v'"'nl°~'..~ . ;~-.., ~~=. ~ .:_ _~yk~ ~R ~-r~"~,a."y'~"~. . f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in / the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted / emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a signifcant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland Tres, including where wildlands are / adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Comments a) Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project could potentially create a hazard to the public or the environment from the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Industrial, warehousing, and distribution operations proposed at the project site could involve hazardous materials in bulk quantities as part of daily operations. In addition, small amounts of hazardous materials may be found in solvents and chemicals used for routine cleaning, building maintenance, and landscaping. The materials would be similar to those found in common household products, such as cleaning products or pesticides. Hazardous materials used in construction and operation of the proposed project would be subject to City, State, and Federal regulations. Potential impacts will be further analyzed within the EIR. b) Potentially Significant Impact. The project site's historical use for wine production may have required the use of pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, and other chemicals for winery operations. Further analysis is required to confirm the presence or absence of hazardous materials on the project site. In addition, the proposed protect could potentially create a hazard to the public through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials as part of long-term operations. Potential impacts will be further analyzed within the EIR. Initial StudylEnvironmental Checklist Biane Business Park Project • • c) Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project is located approximately 0.15 miles south of Rancho Cucamonga Middle School. Although proposed protect long-term operations would not involve acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste, construction and demolition activities have the potential to emit potentially hazardous material associated with former wine production on- site. Further analysis is required to confirm the presence or absence of hazardous materials on the project site. d) No Impact The project site is not included on a governmental list of hazardous materials sites. e) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project site is located approximately two miles north of the Ontario International Airport. However, the proposed project would comply with applicable City development standards and is not of the scope or nature to result in a safety hazard for people working in the project area. f) Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response 7(e). 2008 18 City of Rancho Cucamonga • H46 u • • Initial StudylEnvironmental Checklist Biane Business Park Project __ g)___Less_ rhan__Significant Impact. __The City__adopted.-a -Standardized Emergency_Manageme_n_t_. System Multi-Hazard Functional Plan in 1997, which identifies the roles, responsibilities, and procedures for those who respond to natural or man-made emergencies. There would be two access points for the proposed project. One driveway is on the northeastern side of the project and the other is on the northwestern side of the project site, both accessing 8'h Street. The proposed project would be subject to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Standards to ensure that adequate emergency access is provided. h) No Impact. The proposed project is located within a developed, urbanized area and is surrounded primarily by industrial uses. There are no wildlands adjacent or nearby to the project site. h~"~~ ~;+ ~t.'7'~ ~rv 3 .fit.. " ~ -..~ t a~e ~rx~ *.. .~s a „2 ~, sa~.,~~ r ~ ."~*t~~~~ :~±i 5~ - i"d~ r~z , ~'a~ p~t ,~ aP ll t t n~,°"-~.~ RLess;Than i 't5 if t FF~~..r..yay ~t a r~;a_ ,"4;t^ , L Th ~ ' ~4~E. ~.` F c, . " ~'`~ a~ s .~ °3~ ,.~ c~ ~ ~a~~. .av ~ #~Issues~and Supporting=information Sources fi -e~~~ ~~~ ` ~~~~~ ` ~ ~ ~en ~a a r r,.s: Y ~^SlgnlFlcantg" Impact 1 ~n ican ~ 9 ilmpattWith ~^Mdigati on ,e~ss~ ~ an Signigcant ~ ~~Impact fi 1NO I~mp~ac~ r~ ~. r k, .~,~ Y ~ ~ !~' +. ~~`T y a, - . , ~,. r,. ~~ °n`z.,^y~l ~,~.- =~ p~ , ~:,,a~ r~ iw"R>,vt....tl 'SF "ki9 ~u~4~"~'~If;~"R'n r1-r'~' '_4Ai :b leNeJi 'iKW "~ ~2' ~:&" .76 ~ ~ IncorporaieB ,-.~~'x~°°~vl~. ,~ ~ ~ ~~ . '~kd'i~ +ty~~.~°{ e"SF.~wv~~~4~_ 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge / requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing / nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream / or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream / or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff wafer which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or / provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? / g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rale -- / Map or other flood hazard delineation maps h) Place within a 100-year Flood hazard area structures that would / impede or redirect Flood Flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the / failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? / July 14, 2008 H-27 19 City of Rancho Cucamonga ~_~ Initial StudylEnvironmental Checklist Biane Business Park Project Comments: _ .. _-____._. • a) Potentially Significant Impact. Impacts related to water quality would range over three different :periods: (1) during the demolition and construction phase; (2) following construction, prior to the establishment of ground cover; and (3) following completion of the project as there would be an increase in impermeable surfaces and urban runoff would increase. Construction of the proposed development would disturb on-site soils. During a storm event, particulate matter would run off the site. Urban runoff is expected to increase as a result of developing the project. The concentration of chemical constituents dissolved or suspended in runoff waters leaving the site would vary with the distribution pattern of rainfall events. Similarly, the characteristics of rain events affect the concentration of pollutants Further analysis is required to determine whether project implementation would violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. b) Less Than Significant Impact. Exhibit IV-2 of the General Plan (Water Resources) illustrates the locations of the City's groundwater recharge basins and spreading grounds. As indicated in Exhibit IV-2, the project site is not located within an area designated as a recharge basin or spreading ground, although some such areas exist in proximity to (downstream of) the project site. The project does not propose to extract groundwater to meet the water demand created by the proposed project. c) Potentially Significant Impact. Development of the site would involve the construction of impervious surfaces beyond existing conditions, which would decrease ground absorption on-site, increase the quantity of surface water, and change existing drainage patterns. The changes in drainage patterns, altered absorption rates, and the manner in which runoff from the site would be • accommodated by existing or future drainage infrastructure improvements requires further analysis. Proposed water quality infrastructure features will be identified and discussed in detail within the EIR. A drainage technical assessment will be conducted to determine within the EIR potential impacts in this regard. d) Potentially Significant Impact. Refer to Response 8(c). e) Potentially Significant Impact. Refer to Responses 8(a) and 8(c). f) No Impact. The proposed project would not result in potential water quality impacts beyond those identified in response 8(a), above. g) No Impact. No housing is proposed as part of the project. In addition, Exhibit V-5 of the General Plan (Flood Hazards) identifies the flood areas referred to as "Special Flood Hazard Areas inundated by 100-Year flood" on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). As illustrated on Exhibit V-5, the proposed protect is not within the boundaries of a Special Flood Hazard Area. h) No Impact. Refer to Response 8(g). i) No Impact. There are `no reservoirs or dams within or nearby of the project site; therefore, no flooding as a result of an existing reservoir or dam is anticipated. j) No Impact. Because of the inland location, elevation of the site, and lack of nearby bodies of standing water, inundation by tsunamis or seiches does not pose a hazard to the site. Debris flow or mudflows are not anticipated to occur due to the project site's existing and surrounding developed uses and the project's relatively flat topography. • July 20 City of Rancho Cucamonga H -28 Initial StudylEnvironmental Checklist Biane Business Park Project :'S'T..< s- -rxa-e--~Ye_-~J. - _ ._ -- *~rt A 4 ~:.: _~""}"',-u~..~,. ..-.... ~iT. YY,~i _ -e ia: }}~~.. "I.,~h ~ ~ '~ ~ ~" , P~ rtt~ fi -~ r 4? _ ~.:ss.. --.=s_ ~~ d:iiM'~ir. ~ + :,.*'_ ==Less:Thanv~- ^. tom .: 4 ~...... ~~` E-: ~ ., -_. --z~`T ~'`vLh 1~- ,`t~.LO.I ` "' . i,., ' ' '3 ~xaw ~ ~ b. 51e'.. "~. :~Y' -.t,~s' ~~. y +' ~zd) "s"t;~~ ~ ,~-~ ~ v, t. '~av ~.kSS.s^. :,f~e3{.Y:,x.v~-i[L ~Y•21~~~G:,dya.+,p.""- °~ Issues andSu orti Infor at idn Sou rc es: r . P.btenhal !~_:~v^- ~ Si nificantr . - . Si-nlficant~,, ~9m~~~ act w¢h vLesssTha ^ NS if'~nt0 Sign , - ~f ,+'•-s^•w, I otlm act j pp r ° ~ w ~~.a: ng; m~ ~~~ i;,,K~=~ „ l ,~.~ s y+p~~ _: ,~ rt~` ;~, ,,,~.;~` ", A. M. r(tA ~} IFT Y 7 a ~' ~~'~ ~" ~ 1 - g ~t ~ ' ~ ~ g ~ ~ Impacts Jc .q• .~.t "~ _imp - ~ ~Mfhgaho>~ I c + ~ ~ ~ °r~+impact 'i H•vt ' ''"~' ' ~ p ,,_ ~..,~s>~-~y1 j '~" FM'~£ .~'~ ~ ` ~' , . F j~ ~HUe fi'i . ~ ~aM,~ ,~'%,~o-r ysnat r,. r yyu-T>,~<yyr. a w p~.. a " A?Ytii.Y."1'x'~- 7'~ !~ "iJ~~-v>~['3?.n_E.#1~hTA,~aU: F. 4 ~ F '~~~3 n orporated _aa=c3~O~ ,.j :t r;• uN~4 ~ ...Cty fFry~i *- , ,'~p j iG`Yna~t~Al" 9. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? / b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, a general plan, speafic plan, local coastal program, or / zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural / community conservation plan? Comments: a) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project site is developed by a former winery and is • currently utilized by independent tenants. Current use includes warehouse, storage, and distribution operations, office space, banquet facility, auto garage, and machine shop. The project • area is urbanized and is primarily industrial in nature. Based on the location of the project site and the character of the surrounding area, project implementation would not physically divide an established community. b) Potentially Significant Impact. The Land Use Plan for Rancho Cucamonga is shown on Exhibit III-1 of the General Plan (Land Use Plan). According to Exhibit III-1, the project site is designated General Industrial. In addition, according to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, the proposed protect location is zoned Industrial District Subarea 5. The project proposes to develop industrial uses that would be consistent with the existing Land Use Plan and zoning designations for the site Potential operations could include one or more of a range of industrial/warehousing uses allowable under Section 17.30.030 of the Development Code. The EIR will provide further analysis in regards to consistency with the goals, policies, and objectives of the General Plan and development standards (e.g., parking ratios, height limitations, setbacks, etc.) of the Development Code. This would include analysis of the project's consistency with policies contained within the General Plan pertaining to the protection of historic resources within the City. c) No Impact. Refer to Response 4(f). LJ +~e•~`:wMr.-~ n• ,~ ~!7A~ ~?: ._-y; =fr~~? i4~'~ t 'y- a ' J9'. ~ i, i', .~r '~.¢ r±.~~,+. '~ .~;;'r ...,i c"~ '~ i,riF;.'.•~," ~ r.~ n+~ i~r ~ r~'.x'r c,. 'ar': ' a:~~+,;.H . . ~~ ~ "~ "'~° ~ ~' t'°. k~A'~ w»~` C'~~:==F. "'`"ie~~:.;' :LPess-Than•ae -~;, _;xar 4` Y"sJ 3,i ,- d '~'•N r ' ;'m;~ y ~_'c _.r.y~. , ~ y ~ t , '~ ,~ , ,, '~1~;z ~: ~~;+ag: ,AL,~ `sp3' ,t~'i 'tj>~=', ;, ~i„ ; u~`'- }t `~am ~ ~' 2. ) 2'I Issuesvand Su ortm ilnformattontSources ~` s't.~``~ pP i' 9 FP.otentially, tte ~S nificantF ~ g t;Significant~a s+. ra,..~.vM' llm act Withy' P .N, yf:ess~TFi an t~~yy' ~ Significant ~ . ,( .~ ~, ; , "I.G 'fJO;linpactfi~ „~y., ~-~p~ ~~ ,.rxg .. ~ ~s -tea ~ x *~ ~ti '~~t~i ~'~ :" 9~,~,~~'^`t~+, r~. ~~~e ~~a"~ aid xi ~~~r^~t"~ ,,r h; w*. ~~ ~ :' z t~f ~ ~, `fi ~5 ' r t ' yF~~ .~,,- Impac~ 'fir i z-- s Mitigation I co~ at d , .~ ~ std tx~lmpaet'~S~ ~~ n t~ x ~ ; ~ o r ,` ~,~+ ,. ~ , ~~ ~r~ ~ ~ r~~ yy y ~, ~ „ ~ y y ~~~ ' ~ ~iw ~~N~~t ~~ i ' ~ ` ~~YY~ ~ ` t ' ~ ~ n por e ~ ~ ~~?~ ~~ ~`r: ~ -.r' . 3„ vm..Jt .ud~wl l. e. . . ii:i;!Y, ,G:1 ~" ~.." ~ b , , ~Ri . t 4~ i~k Y.~...~ fY.°tl~, t 10. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that / would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? July 14, 2008 H-29 21 City of Rancho Cucamonga Initial StudylEnvironmental Checklist Biane Business Park Project i.~~'-~`'fi~„:~`-':TF9'/:":F.7~3-~k°c~".~`p~:-F.~±~p"R:?:?.~~i"..,'~._,,:{~;a_;A.':~°~•~~f« 3~t~,yr_~.~~ -~ yr - ~° y'~=~~.~i~.i3i ~a•>s" s1-n',iti.4 a G^^ =.+`fi+.~. ~.7. ~.. Ln14 at lv'M m'x - - v 4.'- v~ L~ ~.'.rv`~w.'>" ~~zy~:.~-.. ~,.,'b-.,`7--nom :s..,ad'i ~- +-~'~r+~. ~~44; HM4~~,~= ?t °~ I fOfm t~l ~` S U 85 ~ ~ ~ =~ ~ ~d~ Pp ti~ I ue 7a ~ iss:~r` P~P.otentially 5ig~ific ant Less Than '*Sigmfic~nt~ Fact Wkh~ - v z - ~• ~Le,2s Tha""n~ Si nificant~ 9 jj~ Yi$`'.IF'~.: s~,2~;4„nt -~5,~~ NNoilm arc P a 0 I .~ ~ -may o ~y I g n s n . ;?~S ~~r`~s'i~`r.~!.~'~'`i~~~~ err}.~,ke~ n` s~ 7~ ~ " 4 ~ ~ _ ~ ; Imp~act~~ ~ Mrtigation~ I f 1t ~ ~~~PaeF . ~,` , 4 ~~ ~" s. y.., hl x ~'~ "a~'i .,~° a r~ ~ } et -2 t." i+ ~ ~ ~~ -s nCA pora~ - { u~-'. ~ S ~~ e~ ~:.7~.r Yf:~^..L,zi *"St !v~Se~. ,..,~:.,.~ ~ ..~,..u.aa~3~ :~ ~ 1~ ~ ~ ~ ~- c . ., .. r.,,~tar i. ,-u , b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, / specifc plan or other land use plan? Comments: a) No Impact. The site is not designated as a State Aggregate Resources Area or valuable mineral resource recovery site, according to Figure IV-1 of the General Plan (Regionally Significant Aggregate Resources) and Table IV-1 (Areas of Designated Regionally Significant Aggregate Resources). b) No Impact. Refer to Response 10(a). ! f K~~`("+~~~ .*C "`~' _-'i}it`"+'Y~1"iR. y.~(-A ~.:~ - lY1 ~. intiti. ~ ti+.--:' ~'^ +YP. ~~p '-',,f~>..<';~ x;'.1 ~, ~~~~~.N«t - ,.~~~~~ u'~`4 ',`~~:: au . ~;} ~:1;"'*~~. ~.5SThan. Yeg~u,_t`'I g~ _~;. ';'` ,~~_, ` ~ . _ „~~~~°~ tiL' 5` t r ' -~9 ~' a ~ tizL Si ni a ` =T ~«'~~% ii l ~~ ' ~'~' ° w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, . _ v ,.~ {, ->`: . ~ , ~an, r, ;Pote fic n e ss tfa ty~ g i ~.~ ' k;=' ' ^ iX;.z5 ,v:!~" r'~a--.. N' `v~~ -t ~..• rs.^ ~ ~ ~ its, k~ . n~.xc.,.. _."'~ Kj fR. -~,Nof~pact Impact Wig ~Sign~iflgcan~ ~ . ~ ~5ignifican~ upportrngilnformation 5ourc~'~ 'i~,~~, .*t ~ ., +~.~ ~ylssues andtS' } ~ ~ a ~ ~ 45 ~ i ~ yr~'a ,it„ ~ gim;.•„st 3` "` ~~~'---~'''t~.;~'"'°~.3~rt:"~` . t , +r.c,M,''~,a..nA ~'-0.Impact~rt ~°Miyigation ~ Impact~,t r u, c~'r~'" ti x+~ °~'n'~-~".'~~'>-~ ~._•~i,~T§t ~ < ~ v ~3i~' 4n; '~5>~ds~ Incorporatedu a~ "' ~5, ~a ~ F rZ ~t~ ., ' z~ aF ' ~ ' t ` * ' ~`' '~ ~~ ~ ' T ' ^ n t ~ ~ " x,I. ~L.~: ° { ~' ,s.a3h. ,,.,~ ~s°'fi F~'.t . ~r.. ~..$ ~ Y~..~r~ ,:gf ~'~5 ~ .~'~`~~ ~-~,x'~;=~r`~~'. y ,~ ~ ~+'r~'a'. u: v t,,,t++ ~ ; .e 11. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise / ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne / vibration or ground borne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in fhe / project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vianity above levels existing without the / project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public / airport or public use arport, exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a protect within the vicinity of a pnvate airstrip, exposure of .people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise / ~~ "levels?-- Comments: a) Potentially Significant Impact. Exhibit V-13 of the General Plan (Future Noise Contours) illustrates the exposure to noise from vehicular traffic on local streets, arterials, and highways under year 2020 conditions. The project site would not be exposed to vehicular noise levels exceeding July 14, 2008 22 City of Rancho Cucamonga -- I 1 U • H30 • Initial StudylEnvironmental Checklist Biane Business Park Project _____City sta_ndards_under_build_out_conddions,_according_to_Exhibit V-13.__However,_pcoject,related___ ____ _. constructioh activities and long-term operation of the protect would result in both short-term and long-term impacts. Short-term impacts would occur during demolition and construction activities :i~ ~., ...,~ and could expose nearby sensitive receptors to noise levels exceeding the City's Noise Ordinance. Long-term noise impacts would be associated with vehicular traffic to and from the site and stationary mechanical equipment on-site. The presence of existing noise sources (including the ~" ~ ' ' ' "railroad alignments both north and west of the project site) will be considered in the analysis. Both short- and long-term noise impacts require further evaluation. b) Potentially Significant Impact. The project would include demolition and grading to prepare the site for installation of infrastructure and for site development. Further review is required to determine the significance of impacts. c) Potentially Significant Impact. Refer to Response 11(a). d) Potentially Significant Impact. Refer to Response 11(a). e) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project site is located approximately two miles north of the Ontario International Airport. The site, however, is not within approach, landing or take-off corridors, therefore, project implementation would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. ti Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response 11(e). • ~ ~ uT _ ~" I `'~~'~' ',,,„ v _~ ~~iw ~"~',v .,~~'^'- ~~`~ ,~-.. - '~;~ Issues and;5upportuig Informatlonry;~S~ources> ~ 4n~gv' F , JYTa ..k }'W+. ~ "} ~, _ - ~..;~~~ '` ~'~ ~~ b ~~`~;~t~ ~ ~'{. tii'~2'~-rte 4Pp ''~ Tl`.r ~.v~xu x. .aw-Nr uIh t••. ~Lib1I .Y ~ t ~ ~Pote_nt,ally~ ~"sgn,flcant _ Y t,rlmpac~,~ ~~,.~,~ ~kMY"~~ , Less Than Sign,~.~liicant,~ Impact wnh ^~-' M ` W- ~M~tigaGOn I'ncvor~"p~"o~rated ~!4'."*i.`IC3. ~: ~ "~ LesThan s,gnfic`ant+. ~ <k'~fflV~ p Impact§~ "~ ~. ~v~av ~ ~=w ~' , No~l`mpact # ~, - £v.rz ~ ~+f 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other ~ infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ~ c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere ~ Comments: „., „ , . a)_ Potentially Significant Impact. The project proposes the development of approximately 240,740 -' square feet of an industrial warehouse building within a business park setting: The project has the potential to attract numerous enterprises to the vicinity and generate new job growth beyond the protect site's current operations. Therefore, project implementation could induce direct population growth in the area. Additional analysis will be performed in the EIR to determine the growth induang potential of the protect • b) No Impact The project site is currently developed with the former Biane Winery (originally the Padre Winery), warehouse building and associated buildings, paved parking, grapevines, orange trees, grapefruit trees, and three residential dwelling units. The proposed project's General Plan July 14, 2008 23 City of Rancho Cucamonga H -31 ~~ Initial StudylEnvironmental Checklist Biane Business Park Project ______land use designation_is General_Indu_stria_L_and__is_zgned_I_ndustrial_District_Subarea-_5.__These___._____ dwelling units are occupied by a member of the Biane Family Enterprises LLC, an employee for Scott's Tires (a tenant on-site), and the owner of Fidel Martinez, Auto Body Shop, along with the former "handy man" of the Biane Winery. As one occupant is involved with the development of this proposed project and the other two are associated with on-site tenants, displacement of these dwelling units would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing. No further analysis regarding this issue is required. c) No Impact. Refer to Response 12(b). i na ° k`"'~~~'~ 4,''^` Vic, a 'i`e'' xJ`a, ~ - .~ ~ i T,,~ ~ Y" ~ ~ u"~ ~hg-'+ ~ ' s ~h ~ ~e +-Less Than "~ .~ -~ ~-^,-'; ^k --- "`";~ ~: „~ ~- ~} ,~~. " '~~ ~"" ~PBtentlally 9fgnifjcant~-~ ~I:essaThan ~~'~ . mss. ' ?~' ~'"" ~. ~a s- ~- a .~, 3~ "~ ~Sigolficantt~xt~Nolmpact$; . Impact Wlthp t Slgmflcant issues°andSupportmglnformatlomSources x `~°' ~.t _'~,s~#',°r~ ~~'*'~~ .. ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~~ `` ~ ~ Impact hlHlgation~l ~'*-Impact^; ~`~,,~ .s I 'oi orafed ~ ~ ~~ :- 7~ " '~ '' cr ~~'~ ~ ~ P nc '' ~#~ ~ ~ ~~~ §#'r' +~?" ~ z ~ F ' c3.. y, cm t # .."t' ~. .~. ~ . ,u ~ ~^, , ~... , . - i~ a. 13. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response ti mes or other performance objectives for any o1 the public services: a)' Fire protection? / b) Police protection? / c) Schools? / d) Parks? / e) Other public facilities? / Comments: a) Potentially Significant Impact. The Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District services the City. The proposed project may increase service demand on existing fire protection resources. The proposed project would be required to be annexed into the Fire Protection District's Community Facilities District 85-1. In addition, the proposed project would be required to comply with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District's fire flow requirements. Further review is required to determine the significance of impacts. b) Potentially Significant Impact. The City contracts with the County of San Bernardino Sheriff's Department for police protection services. The proposed project's future operations could increase service demand on existing police protection services. Additional analysis will be performed in the EIR. c) Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project has the potential to induce an increase in population within the City should future employees relocate to the project area. This would result in the potential for an increased student population within the City Further analysis will be performed within the EIR, including a comparison between existing employment at the project site versus proposed employee generation. d) Potentially Significant Impact. Exhibit III-13 of the General Plan (Hiking and Riding Trails Master Plan) illustrates the City's planned system of regional and community trails. As indicated in Exhibit III-13, no regional multi-purpose trails or community trails traverse the protect site. July 14, 2008 24 City of Rancho Cucamonga • ~J H 32 U u • Initial StudylEnvironmental Checklist Biane Business Park Project ___Exhibit III-10.of the General Plan (Parks_and_ Recreation_Plan)_identifies_the_locations of existing____. __ _ parks and recreational use facilities; no park or use facility is identified within the project site. However, there is one park use located outside the project site, to the north, Old Town Park. Implementation of the proposed project could create a demand for parkland and recreational use facilities through direct use by on-site employees, and indirect effects due to the potential relocation of future employees to the project area. This issue will be further analyzed within the EIR. e) No Impact. Impacts to public facilities beyond those identified in Responses 13(a) through 13(d) are not anticipated No impacts would occur in this regard. Z~re. A$(~ a H I t~ 4' ]~~~'K A~ J~yi `°~T. ice' f. ~[ $ .~ ~~ ~v~i ~f ,y ~. F y , ~~, ~f~:._ ~&~~.yh~~+M~~J ~ s~'.~~. ,~.d$~tl t ny~p'1 '~r ;`x r ~' '' ~ '~ w'~~ ~~" ` " ' ' ~ ISAf~S F~,e.P~it , „ is ~ t'~Potenll al ly ~ ~.3 Less~Than ~f :~- ^swrat gnificant~ 51 L4. P 4`3,'. ~,~ ~ `Y ~ ~ an~ L•ess Th P P„~..yrS s rl +~ 5 x: -~ ~ $f gay s.;'. .~ ~r,;~ ~ J; F.~` <k` $w , 2 -.~ °5.. t S' ;~ suesfand;Supportingslnfok io_n Sources ~¢s~'F'`;.y~`y",~~~~~~~~~~ ~ is m~~~ ~ u ~ ~~9mD ct ~ ~ . ~MHtg _f o'n`'~ ~ y~ ~ ~ ~9mp cfr~$ ' ~ ~, r, ~Pa ~"' ~'' = , c k~ ~.~ `F` `"' '~ ~ ' ` ~ ~ . ~` ~ ~ o rated; In ~ ~w ~ ~,;rr + ~i vim .i .td ~ _~ k:..~.c.hrt~ ~.,,*i ~ ~~.'~"..,, ~ _ ~r~~:.~ .; ~ ~`~i. x-«= .'~,~'~ ?`+ -~.;:_-ter 14. RECREATION. Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical / deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might / have an adverse physical effect on the environments Comments: a) Potentially Significant Impact. As stated above in Response 13(d), the proposed project could result in both direct and indirect effects on park facilities within the project site vicinity. Further analysis will be provided within the EIR. b) _ No Impact. The project does not include recreational facilities, nor would it require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. No impacts would occur in this regard. $°+'r ;=,.;.1';~,;p''_'k'S. i.'''"'e.+: ~1"+i•, t% ',~`~'~"'7C`~~P x~`•'-`~: x~Ar~rav .,. v. 145'I~.~'8" "_. ca~ ~'i~ . ~.,~irn: 'J ~,~~ ~',,~'~. y( ~ ;„~.~~~~,!;t~t~ -~. °~~,*t¢'~~ ] f.+r,?`°. ~~''r L'esssThan o ,, .~~~,r~` 1~+-~"~~', '~3 P5^ P ;~' '"2)\eG M ~ k uY= '~~' , t~ A '~AeY~ r 4 tt~~.+~k y"~~a§~~L~ +~% ~y, Kt~ ~ „ krs ~ Potentialty?Slgnlficant tLess~Than; ~r~`M,r ri ant *` Noil f""~ f a ~I a w h ° s j ~ t nj ~ ~~~ c m ac n SI nl ic nt m ct d d i m lnformatlo IssueSPand Su o In Source5 th» ppM g ~ ~ 12+ '~ ° ~'+, 9r.s , P a .. g aare-, ~ ~ x: p -7 gation F'` Impact`j'~ '~: "~+ ~ ~'~ ~'fpn"q`'~,,+~a n ' ~ _"" ' ~' r}a~s' ~" i „ m r MHi ~" ~'i~ `' `'Yk' f~ ~"~ nc ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~'+ ~, P r~ ~~ r ~ ~ m J I Q orated , efi c x ~~~ `.~ ~ ' `y ~ . ,>p ~ ...~'~ : ° r f'tzs~3.~" .c.'*;,. +~"~ ~'~:~;.xV~Yb-~',~"W~~v~; '';`.~~34aN.s~z~v~''r`~a`f.:*n.,~. = L ~~a~~k..P'~-r.3 :,:.'~~-~ea#~ 5va'a.`7m~'~....: r _ 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Woutd the project: a) Cause an increase in traffc, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (re , result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle / trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, oc,congestiom.at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management / agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in au traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in / substantial safety risks? July 14, 2008 25 City of Rancho Cucamonga H33 rX- Initial StudylEnvironmental Checklist Biane Business Park Project r, g3Tt,„y'::tlyR ^,^td~TLkk'. ~'- .. £. v, lit ~r3,#.i ;tea" '[§ Y e aE- 3! .# am i P =~ +~ ~e ~-..e f-: cf s' ~:,, x 1 >~"~~ - "'.~:'°'~ ",,~~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ '~ T" „r~r. L,ftt~ ~P olentlally'TYry '.I~~.a ,y~eSSlTtlan Sig~ficant '~"w"~. ~ x• {~, .. f Les a•Than f^. 5-_.4.f -'a, ~` j~ ~3y "~' ; ~ d . ,, ~~ ~ s and Supporting~plnformatlon~tSources `~~~, ~ ~~~ `~` ~Issu e ~*,.~ a(''~'~'.,~c.o-TM';s~~~,z ~'f ~,1~, -4 °.'=~id,. f`~.' a4`l • - ~ ~ ~ " ~ ~Significant~:~ ~Impact~`t 'x~-~ k ' 'I~mpa~tWdh~ ~,aM.itigsati{on~- ""~ ~ ~igai~cana,~ ! _Impa"ct~''Xr zt' ':n • ~~ ~ o~lmpact"~Sf ~,d ~` 't'~^ . }+ i ._~°~+ . ~ z... ~ ~ K~ -_^' ~vy' r ~::-~ g= ~: ~ '- i"_ ,~{' K ~`i'-~ _ 5~ 1 `~ - ~Z -s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - C rr . ~ T Ihcoi oratetl:~ ~ p , „ . u 3 5r J t f Q '~ r ~' '"°yq~ ~ `~ ~ ? { i '° °~". `[-.` 5. ( ~5 ~..~_ ` ~¢~~-~~~-~^'~i ~T.`:';Y,.c.xa~.`:~u:. h:.saa..°.'Icr .. 4.,,~....!'.i3 -.".'-'~SJS'C:.-+s~~~r ~ <'M~ C ~t,`~":~_ .' ~ ~?73Y :n .3 ^ :r~'~z° d) "Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses / (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? / f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? / g) Conflict with adapted policies, plans, or programs supporting / alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Comments: a) Potentially Significant Impact. Project implementation could increase traffic volumes in the project vicinity during both construction and long-term operation of the proposed industrial use. Further analysis in an EIR is required to determine whether the projected traffic volumes would be substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. b) Potentially Significant Impact. Refer to Response 15(a). c) No Impact. Because of the nature and scope of the proposed industrial development, project implementation would not change air traffic patterns. d) Less Than Significant Impact. Similar to existing conditions at the site, the proposed project would be accessed via 8`" Street. Two access points would be provided (at the northeastern and northwestern corners of the site). These proposed access driveways would be subject to City review as part of the plan approval process and do not represent a hazardous design feature. e) Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Responses 7(g). f) Less Than Significant Impact. The project proposes 183 passenger parking spaces and 41 trailer parking stalls, when 162 passenger parking spaces and 33 trailer parking stalls are required by the City's Development Code. This would result in an excess of 21 passenger parking spaces and 8 trailer parking stalls beyond City requirements. In addition, through the project application process, the proposed industrial development would be reviewed by the City of Rancho Cucamonga to determine consistency with the City's Development Code regarding the provision of parking. g) Less Than Significant Impact. The General Plan Exhibit III-7 (General Bikeways Plan) does not identify any of the project's surrounding roadways as a bicycle route. Project implementation would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. - - -... • • July 14, 2008 26 City of Rancho Cucamonga H34 • • • Initial StudylEnvironmental Checklist Biane Business Park Project ~jSY'~~'~'19"'4Ffis-rT..S ~'F3T"Rl<i:"t~T4N~,"~t. _n~Fr '4' •'~ ~F•'~•~~S+R'sn'4 b i`k';".ff',' ~ r ~. ~~., ~ ~+~, ~ ~~ „,k=---~ ~ ~e ~ Poi. `r ~~ # ~ y~~>i^~~''+~- ~ ~ K~~".~ ~ : a be ix M1+6' t ' "'"'i=~ ' ~ +*t4+a,'asv~"'-~ -`fS -. ~Pote-iitial ~~ ~' 5 ,~ .. #~FIM~ ~' i^- ~. LessxThan~{ SI'nigcanta't g - _ .Cc ~+af' a >a. - - ~Less'than~~ - t~S.c~.+W~t~i w> .~.,r#s,~ ~" ~°~ S~`~ ~~'}t~- ~"'~ r . a , .~ ,~ i, :n a 5 ~ r " ~ssuesandSuppoRing)Inf~or~mat?o'Souu_rce~s ~'~ti;~~~w~ $,'~ c~; f ~~ ~ ~ ~'~ ~' ' 'k F ~ . „~ as~mficant ` Pact ~ <, . Impactwilh~, ~,:~: M wl9? h°?~r »~ ss~ t~signircan R'ImP ~ _ Nclmpa a~ a ~ 5 > ~ ~a. l ~~~"`'~,~~~. ""~ ~! k~"~".~ , ~~'~~~J~.., a... a'3r' eye. .,~,d._~R,w. ,'iu3^5~,._..-~=.~a=>~ k..--d .t:k5s., d,_s~ti;e s, ~ ?;~,-f i:r.=uT.s,.Y~ ., a ancorporated~ S~ 44~.;f ~~ i,~., -~-` :~` rw~-~.m~. r~" yk~ 't,~, ~~ - ~&a 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment regwrements of the applicable / Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the / construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the / construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the protect from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or / expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project, that it has adequate / capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to / accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations / related to solid waste? Comments: a) Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project would be served by the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD) sewer system, which has waste treated by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency at the RP-4 treatment plant located within Rancho Cucamonga. Operation of proposed industrial use may generate additional wastewater beyond current conditions. CVWD's ability to serve the proposed project requires further evaluation within the EIR. b) Potentially Significant Impact. Protect implementation could generate additional wastewater beyond current conditions and may require an incremental expansion of the existing sewerage system_'or expansion of the wastewater treatment facility. Further review is required to determine the significance of impacts. Refer also to Response 16(a). c) Potentially Significant Impact. Development of the site would involve the construction of impervious surfaces beyond existing conditions, which would decrease ground absorption on-site, increase the quantity of surface water, and change existing drainage patterns. Thus, the EIR will further ahalyze the potential for the need for new or expanded storm water drainage facilities. d) Potentially Significant Impact. Although the proposed project does not meet the requirements for Senate Bill 221 or 610, which took effect January 1, 2002, the proposed project may require July 14, 2008 27 City of Rancho Cucamonga H ~35 ~A Initial StudylEnvironmental Checklist Biane Business Park Project _____ _-____._ additional__pgtable water beyond current_conditions._In.-addition, the._proposed_protect_would_be__.___.._ required to comply with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District's fire flow requirements. Further review is required to determine the significance of impacts. e) Potentially Significant Impact. Refer to Responses 16(a) and 16(b). f) Potentially Significant Impact. Private contractors who transport solid waste out of the City provide solid waste service. The proposed project would temporarily generate solid waste beyond existing conditions during demolition activities. The project's effect upon the landfill capacity and the City's waste recycling programs require further evaluation. g) Less Than Significant Impact. This project would be subject to compliance with Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations regarding solid waste. The City of Rancho Cucamonga continues to implement waste reduction procedures consistent with AB 939. B:YYar *"y~ s`~.`~'."e.~"'8 W:aY':i ~Lw,sMS:w?fi°3!,~~'~~ ~,ga~5~?YV4[.Ai~A+M1,~' h fs+ ~.F'w~:',,~ " ~ a ,~71 Y h" ~~ ty* -.~_^'~Sf ~~~ .2,~'1~~.e."f +y~ f tr i i_ ' ~ ~314~ r<~ ~ r`=*L, -. ~c ~` ti~' e..~w ~ d%{;'. ~ .~' - ~h";~F,< .Y r~t'IN' t~~¢SS~Tf18n b ^~ ;s"j~-~• a 't(.. s .`7*~'~t~~~"~A"x ` " e~~z:i~~rs *.e+J ~' ~~ ` , ~~ ~ ,~ .~ Y ~ PotenLal Si nificant Less~Than ~ ~. 4<,~ ~~- ~ i.lssues and Supporttng,lnformation Sources ~f m:{M; 24 k?+.~~. 'tt:~ ~ ~$_- " kfi ~` .~:..,~, ~§"'-^+;L~,~~, ?~~„s"~:r~''3'".:s::~~. ~~y • .. . -- '~ , ,~Sigoificantsn l s) ."ic w,:ampa~ Impact With7~ 1^PC ~MK~gs'aytion,.~ CSlgnificant p 4~. _-. 5"..Impact-"r Ho Impact s >e~-,'r1'; _~,~~;+~~ ~ , ,na,~s, t ~„ +;;~:,~.: ~~?,~.~::I ~c,~. ~~.a ~;'~ tmti" ~~ ~-' ~-~ ° ~~ ~'~~y~ ' ` ~ ~~~ z ~ ~ ~ ~'. "~~-.~_t=.c"~ ~ Inior orateds . N ~~y~ , ~~..'~~,t i °~ k 2 ,?.;_. F{~'f' °a iG3•~:.:iz az~zti.=k"AUi~..~k ?'x.' ` :Jt'3:3.. ~a,k._~'~_va E'~ .".~ 'r.'.r~_~'Y'~ i ~., ~~.Yath 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Would the project: a) Does the protect have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fsh or wildlife species, cause a fsh or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal / community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the motor periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable' means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable / when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projecls)~ c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or / indirectly? Comments a) Potentially Significant Impact. The project is located within an urbanized area and is surrounded by industrial and residential uses. There are no known rare or endangered animal or plant species currently existing within or surrounding the project site. Therefore, the project would not substantially reduce the habitat or a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals. However, as identified in this Initial Study, the project may result in impacts related to air quality, noise, cultural resources, and traffic (among other environmental impact areas, as listed above) that have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment. Thus, further analysis of these potentially significant impacts will be provided within the EIR. July 14, 2008 28 City of Rancho Cucamonga \J • H-36 • ~~ Initial StudylEnvironmental Checklist Biane Business Park Project __ b)_ _Potentially_Significant Impact,__A_review_of_cumulative..impacts for each issue area that_has_been._._ identified as potentially significant is required pursuant to Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines. The proposed project could contribute to cumulative impacts when combined with past, present, and future project in the area. These cumulative impacts will be analyzed within the EIR:' _ _ , _ c) Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project could potentially cause adverse effects on - human beings, either directly or indirectly during short-term construction activities or long-term operational activities. Potential impacts associated with issue areas such as air quality, noise, hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, and traffic and circulation could signifcantly affect human populations. These potential adverse effects will be further analyzed within the EIR. • • July 14, 2008 29 City of Rancho Cucamonga H-37 Initial StudylEnvironmental Checklist Biane Business Park Project EARLIER ANALYSES _____ _ __ Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this Project were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in .the following earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The following earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply): (/) General Plan Fina/ Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2000061027, Certified October 17, 2001) ( ) Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Updafe (SCH #88020115, certifed January 4, 1989) ( ) Industrial Area Specific Plan EIR (Certified, September 19, 1981) ( ) Industrial Area Specific Plan, Subarea 18, EIR (SCH #93102055, certified June 15, 1994) ( ) Victoria Planned Community EIR (Certified May 20, 1981) ( ) Terra Vista Planned Community EIR (SCH #81082808, certified February 16, 1983) ( ) Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan EIR (SCH #87021615, certified September 16, 1987) ( ) Etiwanda Specific Plan EIR (SCH #82061801, certified July 6, 1983) ( ) Etiwanda North Specific Plan EIR (SCH #89012314, certified April 1, 1992) July 14, 2008 30 Cify of Rancho Cucamonga • • • H38 BIANE WINERY CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: • Candyce Burnett, Senior Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Prepared by: Tanya Rathbun Sorrell, M.A., Casey Tibbet, M.A., and Bill Bell LSA Associates, Inc. 1500 Iowa Avenue, Suite 200 Riverside, California 92507 LSA Project No. CRG0801 National Archaeological Database Informafion: Type of Study: Reconnaissance Survey Sites Recorded: None USGS Quadrangle: Guasti, California (1967, photorevised 1979)' Acreage: 10.41 LSA C March tg, 2008 EXHIBIT C H~39 L9A A990CIATB9, eNC. MARCH a9oe MANAGEMENT SLIMMARY CULTURAL RE90ORCE9 A99E99NENT BIANE WINERY CITY OP RANCHO CU CAM ONCA • LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) is under contract to the City of Rancho Cucamonga (City) to conduct a cultural resources assessment of the 10.41-acre Biane Winery property (Assessor's Parcel Numbers 0209-201-019 and 0209-201-020) located on the south side of Eighth Street between Turner and Archibald Avenues in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bemazdino County, California. The applicant proposes to demolish all extant buildings on the property to facilitate constmction of a 239,370-square foot office and wazehouse. This assessment was prepared to address potential impacts to "historical resources," as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which may result from the project. This assessment was completed pursuant to the requirements of CEQA and the City's Historic Landmazks Ordinance (Chapter 2.24 of the Municipal Code). LSA completed architectural and azchaeological field surveys, a cultural resources records seazch, and azchival reseazch to identify cultural resources that may be listed in, or eligible for listing in, the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) and/or the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register), or for designation as a City of Rancho Cucamonga Historic Landmark. The records seazch and field survey revealed that the project azea is developed with the Biane Winery (formerly Padre Winery, State Primary Number 36-016423): an industrial complex composed of 15 buildings (two aze on a separate parcel outside the project azea), associated equipment, and three single-family residences. The winery was previously determined eligible for the National Register in 2001 by a consensus through the Section 106 process (California Historical Resource Status Code 2S2). It is eligible for the National Register under criterion A for its significant associations with the history of viticulture in Rancho Cucamonga and under C as a good example of the Mission Revival azchitectural style as applied to a winery. The field survey revealed that the winery has retained sufficient azchitectural integrity to remain eligible for the National Register. However, previous documentation prepared in 1987 and 2001 did not document the winery in sufficient depth to determine which buildings or features contribute to its significance. As part of this study, LSA prepared updated documentation on Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms to describe the site in greater detail, identify contributing and non- contributing elements, and add historical context in support of the previous determination. As a result of the current study, 10 of the 15 buildings and features in the project azea were found to contribute to the significance of the Biane Winery. These include the winery building, bottling plant and warehouse, grape crushing building and grape pits, distillery and shops, bonded warehouse, sherry room, dry wine bottling, winemaker's residence, office/cazetaker residence, and other miscellaneous elements as described in the body of this report. Non-contributing buildings and features include the restroom, cooperage shop, foreman's residence, chemical room, and lunch shelter. Tn addition, the. Biane Winery appeazs eligible for designation as a Rancho Cucamonga Landmark under criterion A, subsections 1, 2, and 5; under criterion B, subsection 2; and under criterion C, subsection 2. It is a highly intact example of an early 20~' century winery in the City of Rancho Cucamonga; and it is strongly associated with the wine industry, an industry that was once common but is now very rare in the Cucamonga Valley. The Mission Revival-style wash-rock facade possesses high artistic qualities and is an established, familiar visual feature in the City. • • R'\CRGOSOIV2eport 03-19-08.doc (3/192008) H -40 LSA A890 CIATCS. INC. CULTURAL RC40URCC9 AS 8C89YCNT y ARCH R00! 91 ANC WINCRY CITY OF RANCHO CUCAy ONGA • Since the Biane Winery was previously determined eligible for listing in the National Register and also appears to meet the criteria for designation as a Landmark under the local ordinance, it qualifies as a historical resource under CEQA. The proposed demolition will result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of this historical resource and cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. LSA recommends the following options: 1. Continued Adaptive Reuse using the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. This is the 'preferred option. Per Section 15064.5(b)(3) of CEQA, projects that follow the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation are considered mitigated to a level of insignificance. This alternative would retain the Biane Winery with all contributing buildings and features preserved in place and would allow for the alteration and/or demolition of all non- contributing buildings and features. Exterior additions and alterations to accommodate a new use aze allowable under Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, Title 2.24.120, subject to review by the City of Rancho Cucamonga Historic Preservation Commission: This option would have a less than significant impact on the resource. 2. Relocation of the Winemaker's Residence to facilitate a "Partial-build" Alternative. Under this altemative, the Biane Winery would continue to be adaptively reused and all of the contributing features would remain in situ except the winemaker's residence. This residence is currently removed from the other buildings and any new development would likely result in it being completely cut off from the rest of the winery. Therefore, it would be preferable to relocate the building closer to the other winery buildings. This would facilitate new construction on the • reaz portion of the property, while preserving all of the contributing features. If feasible, landscaping associated with the new constmction should incorporate grape vines. If on-site relocation is not feasible and the winemaker's residence is relocated to another lot off site or demolished, additional mitigation should include restoration of the west wall of the Bottling Plant and/or the Cooperage shop exterior using the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Restoration. • Prior to any alterations (excluding full or partial demolition, which would require HABS I documentation as described below), the site should be documented with 35mm black-and- white film (or the digital equivalent) in accordance with the National Register 75-year permanence standard, paying particulaz attention to portions of the site that will be altered. These photographs should be submitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department. This option would have a less than significant impact on the resource. 3. Complete Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS I). If Options 1 or 2 are not selected, HABS I documentation shall be completed. Although the use of HABS documentation does not mitigate the impact of demolition [o a historical resource below a level of significance, CEQA. , requires that all feasible mitigation be undertaken even if it does not mitigate below a level of significance. Prior to demolition of any contributing building or feature (except for the winemaker's residence as outlined in #2 above), [he Biane Winery should be documented to Level I of HABS by a qualified professional. This documentation consists of the following: • • Measured architectural drawings [hat depict the significant elevations of all contributing buildings and features; R:\CRGOBO]U2eporc 03-19-OS doc (3/19/2008) 111 H-41 LSA ASSOCIATES, ANC. NA¢CH RB88 CU LTU0.AL 0.B90U¢C88 A88884YENT BIANB WINB0.Y CITY OF RANCHO CU CAM ONCA • • Large format (4 x 5 inch negatives at minimum) archival quality black-and-white photographs of all exterior elevations, interior views, chazacter-defining features, and context views; • A measured site plan showing the view of photographs and building footprint; • If available, copies of elevation drawings, floor plans, measured drawings, historic photographs, and newspaper articles; and • Written data discussing the history and development of the property. This report will satisfy some of the requirements for the written data. Copies of the HABS documentation shall be submitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department, the Paul A. Biane and Archibald Branches of the Rancho Cucamonga Public Library, the Norman F. Feldheym Library, and submitted to the State Office of Historic Preservation for approval before being submitted [o the State archive or other appropriate repository. With regazd to azchaeological resources, the records search did not identify any prehistoric resources that will be affected by the proposed development. However, the identification of trace amounts of historic glass suggests that there is potential for additional subsurface resources associated with the 1910s-1920s winery/cannery workers' housing formerly located in the southwestern portion of the project azea. Therefore, azchaeological monitoring of all ground-disturbing activities associated with this project is recommended. The azchaeologist shall meet the Secretary of the Interior Professional Qualification Standards for Archaeology. In [he event of an archaeological find, the archaeologist shall have the authority to temporarily divert construction activities. If human remains aze encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains aze determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the descendent may inspect the site of the discovery. The descendent shall complete the inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. u • R:\CRGOBO1Vtepon 03-19-O8.doc (3/198006) 1v H-42