The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1997/02/26 - Agenda PacketCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA WEDNESDAY FEBRUARY 26, 1997 7:00 PM Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center Council Chamber 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California I. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call Chairman Barker Commissioner Bethel__ Vice Chairman McNiel Commissioner Macias __ Commissioner Tolstoy __ II. ANNOUNCEMENTS III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 22, 1997 IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS The following items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice their opinion of the related project. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address the Commission by stating your name and address. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. Please sign in after speaking. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 96-02 - CITATION HOMES - A request to amend the Victoria Community Plan Development Distdct designation from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 18 acres of land at the northeast corner of Milliken Avenue and Victoria Park Lane - APN: 227-011-17. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Related file: Tentative Tract 15796. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15796 - CITATION HOMES - A proposed residential subdivision of 94 lots on 18 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre), proposed to be Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located at the northeast corner of Milliken Avenue and Victoria Park Lane -APN: 227-011-17. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Related file: Victoria Community Plan Amendment 96-02. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 96-03 CITATION HOMES A request to amend the Victoria Community Plan Development District designation from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 12.4 acres of land south of Highland Avenue, east of Woodruff Place - APN: 227-011-26. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Related file: Tentative Tract 15797. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15797 - CITATION HOMES - A proposed residential subdivision of 61 single family lots on 12.4 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre), proposed to be Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located south of Highland Avenue and east of Woodruff Place - APN: 227-011-26. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Related file: Victoria Community Plan Amendment 96-03. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ - A request to construct a 2,900 square foot drive-thru facility and a 5,548 square foot restaurant on 3.7 acres of land in the Community Commercial designation of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-211-12 and 13. Related file Pre-Application Review 95-04. V. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS APPEAL OF SIGN PERMIT FOR UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM NO. 119 - OIL MAX -An appeal of the City Planner's decision regarding signs for Oil Max, an approved project within the Foothill Marketplace Shopping Center, located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard, east of Interstate 15 - APN: 229-031-37. Page 2 PARK DISTRICT 85 (PD-85) ~ Information regarding impacts of Proposition 218 regarding PD-85 Assessments (Red Hill and Heritage Parks) - Oral report Vl. PUBLIC COMMENTS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Commission. Items to be discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda. VII. COMMISSION BUSINESS VIII. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11:00 p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission. THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL ADJOURN TO A MEETING ON MARCH 11, 1997, TO BE HELD IN LIEU OF ITS REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING ON MARCH 12, 1997. I, Gall Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on February 20, 1997, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. Page 3 VICINITY MAP , ............................ · ~...., ,...................,.... ..... , ,i. '~?? .... --,h-,.., .... ,.,.,.,,--"'?"."' .... ' ...... '". · .~...-........-~....< K-x.>x.>>>>i: ................................. ".~. · · ...~.-.......-.-.-.......-~...........x.x.x-..: ............. '...,.-...~.-....2....: ........ · J ->:-x.x.:.>2x.:.>>x ........................................... .. ,.........2<->:.>:<,>N:,>:-:.x ......................... '.....:.>:.>x<{ ........... · I ............... ,,..,,...,.........,..,......... ......... .................../~........ I j ^~"~ I: :i:i:i:!:i::::; ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ' ~.~ .'.'-'.'.'.'-'-'.'.'.'.';':':':':". ...........-.-...,.....,.-.........,.................- · .... · c,,m.,.~ I ....'.'.'.'.:-:.'.'.:.'.'.'.','.'.'.'.'.'~ -'"" ~ .................J,'.'.'.'-. J :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: I:::::::.~ i Hd~.'4~ I-I sm~ I¥'''.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'H:.¥.1 : : : : : : : : ¥:::::''''.'''.'.''1 l: ;.:;::::;::;:::: i;; ;. -:.:,:..: ....;,: ...... J','.:,:-" I' ':':':':':':-: ..........:' '~"- tI:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:..:.. A.T.& S.F. CITY HALL CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY OF RANCHO CUCAIMONGA -- STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: February 26, 1997 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad' Buller, City Planner Steve Hayes, AICP, Associate Planner ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 96-02 - CITATION HOMES - A request to amend the Victoria Community Plan Development District designation from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 18 acres of land at the northeast corner of Milliken Avenue and Victoria Park Lane -APN: 227-011-17. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15796 - CITATION HOMES - A proposed residential subdivision of 94 single family lots on 18 acres of land in the Medium Residential district (8-14 dwelling units per acre), proposed to be Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located at the northeast corner of Milliken Avenue and Victoria Park Lane - APN: 227-011-17. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Project Density: 5.2 dwelling units per acre. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoning: North - Commercial Shopping Center; Village Commercial South - Single Family Residences; Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) East Single Family Residences and Neighborhood Park; Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) West Single Family Residences; Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) General Plan Designations: Project Site - Low-Medium Residential North Medium Residential and Neighborhood Commercial South Low-Medium Residential East Low-Medium Residential West Low-Medium Residential and proposed Elementary School Site Characteristics: The site is vacant and slopes generally from north to south at roughly 4 percent. A trail exists along the east property line to link the subdivision to the east and south with the school and park to the east and north. The site is covered in native scrub ITEMS A & B PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT VCPA 96-02 & -IT 15796 - CITATION HOMES February 26, 1997 Page 2 vegetation; no trees or any other significant landscaping exists on the property. Curb and gutter exist along the project frontages. BACKGROUND: On March 11, 1992, a 189-unit condominium project was approved for the site. Since that time, the property has been sold and the current property owner is pursuing the proposed single family residential project on the property because of current market conditions. ANALYSIS: General: The applicant is proposing to subdivide the 18-acre site into 94 single family residential lots. The lots are of a size and dimension consistent with the existing Low-Medium Residential Development Standards within the Victoria Community Plan. Lots range in size from 5,000 to 11,304 square feet and average 6,210 square feet. In addition to the 94 residential lots, a lettered lot is proposed along the southeast side of the subdivision to provide access to the existing trail extension east of the site. Victoria Community Plan Amendment: In conjunction with the proposed Tentative Tract Map, the applicant has also submitted an application to amend the development district designation for the property associated with the proposed subdivision. The 18-acre parcel is currently zoned Medium Residential and the developer is proposing to change the designation on this property to Low-Medium Residential for the purpose of developing a conventional single family residential subdivision with center plot detached homes. The applicant is proposing this amendment for reasons outlined in the attached justification letter (See Exhibit "E"). Within the Medium Residential Development District of the Victoria Community Plan, a wide variety of housing stock is allowed including, but not limited to, condominiums, townhouses, triplexes, fourplexes, and other types of single family housing, both attached and detached. However, the density of a project in the Medium Residential District shall be between 8 to 14 dwelling units per acre. The applicant is proposing a single family residential subdivision at a density of 5.2 dwelling units. The proposed density and lot sizes both conform with the Low-Medium Residential development standards within the Victoria Community Plan, hence the amendment request by the applicant. Within the surrounding neighborhood, the predominant type of development is detached single family residences. To the north is a neighborhood commercial shopping center. The property in question was originally designated Medium Residential for the purpose of providing a buffer between the detached single family development to the south and the Village Commercial designation to the north. With small-lot single family detached housing being one of the accepted housing types in this "buffer" area, the amendment proposal would not necessarily change the type of housing allowed in this area, only the density and lot size. Staff feels that redesignating the parcel to Low-Medium Residential would also fit in with the surrounding neighborhood where a single family detached devek.,pment of a similar density is predominant. Design Review Committee: On February 4, 1997, the Committee (Bethel, Macias, Coleman) reviewed the project and recommended approval of the subdivision with conditions that have been incorporated into the attached Resolution of Approval. Comments from this meeting are provided for your convenience (See Exhibit "D"). PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT VCPA 96-02 & TT 15796 - CITATION HOMES February 26, 1997 Page 3 Technical Review Committee: On February 5, 1997, the Technical Review Committee reviewed the project and determined that, together with the recommended special and standard Conditions of Approval, the project is consistent with all applicable standards and ordinances. The Grading Committee reviewed the project and recommended approval subject to conditions at their meeting on February 4, 1997. Environmental Assessment: Staff has completed Part II of the Initial Studies for both the Tentative Tract Map and Victoria Community Plan Amendment (See Exhibit "G"). Staff determined that the proposed Tentative Tract Map could have a significant adverse impact on the environment relative to noise unless proper mitigations are incorporated into the design of the project. A preliminary acoustical analysis was prepared by a registered engineer that recommended construction of an 8- to 10-foot high sound barrier along Milliken Avenue and a 6- to 8-foot screen wall along Kenyon Way to mitigate noise to acceptable levels, as defined in the City's General Plan. Staff has incorporated a Condition of Approval into the attached Resolution of Approval for the Tentative Tract Map requiring this sound wall as mitigation to the potential noise issue. If the Commission concurs with staffs recommendations, then issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Tentative Tract Map and a Negative Declaration for the proposed Victoria Community Plan Amendment would be in order. CORRESPONDENCE: These items have been advertised as public hearings in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property has been posted, and notices were sent to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Victoria Community Plan Amendment 96-02 and approve Tentative Tract 15796 through adoption of the attached Resolutions of Approval with Conditions and issue a mitigated Negative Declaration for the tract. City Planner BB:SH:jfs Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Exhibit "B" - Exhibit "C" - Exhibit "D" - Exhibit "E" - Exhibit "F" - Exhibit "G" - Resolution of Resolution of Site Utilization Map Tentative Tract Map Conceptual Grading Plan Design Review Committee Action Comments dated February 4, 1997 Letter from Applicant regarding proposed Victoria Community Plan Amendment Surrounding Land Uses Map Initial Study, Part II Approval for Victoria Community Plan Amendment 96-02 Approval for Tentative Tract Map 15796 .LM j 4-8 DU/AC. '~' ,,CT. 130~ 7 L '~ ' VILLAGE COMMIJNI T Y FACILITY . . ' r M 8- '~ 4 DU/AC. ARK ~ITE ~K SITE _OZS . I .F?e_J.:p_TS_-'-~ _L,)- Ill[ CIIY O1' RANClIO CUCAMONCA 5AN IiI-I{NARDIIIO COUNIY. CA. TENTATIVE TRACT 15796 -.. ~,.'-?,'F;F:._. ~.AEI'CASC~. DE$I©N ~KEViE\v CO.kh--k FF._-.NYS 7:t0 s.m. Steve H~?'es Eeb~Ja~' 4, I997. EN-~'TR. ON,LMENTAL ASSESSBlENT .~'N-D TENTATIVE TR.ACT 15796 - CITATION HO,.k'~S: A proposed residential subdivision of 94 lots on 15 acres ofland in the Medium Residential District ($-I4 dwelling units per acre) located at the northeast corner of Milliken Avenue and Victoria Park Lane - .~d:'N: 227-0I 1-t7. Related FiIe: Victoria Community Plan .;-Lmendment 96-02 Design Parameters: This site is bounded by a neighborhood commercial shopping center to the north, a neighborhood park along the portion of the east side, and residential development in all other directions. A trail exists along the east side of the project area. Victoria ?ark Lane, which exists along the southern border of the site, has been developed and includes an expanded width right-of-way for a linear park. No significant vegetation or natural features exist on the properzy. A portion of the north central area of the site has some uncompacted fill that is proposed to be spread out over the propert)' when developed. The site Cy ,,.=. ..~ _4. =~n,.rally slopes from north to south at approximately' percent. Staff Comments: The follo,Mng comments we intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: The follo,.ving broad design issues ~d!I be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: In order to reduce the number of awkward adjacent side/rear yard relationships, Street "G" should bernreed around to face the same direction as cubde-sac streets "C" and "E." As a result, Street "F" should terminate as a northerly facing cui-de-sac. The cul-de-sac at the southern terminus of Street "F" should be pulled back norther[,,' to provide \ ~.~o:t_ Park Lane trail s':'stem, consistent in design u.-v:n other a more plea.sing connect[on to the r'-..'~ · ', existing similar situations in Victoria (see o'~-h-~'~ exa,,mple). Lots 66 throu_h 65 should be reoriente~ in an easJwest direction to minimize the number of awk-ward side/rear yard relationships in this area. Secondarv Issues: Once oil of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Commhtee ,.,,'ill discuss me ~oI~owlng secondarj design issues' '9 The landscaping within the proposed trail connection be:ween Lots 76 and 77 should include significant landscaping to mitigate the narrowness of the connection. A fiat area shoutd be provided adjacent to the proposed bus bay area to allow for benches to be provided a~. the bus s~op. Policy' Issues: The fotto,.,.'ing items are a matter of' Planning Commission policv and shoutd be incorporated into the project design without discussion: Re:airing u.'~_I!s should be limited to ~ maximum height of 4 fee: and be composed of a decorative material or finish. '3 \Vails along the per4me:er of the project should be consistent in design with the establis'ned theme waits within 'k"[ctoria Park Lane. 3. A 5-foot se3aration between the back of sidewa!k and an,,' `.vails should be provided in all corner *'~4-~ ,,4 ~=.~ ';a~" ' ' ' ' ~ ~ ~a~ an~ ,~_, ~_,d sttuauons throu~hou~ tr~e projecL DRC T? [5796 - CITATION Febma~' 4, I997 Page 2 Staff Recommendation' Stagrecommends thst the Design Review Committee recommend approval of the proposed subdivision map with the revisions recommended by staff incorporated into ~n,. design of the oroject. Attachment Design Review Committee Action; : f~mb~rs Present: Bill Bethel, Rich *Iacias, Dan Coleman S~a~ Planner: Steve Hayes The Design Review Co,mmitree recommended approval of the project subject to the following conditions: The cul-de-sac at [n~ southern terminus of'Street "F" should be pulled no~herly to provide a more pleasing landscaped connection to the x,"ic:oria Park Lane trail system. The combination retaining;block wans throughout the pro./ecr, up to 10 feet in height, should be studied and lowered ,.,.'here possible parriculariy along Victoria Park Lane. Specific solutions to this issue should be forwarded to ,'.he Planning DMsion for their review and approval. Suggestions included terracing the walls or using open view fencing. The exhibit areDared bv the a:alican: ro rearesenr how the .~or. ential --5='"'--- iresacts associated with m,. situations where a downslope lot sides onto ua~o three ugsiooe rear vards was found to . ' ' ' ~o,.~ v.'~rn me Plann:ng Division staff to be acceptableb;'tneComm~ttee. Theaaoitcant should ' -" '' ' ' select theapprooriate- -=~"-'-and .... °'- -'=.=,4 ', ,' >D~,..I.> auraDer Or ~rees :o nuns=--to the concerns _>>oul_t~ with tp, ts issue. · -=-%r~ -= recommended by the Committee to d~l~,qtssues~,~rl~d =' '~ ~'.='.=' ' ' _OO~ .~1 Secondart and Poiic7 be placed as recommended Conditions oFAoorovai rfr the project. I I ' I CITnT!Ofi ! 01 IE$ January 9,1997 Planning Commission CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Re: Victoria Specific Plan Amendment Tentative Map 15796 Dear Members of the Commission: RE'CEIVE, D 21 1997 CiTY Of We have requested an Amendment to the Victoria Specific Plan, specifically Planning Area ¢¢5, to enable the Specific Plan to be consistent with the land use proposed by our Tentative Map ¢¢15796. The existing land use and zoning for the Plan on PA5 is medium density residential (M), 8-14dua. This designation provides for detached or attached residential uses not to exceed 14 dwelling units per acre. We are requesting a change in the Plan to low medium density to permit SFD homes on 5,000 square foot lots. There is no significant market for housing at the medium density level. Single family detached housing on this site, as we propose, will be a very compatible land use for the surrounding uses. We feel that it would be an unreasonable burden for us to continue holding the land until such time as a higher density development becomes more marketable when an SFD development is imminently marketable and yet compatible with surrounding uses. We hope you will give our proposal favorable consideration. Sincerely, TAVA DEVELOPMEN//'- CO. F G Lint r '~ /' ~ic~* F~en t d~nJ;'L a n d ~elopment FGL:mkw 19600 Fairchild Road, Suite 270, Irvine, EA'92715-2510 (714) 250-6600, FAX (714) 250-6656 DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT MAP TRACT ~ AND TRACT ~ VICTORIA P.C. PAP, CEL ~"~? I 8;~53 Ix. TRACT ~ _" 2,C 0 FROM"M" TO "LM" TR.~ C7 13.143 VICTORIA P.O. VICTORIA P.C. T?_ATT 13442 'H:\EVC9602.WPD (July 17, 1996) CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART I! BACKGROUND 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Project File #/Name: Victoria Community Plan Amendment 96-02 Related Files: Tentative Tract 15796 Applicant: Citation Homes Address: 19600 Fairchild Road, Suite 270, Irvine, CA 92715 Telephone #: (714) 250-6600 Project Description: Proposed change from Medium to Low-Medium Residential Project Accepted as Complete (date): January 27. 1997 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an explanation is required for all "Yes" and "Maybe" answers on attached sheets, including a discussion of ways to mitigate the significant effects identified. Yes Maybe N._9o I. EARTH - Will the proposal result in.' a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in the geologic structure? ( ) ( ) (X) b) Disruptions, displacement, compaction, or over covering of the soil? ( ) ( ) (X) c) Change in the topography or ground surface relief features? ( ) ( ) (X) d) The destruction, covering, or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) (X) e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? ( ) ( ) ( X ) f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sand, or changes in siltation, deposition, or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet, or lake? ( ) ( ) (X) g) Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards, such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? ( ) ( ) (X) II. AIR - Will the proposal result in: a) Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b) The creation of objectionable odors? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Alteration of air movement moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? () ( ) (X) III. a) b) c) d) e) 0 g) h) i) WATER - Will the proposal result in: Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? Changes in the absorption rate, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? Alterations to the course of flow of flood waters? ( ) () () () Changes in the amount of surface water in any body? Discharge into surface waters, or in alteration of surface water quality, including, but not limited to, temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity? ( ) Alteration of the direction or rate of ground waters? ( ) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? ( ) Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal pools? () () () () () ( ) () ( ) () () (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) PLANT LIFE - Will the proposal result in: a) Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? b) Reduction in the number of any unique, rare, or endangered species of plants? c) Introduction of new species of plants into an area or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? ( ) ( ) ( ) () () () () () (X) (X) (X) (X) Vo ANIMAL LIFE - Will the proposal result in: a) Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of animals (birds, land animals, including reptiles, fish, and shellfish benthic organisms or insects)? b) Reduction of the number of any unique, rare, or endangered species of animals? c) Introduction of any new species of animals into the area or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? ( ) ( ) ( ) () ( ) ( ) ( ) () (X) (X) (X) (X) 2 Vl. NOISE - Will the proposal result in: a) Increase in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? () () () () (X) (X) VII. LIGHT AND GLARE - Will the proposal: a) Produce new light and glare? () () (X) VIII. LAND USE - Will the proposal result in: a) Substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? () (X) () IX. NATURAL RESOURCES - Will the proposal result in: a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? ( ) () (X) RISK OF UPSET - Will the proposal involve: a) A risk of explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? () ( ) () () (X) (X) Xl. POPULATION - Will the proposal: a) Alter the location, distribution, population of an area? density, or growth rate of the human ( ) (X) ( ) XlI. HOUSING - Will the proposal: a) Affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? () ( ) (X) Xlll. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION - Will the proposal result in: a) Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? ( ) b) Effects on existing parking facilities or demand for new parking? ( ) c) Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? ( ) d) Alterations to the present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? ( ) e) Alterations to waterborne, rail, or air traffic? ( ) 0 Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians? ( ) () () () ( ) () () (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) 3 PUBLIC SERVICES - Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for, new or altered government services in any of the foilowing areas: a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? c) Schools? d) Parks and othe'r recreational facilities? e) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f') Other governmental services? () () () () () () () () () () () () (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) XV. ENERGY - Will the proposal result in: a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b) Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy or require the development of new sources of energy? ( ) () () () (X) (X) XVI. UTILITIES and SERVICE SYSTEMS - Will the proposal result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? b) Communications systems? c) Water? d) Sewer or septic tanks? e) Storm water drainage? f) Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) ( ) (X) HUMAN HEALTH - Will the proposal result in: a) Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b) Exposure of people to potential health hazards? ( ) () ( ) () (X) (X) AESTHETICS - Will the proposal result in: a) The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public? b) Creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? ( ) ( ) () () (X) (X) XlX. RECREATION - Will the proposal result in: a) Impact upon the quality of existing recreational opportunities? 4 ( ) ( ) (X) b) Restrict the religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( ) ( ) ( X ) XX. a) b) c) CULTURAL RESOURCES - Will the proposaL' Result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archeological site? ( ) Result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? ( ) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic or cultural values? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) (X) ( ) (X) XXl. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE - a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Short term: Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definite period of time. Long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect on the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) ( ) (X) XXll. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Narrative description of environmental impacts) - XXlll. DISCUSSION OF LAND USE IMPACTS (Examine whether the project would be consistent with existing zoning, plans, and other applicable land use controls) - XXIV. 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 EIR 5 SENT BY: R ~,J~'NC.~ CO~ D=-V; 2-13-B7 B:l=~,A,tal; gO9 477 28~7 b) c) Date' ' XXVL APPUC.A,NT CERTIFICATION (To be comple"',.ed by applicant) - 1 certify that I am the appticant fro, the ~ descrit)ed ~ t3his tnidal Study. ] a~n~ ~ I h~e r~ ~ I.~ s~ a~ ~ ~ '~~ ~ F~, ! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ pm~ ~or ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKI,IST Initial Study - Part II Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Project Description: VCPA 96-02 - Citation Homes Proposed change in zonin~ designation from Medium (8-14 dwellinz units per acre) to I,ow-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for 12.4 acres of land located at the northeast comer of Milliken Avenue and Victoria Park Lane. VIII. Land Use: a) This application for a Victoria Community Plan is proposed to change the designation of the property from Medium residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre). The purpose of the amendment is to allow for conventional single family residences to be built on the property. The type of lots and future residences proposed are already permitted within this area and are consistent with the Victoria Community Plan. Therefore, no significant land use impacts associated with this subdivision or the related Specific Plan Amendment are anticipated. XI. Population: a) The proposed amendment could have a potential impact on the density in that it is proposing to lower the density range for the site. However, with the single family subdivision proposed being consistent with a potential type of housing already allowed with the existing density range, no adverse environmental impacts are expected. EARLIER ANALYSES The application is part of the Victoria Community Plan for which an EIR was prepared and certified by the City. This document is available at the Planning Division, City Hall, 10500 Civic Center Drive. The Master Environmental Assessment for the General Plan was also referenced in evaluating the potential impacts of the application. This document is available for review at the Planning Division, City Hall, 10500 Civic Center Drive. Specific studies evaluating potenital impacts created by this project (i.e. Noise Study ) are also available for review at the Planning Division, City Hall, 10500 Civic Center Drive. 'H:\ETTI5796.WPD (July 17, 1996) CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART I! BACKGROUND 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Project File #/Name: Tentative Tract 15796 Related Files: Victoria Community Plan Amendment 96-02 Applicant: Citation Homes Address: 19600 Fairchild Road, Suite 270, Irvine, CA 92715 Telephone #: (714) 250-6600 Project Description: 94 lot single family residential subdivision Project Accepted as Complete (date): January 27, 1997 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an explanation is required for ,ll "Yes" and "Maybe" answers on attached sheets, including a discussion of ways to mitigate the significant effects .dentified. EARTH o Will the proposal result in.' Yes Maybe N__9_o a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in the geologic structure? ( ) ( ) ( X ) b) Disruptions, displacement, compaction, or over covering of the soil? ( ) ( ) ( X ) c) Change in the topography or ground surface relief features? ( ) ( ) ( X ) d) The destruction, covering, or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) (X) e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? ( ) ( ) ( X ) f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sand, or changes in siltation, deposition, or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet, or lake? ( ) ( ) ( X ) g) Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards, such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? ( ) ( X ) ( ) II. AIR - Will the proposal result in: a) Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b) The creation of objectionable odors? 1 ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Alteration of air movement moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? () () (X) III. WATER - Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b) Changes in the, absorption rate, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? c) Alterations to the course of flow of flood waters? () () () () d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any body? e) Discharge into surface waters, or in alteration of sudace water quality, including, but not limited to, temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity? f) Alteration of the direction or rate of ground waters? g) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h) Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? i) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal pools? () () () () () () () () () () () (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) IV. PLANT LIFE - Will the proposal result in: a) Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? ( ) b) Reduction in the number of any unique, rare, or endangered species of ( ) plants? c) Introduction of new species of plants into an area or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? ( ) d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? ( ) ( ) () () () (X) (X) (X) (X) Vo ANIMAL LIFE - Will the proposal result in: a) Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of animals (birds, land animals, including reptiles, fish, and shellfish benthic organisms or insects)? b) Reduction of the number of any unique, rare, or endangered species of animals? c) Introduction of any new species of animals into the area or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? () () ( ) () () () () () (X) (X) (X) (X) 2 Vl. NOISE - Will the proposal result in: a) Increase in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? () () ( ) (X) (X) ( ) VII. LIGHT AND GLARE - Will the proposal: a) Produce new light and glare? () () (X) VIII. LAND USE - Will the proposal result in: a) Substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? () (X) () IX. NATURAL RESOURCES - Will the proposal result in: a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? () () (X) RISK OF UPSET - Will the proposal involve: a) A risk of explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? ( ) () () () (X) (X) Xl. POPULATION - Will the proposal: a) Alter the location, distribution, population of an area? density, or growth rate of the human () (X) ( ) Xll. HOUSING - Will the proposa£ a) Affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? ( ) () (X) Xlll. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION - Will the proposal result in: a) Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b) Effects on existing parking facilities or demand for new parking? c) Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? d) Alterations to the present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? e) Alterations to waterborne, rail, or air traffic? f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians? ( ) () () ( ) () () ( ) () () () () () (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) 3 XlV. PUBLIC SERVICES - Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for, new or altered government services in any of the following areas.' a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? c) Schools? d) Parks and other recreational facilities? e) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f) Other governmental services? ( ) () () () () () () () () () () () (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) XV. ENERGY - Will the proposal result in: a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? ( ) b) Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy or require the development of new sources of energy? ( ) () () (X) (X) XVl. UTILITIES and SERVICE SYSTEMS - Will the proposal result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? b) Communications systems? c) Water? d) Sewer or septic tanks? e) Storm water drainage? f) Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) ( ) (X) XVll. HUMAN HEALTH - Will the proposal result in: a) Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b) Exposure of people to potential health hazards? () () ( ) () (X) (X) XVlll. AESTHETICS - Will the proposal result in: a) The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public? b) Creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? ( ) () () () (X) (X) XlX. RECREATION - Will the proposal result in: a) Impact upon the quality of existing recreational opportunities? ( ) ( ) (X) b) Restrict the religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( ) ( ) (X) XX. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Will the proposal.' a) Result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archeological site? b) Result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? c) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic or cultural values? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) ( ) (X) XXl. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE - a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory? b) c) Short term: Does the project have the potential to achieve shod-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definite period of time. Long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect on the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) ( ) (X) XXll. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Narrative description of environmental impacts) - XXlll. DISCUSSION OF LAND USE IMPACTS (Examine whether the project would be consistent with existing zoning, plans, and other applicable land use controls) - XXIV. 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): X~General Plan EIR 5 S=~qT BY: R ~JCA~CNGA CO~ DEV; 2-13-97 @:l~al; ~39 477 2847 ~/C ~DWd ~S~OS~IC :QI S~HOH NOI~!ID:~O~E ~0:0[ CS-El-BEE ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Initial Study - Part II Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Project Description: TT 15796 - Citation Homes Subdivision of 18 acres of land into 94 sin,.e, le family lots located at the ' northeast comer of Milliken Avenue and Victoria Park [,ane I. Earth: VI. VIII. g) The majority of California is susceptible to earthquakes. The project is within the special study zone established by the City for the inferred location of the Red Hill fault. Geologic studies were done in conjunction with the consideration of the Victoria Community Plan during the Environmental Review process and no evidence of faulting was found within the special study area within Victoria. Noise: b) The noise levels for a portion of this project closest to Milliken Avenue could be potentiall) severe. A noise study has been prepared to access the impacts associated with constructing this development in close proximity to Milliken Avenue. The preliminary study recommended that a 8-10 foot high screen wall be constructed along Milliken and that certain construction elements (i.e. dual- glazed windows) be provided to mitigate noise to safe levels. With these mitigations in place, people should not be exposed to severe noise levels. Land Use: a) In conjunction with this application, an amendment to the Victoria Community Plan is proposed to change the designation of the propert>, from Medium residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre). The purpose of the amendment is to alloxv for conventional single family residences to be built on the property. The type of lots and future residences proposed are already permitted within this area and are consistent xvith the Victoria Community Plan. Therefore, no significant land use impacts associated with this subdivision or the related Specific Plan Amendment are anticipated. XI. Population: a) The project, with its related Victoria Community Pla~.. Amendment, could have a potential impact on the density in that the related amendment is proposing to lower the density range for the site. However, with the single family subdivision proposed being consistent with a potential type of housing already allowed with the existing density range, no adverse environmental impacts are expected. XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance: c) The project is part of the larger Victoria Community Plan area for which an Environmental Impact was prepared and certified. The application most likely will contribute to the cumulative impacts within the Planned Community and the City. Therefore, the application will be required to comply with the mitigation measures outlined in the Victoria Community Plan EIR to mitigate any potential cumalitive impacts to a level of insignificance. EARLIER ANALYSES The application is part of the Victoria Community Plan for which an EIR was prepared and certified by the City. This document is available at the Planning Division, City Hall, 10500 Civic Center Drive. The Master Environmental Assessment for the General Plan was also referenced in evaluating the potential impacts of the application. This document is available for review at the Planning Division, City Hall, 10500 Civic Center Drive. Specific studies evaluating potenital impacts created by this project (i.e. Noise Study ) are also available for review at the Planning Division, City Hall, 10500 Civic Center Drive. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 96-02, A REQUEST TO AMEND THE VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT DESIGNATION FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR APPROXIMATELY 18 ACRES OF LAND AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF MILLIKEN AVENUE AND VICTORIA PARK LANE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -APN: 227-011-17. A. Recitals. 1. Citation Homes has filed an application for Victoria Community Plan Amendment No. 96-02 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Victoria Community Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. On February 26, 1997, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that aII 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 headng on February 26, 1997, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to approximately 18 acres of land, basically a rectangular configuration, located at the northeast corner of Milliken Avenue and Victoria Park Lane and is presently undeveloped. Said property is currently designated as Medium Residential; and b. The property to the north of the subject site is designated Village Commercial and is developed with a neighborhood commercial shopping center. The property to the west is designated Low-Medium Residential and developed with single family residences. The property to the east is designated Low-Medium Residential and is developed with a neighborhood park and a single family residential subdivision. The property to the south is designated Low-Medium Residential and is developed with single family residences. c. 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 and This amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. VCPA 96-02 - CITATION HOMES February 26, 1997 Page 2 e. This amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent properties and would not have a significant impact on the environment nor the surrounding properties. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. That the subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district in terms of access, size, and compatibility with existing land use in the surrounding area; and b. That the proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor the surrounding properties; and c. That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and recommends adoption of a Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows: a. That the Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder; that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the application. b. That, based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission during the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby recommends approval of Victoria Community Plan Amendment No. 96-02. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 1997. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. VCPA 96-02 - CITATION HOMES February 26, 1997 Page 3 BY: E. David Barker, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Bullet, 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 26th day of February 1997, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15796, A PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF 94 LOTS ON 18 ACRES OF LAND IN THE MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) PROPOSED TO BE LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF MILLIKEN AVENUE AND VICTORIA PARK LANE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF APN: 227-011-17. A. Recitals. 1. Citation Homes has filed an application for the approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 15796, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Tentative Tract Map request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 26th day of February 1997, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on February 26, 1997, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located on at the northeast corner of Milliken Avenue and Victoria Park Lane with a Milliken Avenue frontage of approximately 1,200 feet and average lot depth of approximately 610 feet and is presently improved with curb and gutter along both vacant street frontages and trail and parkway landscape improvements along Victoria Park Lane; and b. The property to the north of the subject site is a neighborhood shopping center, the property to the south consists of single family residences, the property to the east is single family residential and a neighborhood park, and the property to the west is single family residential; and c. The application contemplates the subdivision of 18 acres of land into 94 single family residential lots that have an average lot size of 6,210 square feet; and d. The site is within the Victoria Community Plan and, in conjunction with this application, a Victoria Community Plan Amendment is proposed to change the Development District Designation from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre); and PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TT 15796 - CITATION HOMES February 26, 1997 Page 2 e. The proposed subdivision design is in compliance with the development standards for the Low-Medium Residential Development District included within the Victoria Community Plan. 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. That the tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and any applicable specific plans; and b. The design or improvements of the tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and any applicable specific plans; and c. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; and d. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat; and e. The tentative tract is not likely to cause serious public health problems; and f. The design of the tentative tract will not conflict with any easement acquired by the public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows: a. That the Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder; that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the application. b. That, based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission during the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TT 15796 - CITATION HOMES February 26, 1997 Page 3 Planning Division 1) 2) Approval of this tentative tract map is contingent upon approval of Victoria Community Plan Amendment 96-02. Retaining walls throughout the project shall not exceed 4 feet in height above finished grade and be composed of a decorative block or exterior finish. The final design and heights of all retaining/block walls throughout the project shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to the issuance of any building permits for the walls. If any combination retaining/block walls exceed 6 feet in height, but are less than 8 feet in height (with the exception of the sound attenuation wall required along Milliken Avenue), then a Minor Exception shall be submitted for consideration by the City Planner prior to the issuance of any building permits for said walls. 3) The slope landscaping and retaining walls along the side of downslope lots that side onto two or more upslope rear yards (See Exhibit "A") shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits for said retaining walls. 4) A flat area shall be provided adjacent to the proposed bus bay area sufficient for benches to be provided at the bus stop, to the satisfaction of the City Planner and City Engineer. 5) The final map and grading plan shall be redesigned with each lot meeting the minimum 50-foot width, as measured at the front setback line, to the satisfaction of the City Planner, prior to recordation of the final map. 6) An exhibit shall be provided on the final grading plan that clearly depicts the typical side yard slope situation, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 7) The final map and grading plan shall be redesigned to show the wall location along Milliken Avenue at a minimum of 18 feet and at a minimum average of 20 feet back from face of curb, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 8) A minimum of 5 feet shall be provided between the back of sidewalk and any walls in all corner side yards throughout the subdivision to allow sufficient room for future tree growth at the time houses are contemplated on the property, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Environmental Mitiqation Measures 1) An 8- to 10-foot screen wall along Milliken Avenue and a 6- to 8-foot screen wall along Kenyon Way shall be constructed consistent with the recommendations contained within the preliminary noise study. Also, certain construction elements (i.e. dual glazed windows) shall be provided at such time houses are contemplated within the subdivision. These elements shall be provided as also recommended in the PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TT 15796 - CITATION HOMES February 26, 1997 Page 4 preliminary noise study, and a final noise study, which shall be required for review and approval of the City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits. Engineering Division 1) Install a combined bus bay and right turn lane for Street H on Milliken Avenue per Standard Drawing 119. 2) Intedor local streets shall have 50-foot rights-of-way. Provide additional sidewalk easements on all local streets. 3) Design facilities at the intersection of Streets D and F to minimize the opportunity for flows to bypass the catch basin. 4) The under sidewalk drain at the south end of Street F shall be installed at an angle to Victoria Park Lane, doubling as the easterly diagonal sidewalk. 5) Install two pedestrian connections to the sidewalk north of Victoria Park Lane at the south ends of Streets B and F. Angle the trail intersection along the southeast corner of Lot 73 to provide sidewalks in both directions, similar to existing trail connections along the east tract boundary. Wrap the perimeter wall along the sides of Lots 73 and 74 ending at the front yard setback for those lots. The perimeter wall for Lots 62 and 63 shall also end at the front yard setback and the trail sidewalks can run along the respective property lines. 6) Complete the landscaping on the west side of the existing trail along the east tract boundary, between the existing sidewalk and the tract perimeter wall. 7) The new trail connection between Lots 73 and 74 shall be graded to convey overflows in the event of a blockage in the sump catch basin. Drainage swales within trail connections shall have a minimum grade of 1 percent. The sidewalk shall not be used for drainage purposes. 8) Revise the following public improvement plans to reflect the project: a) Drawing 1158: show any revisions to existing Landscape Maintenance District improvements on Victoria Park Lane. b) Drawing 1186: show storm drain lateral and new trail connection. c) Drawing 1194: show additional Landscape Maintenance District improvements between the east tract boundary wall and the existing trail sidewalk. d) Drawing 1240: show bus bay/right turn lane on Milliken Avenue and additional Landscape Maintenance District improvements. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT -iT 15796 - CITATION HOMES February 26, 1997 Page 5 e) Drawing 1242: show all new sidewalk connections to Victoria Park Lane. Drawing 1408: show Kenyon Way/Street A intersection and additional Landscape Maintenance District improvements. 9) This project is connected to or will disrupt several existing City- maintained landscape and irrigation areas. Prior to new construction, a joint inspection and documentation of the existing areas' condition shall occur with both the new contractor and the City inspector. The existing irrigation system shall be relocated as needed and any damaged landscaping replaced to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. At this point, the new construction contractor shall be responsible for maintenance of both the new and existing areas. The developer shall assume maintenance responsibility for the altered landscape area for a minimum of 90 days after reconstruction. A follow-up inspection of both areas is required prior to the City's acceptance of the new area. 10) Landscape Maintenance District (LMD) plans shall incorporate cost efficient, low maintenance designs, compatible with or transitioning to existing LMD areas, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The maximum slope within publicly-maintained landscape areas shall be 3:1. Where slopes occur, a 1-foot fiat area behind the sidewalk shall be provided. Slopes higher than 6 feet shall have a 2-foot wide fiat shelf at the top, along the base of the wall. Slope widths should be minimized through the use of 30-inch maximum height, free-standing retaining wails and up to 4 feet of retaining beneath perimeter walls. Low maintenance wall treatments should be used. Planting areas for shrubs should have a minimum width of 3 feet, clear of wall footings. Trees will require wider planting areas, as determined by the City Engineer. 11) Street names shall be applied for through the Planning Division and shall be accepted and added to the final map prior to approval and recordation thereof. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 1997. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chairman A-I-FEST: Brad Buller, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TT 15796 - CITATION HOMES February 26, 1997 Page 6 I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 26th day of February 1997, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT#: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: Tentative Tract 15796 94-1ot residential single family subdivision Citation Homes NEC Milliken Avenue & Victoria Park Lane ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. Time Limits Completion Date 1. Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, if building permits are not __/ / issued or approved use has not commenced within 24 months from the date of approval. 2. Approval of Tentative Tract No. 15796 is granted subject to the approval of Victoria Community __/ / Plan Amendment 96-02. 3. Prior to recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes first, __/__/__ the applicant shall consent to, or participate in, the establishment of a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District for the construction and maintenance of necessary' school facilities. However, if any school district has previously established such a Community Facilities District, the applicant shall, in the alternative, consent to the annexation of the project site into the territow of such existing District prior to the recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes first. Further, if the affected school district has not formed a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District within twelve months from the date of approval of the project and prior to the recordation of the final map or issuance of building permits for said project, this condition shall be deemed null and void. This condition shall be waived if the City receives notice that the applicant and all affected school districts have entered into an agreement to privately accommodate any and all school impacts as a result of this project. Prior to recordation of the final map or prior to the issuance of building permits when no map is involved, written certification from the affected water district that adequate sewer and water facilities are or will be available to serve the proposed project shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development. Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. / / SC - 1C¢96 1 Site Development Project No. ~ 15796 Cornpietion Date The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, Development Code regulations, and the Victoria Community Plan. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 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. Street names shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval in accordance with the adopted Street Naming Policy prior to approval of the final map. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall be submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and approved prior to the issuance of building perFnits. Six foot decorative block walls shall be constructed along the project perimeter. If a double wall condition would result, the developer shall make a good faith effort to work with the adjoining property owners to provide a single wall. Developer shall notify, by mail, all contiguous property owners at least 30 days prior to the removal of any existing walls/fences along the project's perimeter. Any wood fences shall be constructed with a 2oinch galvanized pipe, at each post, extending at least 4 feet, 6 inches above grade and imbedded in an 18-inch deep concrete footing. Landscaping A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in this case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. SC - All private slopes of 5 feet or less in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope, but less than 2:1 slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for erosion control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. All private slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, 1--gallon or larger size shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope banks in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one 5-gallon or larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered 2 Project No. ~ 15795 Completion Date clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. For single family residential development, all slope planting and irrigations shall be continuously maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the developer until each individual unit is sold and occupied by the buyer. Prior to releasing occupancy for those units, an inspection shall be conducted by the Planning Division to determine that they are in satisfactory condition. The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to City Planner review and approval and coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the Engineering Division. Special landscape features such as mounding, alluvial rock, specimen size trees, meandering sidewalks (with horizontal change), and intensified landscaping, is required along Milliken Avenue. 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. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division. D. Environmental The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Fourth Street Rock Crusher project in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the City Adopted Special Studies Zone for the Red Hill Fault, in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Foothill Freeway project in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. 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. Mitigation measures are required for the project. The applicant is responsible for the cost of implementing said measures, including monitoring and reporting. Applicant shall be required to post cash, letter of credit, or other forms of guarantee acceptable to the City Planner in the amount of S to be determined, prior to the issuance of building permits, guaranteeing satisfactory performance and completion of all mitigation measures. These funds may be used by the City to retain consultants End/or pay for City staff time to monitor and report on the mitigation measures. Failure to complete all actions required by the approved environmental documents shall be considered grounds for forfeit. In those instances requiring long term monitoring (i.e.) beyond final certificate of occupancy), the applicant shall provide a written monitoring and reporting program to the City Planner prior to Project No. TT 1579.3 Completion Date issuance of building permits. Said program shall identify the reporter as an individual qualified to know whether the particular mitigation measure has been implemented. APPLICANTS SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Site Development 1. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation and prior to issuance of building permits. / / F. Grading Grading of the subject' property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of application for grading plan check. 4. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. ' APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH 'HE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: G. Dedication and Vehicular Access Rights-of-way and easements shall be dedicated to the City for all interior public streets, community trails, public paseos, public landscape areas, street trees, traffic signal encroachment and maintenance, and public drainage facilities as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. Private easements for non-public facilities (cross-lot drainage, local feeder trails, etc.) shall be reserved as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. 2. Corner property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards. Vehicular access rights shall be dedicated to the City for the following streets, except for approved openings: Milliken Avenue, Victoria Park Lane. and Kenyon Way. All existing easements lying within future rights-of-way shall be quitclaimed or delineated on the final map. Easements for public sidewalks and/or street trees placed outside the public right-of-way shall be dedicated to the City. Additional street right-of-way shall be dedicated along the Milliken Avenue right turn lane, to provide a minimum of 7 feet measured from the face of curb. .H. Street Improvements 1. All public improvements (interior streets, drainage facilities, community trails, paseos, landscaped areas, etc.) shown on the plans and/or tentative map shall be constructed to City Standards. SC - ~9t96 Project No. 'IF 1579-3 Completion Date Interior street improvements shall include, but are not limited to, curb and gutter, AC pavement, drive approaches, sidewalks, street lights, and street trees. Improvement Plans and Construction: Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any other permits required. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR or any other locations approved by the City Engineer. / / Notes: (1) Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200 feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer. (2) Conduit shall be 3-inch (at intersections) or 2-inch (along streets) galvanized steel with pull rope or as specified. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. 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. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards, except for single family residential lots. h. Street names shall be approved by the City Planner prior to submittal for first plan check. 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. 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. SC * Jo bo Project No, TT 15795 Completion Date Public Maintenance Areas A separate set of landscape and irrigation plans per Engineering Public Works Standards shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. The following landscaped parkways, medians, paseos, easements, trails or other areas shall be annexed into the Victoria Landscape Maintenance District: Milliken Avenue. Victoria Park Lane, Kenyon Way, expansion of existinq trail along east tract boundary, and cul-de-sac paseo connections to Victoria Park Lane from Streets B and F. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting Districts shall be filed v, ith the City Engineer prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. All required public landscaping and irrigation systems shall be continuously maintained by the developer until accepted by the City. Parkway landscaping on the following street(s) shall conform to the results of the respective Beautification Master Plan: Milliken Avenue. Drainage and Flood Control A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. / / 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. / / Pubfic storm drain easements shall be graded to convey overflows in the event of a blockage in a sump catch basin on the public street. Utilities Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas, electric power, telephone, and cable 'IV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility Standards. Easements shall be provided as required. 2. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from the CCWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. General Requirements and Approvals A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated operating costs for all new street lights for the first six months of operation, prior to final map approval or prior to building permit issuance if no map is involved. / / SC - Project No. T-r 15796 Completion Date APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: M. General Fire Protection Conditions 1. Mello Roos Community Facilities District requirements shall apply to this project. / / / / / / 2. Fire flow requirement shall be 1,500 gallons per minute. A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department personnel prior to water plan approval. Fire hydrants are required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed and operable prior to delivery of any combustible building materials on site (i.e., lumber, roofing materials, etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire department personnel. Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided prior to water plan approval. Required hydrants, if any, will be determined by the Fire District. Fire District standards require a 6" riser with a 4" and a 2-1/2" outlet. Substandard hydrants shall be upgraded to meet this standard. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specifications on approved brands and model numbers. / / Prior to the issuance of building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be submitted to the Fire District that an approved temporaw water supply for fire protection is available, pending completion of required fire protection system. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for all hydrants and installed prior to final inspection. All trees and shrubs planted in any median shall be kept trimmed a minimum of 14 feet, 6 inches from ground up so as not to impede fire apparatus. Gated/restricted entry(s) require installation of a Knox rapid entry key system. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specific details and ordering information. 9. Plan check fees in the amount of $0__ have been paid. An additional $. 150.00 shall be paid: X Prior to water plan approval. Note: Separate plan check fees for fire protection systems (sprinklers, hood systems, alarms, etc.) and/or any consultant reviews will be assessed upon submittal of plans. 10. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1994 UBC, U FC, UPC, UMC, NEC, and RCFD Standards 22 and 15. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: N. Security Hardware 1. A secondary locking device shall be installed on all sliding glass doors. 2. One-inch single cylinder dead bolts shall be installed on all entrance doors. If windows are within 40 inches of any locking device, tempered glass or a double cylinder dead bolt shall be used. 3. All garage or rolling doors shall have slide bolts or some type of secondary locking devices. Windows 1. All sliding glass windows shall have secondary locking devices and should not be able to be lifted from frame or track in any manner. Building Numbering 1. Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime visibility. Project No, TT 15796 Completion Date CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- STAFF REPORT DATE: February 26, 1997 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Steve Hayes, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 96-03 - CITATION HOMES o A request to amend the Victoria Community Plan Development District designation from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 12.4 acres of land south of Highland Avenue, east of Woodruff Place - APN: 227-011-26. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15797 - CITATION HOMES - A proposed residential subdivision of 61 single family lots on 12.4 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre), proposed to be Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located south of Highland Avenue and east of Woodruff Place - APN: 227-011-26. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Project Density: 4.9 dwelling units per acre Surroundin~ Land Use and Zoninq: North Future Foothill Freeway right-of-way and single family residences; Caryn Planned Community South Neighborhood Park and Elementary School East Single Family Residences; Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) West Commercial Shopping Center; Village Commercial General Plan Desiqnations: Project Site - Low-Medium Residential North Low Residential South Low-Medium Residential East Low-Medium Residential West Neighborhood Commercial Site Characteristics: The site is vacant and slopes generally from north to south at roughly 5 percent. A trail exists along the east propery line to link the subdivision to the east with the school and park to the south. The site is covered in native scrub vegetation; no trees or any other significant landscaping exists on the property. Curb and gutter exist along the project frontages. ITEMS C & D PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT VCPA 96-03 & ~ I 15797 - CITATION HOMES February 26, 1997 Page 2 BACKGROUND: On March 11, 1992, a 155-unit condominium project was approved for the site. Since that time, the property has been sold and the current property owner is pursuing the proposed single family residential project on the property because of current market conditions. ANALYSIS: General: The applicant is proposing to subdivide the 12.4-acre site into 61 single family residential lots. The lots are of a size and dimension consistent with the existing Low-Medium Residential Development Standards within the Victoria Community Plan. Lots range in size from 5,000 to 11,800 square feet and average 6,150 square feet. In addition to the 61 residential lots, a lettered lot is proposed along the east side of the subdivision to provide an extension of the existing trail east of the site for additional landscape area. Victoria Community Plan Amendment: In conjunction with the proposed Tentative Tract Map, the applicant has also submitted an application to amend the Development District designation for the property associated with the proposed subdivision. The 12.4-acre parcel is currently zoned Medium Residential and the developer is proposing to change the designation on this property to Low-Medium Residential for the purpose of developing a conventional single family residential subdivision with center plot detached homes. The applicant is proposing this amendment for reasons outlined in the attached justification letter (See Exhibit "E"). Within the Medium Residential Development District of the Victoria Community Plan, a wide variety of housing stock is allowed, including, but not limited to, condominiums, townhouses, triplexes, fourplexes, and other types of single family housing, both attached and detached. However, the density of a project in the Medium Residential District shall be between 8 to 14 dwelling units per acre. The applicant is proposing a single family residential subdivision at a density of 4.9 dwelling units. The proposed density and lot sizes both conform with the Low-Medium Residential development standards within the Victoria Community Plan, hence the amendment request by the applicant. Within the surrounding neighborhood, the predominant type of development is detached single family residences. To the west is a neighborhood commercial shopping center. The property in question was originally designated Medium Residential for the purpose of providing a buffer between the detached single family development to the east and the Village Commercial designation to the west. With small-lot single family detached housing being one of the accepted housing types in this "buffer" area, the amendment proposal would not necessarily change the type of housing allowed in this area, only the density and lot size. Staff feels that redesignating the parcel to Low-Medium Residential would fit in with the surrounding neighborhood where a single family detached development of a similar density is predominant. Design Review Committee: On February 4, 1997, the Committee (Bethel, Macias, Coleman) reviewed the projec.' and recommended approval of the subdivision with conditions that have been incorporated into the attached Resolution of Approval. Comments from this meeting are provided for your convenience (See Exhibit "D"). PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT VCPA 96-03 & TT 15797 - CITATION HOMES February 26, 1997 Page 3 Technical Review Committee: On February 5, 1997, the Technical Review Committee reviewed the project and determined that, together with the recommended special and standard Conditions of Approval, the project is consistent with all applicable standards and ordinances. The Grading Committee reviewed the project and recommended approval subject to conditions at their meeting or] February 4, 1997. Environmental Assessment: Staff has completed Part II of the Initial Studies for both the Tentative Tract Map and Victoria Community Plan Amendment (See Exhibit "G"). Staff determined that the proposed Tentative Tract Map could have a significant adverse impact on the environment relative to noise unless proper mitigations are incorporated into the design of the project. A preliminary acoustical analysis was prepared by a registered engineer that recommended that an 8-foot high sound barrier be constructed along Highland Avenue to mitigate noise to acceptable levels, as defined in the City's General Plan. Staff has incorporated a Condition of Approval into the attached Resolution of Approval for the Tentative Tract Map requiring this sound wall as mitigation to the potential noise issue. If the Commission concurs with staff's recommendations, then issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Tentative Tract Map and a Negative Declaration for the proposed Victoria Community Plan Amendment would be in order. CORRESPONDENCE: These items have been advertised as public hearings in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property has been posted, and notices were sent to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Victoria Community Plan Amendment 96-03 and approve Tentative Tract 15797 through adoption of the attached Resolutioas of Approval with Conditions and issue a mitigated Negative Declaration for the tract. City Planner BB:SH/jfs Attachments: Exhibit "A" Exhibit "B" Exhibit "C" Exhibit "D" Exhibit "E" Exhibit "F" Exhibit "G" Resolution Resolution - Site Utilization Map - Tentative Tract Map - Conceptual Grading Plan - Design Review Committee Action Comments dated February 4, 1997 - Letter from Applicant regarding proposed Victoria Community Plan Amendment - Surrounding Land Uses Map - Initial Studies, Part II of Approval for Victoria Community Plan Amendment 96-03 of Approval for Tentative Tract Map 15797 ~CT- ~. ' 7 b J; wC ARK ~IT-F__ ~,OMMMN,T Y SITE L= 153 'R ACT--I 3-~.:0 _ . '[ LOTS~ ~ IN 11tl; CI1¥ OI I~ANCilO CUCAMONGA SAhJ IJ[I{tlA~{DII~O COUNTY. CA, TENTATIVE TRACT 15797 ~-AEI.CASC-~ IN lit[ C1t¥ {)1' HAhICIIC) (.UCAMONGA 11~NIAIIV[ IHACI CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN t IIGl LAND AVENUE DESIGN ~,'~'-\ CO.X~.XTS 7:50 p.m. Steve Hayes FebrJzn,' 4, i997 EN'VTRON,LMEENTAL ASSESSNFENT .,-LN"D TENTATIVE TRACT 15797 - CITATION HOMEES - A proposed residentbl subdivision of 6[ single faro[IF' lots on 12.4 acres o/.land in the Medium Residential district ($-14 dwelling units per acre) located south oFHighland Avenue and east o/.\VoodruffAvenue - .-EP.,N: 227-011-25. :Related File: Victoria Community Plan .aumendment 96-03. Design ~arameters; The site of the proposed subdivision is bounded to the north by the future Foothill Freeway right-o/.-way, to the south by a park, to the east by single famiiy residential development and to the west by a future church site and a neighborhood commercial shopping center. A trail linking the subdivision to the east with the park and school to the south exists east o/.the sire. The site slopes From north to south at approximately 5 percent. SralT Comments' The foilowing corpwnents are intended to provide an outline/'or Committee discussion. *[ajor Issues: The foIlo,Mng broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: The subdivision should be redesigned to eliminate the front-on lot situation on Street "A" combined with the direct access of Street "A" to Woodruff Avenue. Staff recommends this revision because Woodruff'Avenue is now expected to have heavier than originall,,,' anticipated traffic volumes since it will be a direct link to an on-ramp to the/.uture fleeway. instead, starT recommends the layout shov.'n in the attached exhibit where both points of.vehicular access come from Kenyon \Vay. Secondary Issues: Once all of'the major issues have been addressed, and time wermit:ing. the Committee ' " ' . cI~,.5n issues: will discuss tne rollowing secorider,' '-'-:", ' The sidewalk for the trail connection should be desi2ned to line ua with the sidewaIk on either the north or sou.:h side of'Street "A." Policy Issues: The following items are a matter o/. Planning Commission policy and should be , ' d,.>,=n without discussion: incorporated into me project ~-:¢, .°d[ retaining ,.~.afis and block we!is in area on the .seameter o/.the site should be desitned consistent with the theme wall design a!readv established within \'{c:oria Park Lane. 9 A minimum S-foot separation ' = '.-'-' ' , o~t~n the back of sidewalk and an':' walls should be provided in rear and corner side yard situations .... project. ~nrougnout Staff Recommendation' St~ff'recommends that the Design Review Committee recommend that the applicant revise the layout of' the subdMsion with and once redesigned to the satisf.acdon of' staff. then the project may be scheduled for the Planning Commission for review and action. Attachment Desi_on Review Committee Action' .Members Present; Bill Bethel, Rich .',.facies. Dan Coleman The Design IKev~ew Comminee recormmended approval of the project subject to the £ollowing conditions: The tr.~ii cormectlon between Lots 36 and 37 should be narrowed to reduce m~ amount of publicly m~_intalned area. Consequently, the lots north and south of the connection should be widened to better accommodate potential housing products. Open fencing should be utilized on the uppermost portion of the combination retaining/block wa[I _ __ '' o, th~ proposed ,,,.'all as seem along the southern edc, e off Lots '~'~ through 32 to m~t~gate the height ~ * from Kenyon Way. The SecondroT' and Policy Design issues mentioned in these commen~s were also recommended ~o be incorpora,:ed as Conditions of Approval for ~he projet[. CIT'nTIOfi I10MES January 9, 1997 Planning Commission CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Re: Victoria Specific Plan Amendment Tentative Map 15797 Dear Members of the Commission: We have requested an Amendment to the Victoria Specific Plan, specifically Planning Area #2, to enable the Specific Plan to be consistent with the land use proposed by our Tentative Map #15797. The existing land use and zoning for the Plan on PA2 is medium density residential (M), 8-14dua. This designation provides for detached or attached residential uses not to exceed 14 dwelling units per acre. We are requesting a change in the Plan to low medium density to permit SFD homes on 5,000 square foot lots. There is no significant market for housing at the medium density level. Single family detached housing on this site, as we propose, will be a very compatible land use for the surrounding uses. We feel that it would be an unreasonable burden for us to continue holding the land until such time as a higher density development becomes more marketable when an SFD development is imminently marketable and yet compatible with surrounding uses. We hope you will give our proposal favorable consideration. Sincerely, TAVA DEVELOPMENT CO. d.~C I TA~ S Vice P¢sident Lan~//D'evelopment FGL:mkw 19600 Fairchild Road, Suite 270, Irvine, C 715-2510 (714) 250-6600, FAX (714) 250-6656 DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT MAP TRACT IIIIIIAND TRACT ~ VICTORIA P.O. PARCEL b~P 12263 COMMUNFF¥ ?ACILFF¥ ~ ~ (FUTURE CHUECH] ~_ NOT A PA,CfT z N 8'~'40'1i'E 30..~ 1 TRACT ' ? 230 FROM"M' TO "LM" V~.,ANT T P.A CT }3443 13.00 ,N ,31'05'E~ 4 %/ FROM KENT OJ'l PARK VICTORIA P.C. 'M' TO "LM' L=14.44 TP~,CT I 3440 ,.~.. P.O. 'H:\EVC9603.WPD (July 17, 1996) CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Project File #/Name: Victoria Community Plan Amendment 96-03 Related Files: Tentative Tract 15797 Applicant: Citation Homes Address: 19600 Fairchild Road, Suite 270, Irvine, CA 92715 Telephone #: (714) 250-6600 Project Description: Proposed change from Medium to Low-Medium Residential Project Accepted as Complete (date): January 27, 1997 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an explanation is required for all "Yes" and "Maybe" answers on attached sheets, including a discussion of ways to mitigate the significant effects identified. EARTH - Will the proposal result in.' Yes Maybe N._9o a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in the geologic structure? ( ) ( ) ( X ) b) Disruptions, displacement, compaction, or over covering of the soil? ( ) ( ) ( X ) c) Change in the topography or ground surface relief features? ( ) ( ) ( X ) d) The destruction, covering, or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) (X) e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? ( ) ( ) (X) f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sand, or changes in siltation, deposition, or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet, or lake? ( ) ( ) ( X ) g) Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards, such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? ( ) ( ) ( X ) II. AIR - Will the proposal result in: a) Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b) The creation of objectionable odors? 1 ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Alteration of air movement moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? () () (X) III. WATER - Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b) Changes in the.absorption rate, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? c) Alterations to the course of flow of flood waters? () () () () d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any body? e) Discharge into surface waters, or in alteration of surface water quality, including, but not limited to, temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity? ( ) f) Alteration of the direction or rate of ground waters? ( ) g) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? ( ) h) Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal pools? () () () () () () () () () () (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) PLANT LIFE - Will the proposal result in: a) Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? ( ) b) Reduction in the number of any unique, rare, or endangered species of ( ) plants? c) Introduction of new species of plants into an area or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? ( ) d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? ., ( ) () () () () (X) (X) (X) (X) ANIMAL LIFE - Will the proposal result in: a) Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of animals (birds, land animals, including reptiles, fish, and shellfish benthic organisms or insects)? b) Reduction of the number of any unique, rare, or endangered species of animals? c) Introduction of any new species of animals into the area or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? ( ) ( ) () () () ( ) () () (X) (X) (X) (X) VI. NOISE - Will the proposal result in: a) Increase in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? () () () () (X) (X) VII. LIGHT AND GLARE - Will the proposal: a) Produce new I!ght and glare? () () (X) VIII. LAND USE - Will the proposal result in: a) Substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? () (X) () IX. NATURAL RESOURCES - Will the proposal result in: a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? () () (X) RISK OF UPSET - Will the proposal involve: a) A risk of explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? () ( ) () () (X) (X) Xl. POPULATION - Will the proposal: a) Alter the location, distribution, density, population of an area? or growth rate of the human ( ) (X) ( ) XlI. HOUSING - Will the proposal.' a) Affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? () ( ) (X) TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION - Will the proposal result in: a) Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b) Effects on existing parking facilities or demand for new parking? Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? d) Alterations to the present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? e) Alterations to waterborne, rail, or air traffic? f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians? ( ) () ( ) () () () ( ) () () ( ) () () (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES - Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for, new or altered government services in any of the fofiowing areas: a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? c) Schools? d) Parks and other recreational facilities? e) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f) Other governmental services? () () () () () () (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) XV. ENERGY - Will the proposal result in: a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? ( ) b) Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy or require the development of new sources of energy? ( ) () ( ) (X) (X) XVl. UTILITIES and SERVICE SYSTEMS - Will the proposal result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? b) Communications systems? c) Water? d) Sewer or septic tanks? e) Storm Water drainage? Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) ( ) (X) HUMAN HEALTH - Will the proposal result in: a) Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b) Exposure of people to potential health hazards? ( ) () ( ) () (X) (X) XVlII. AESTHETICS - Will the proposal result in: a) The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public? b) Creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? () ( ) ( ) () (X) (X) XlX. RECREATION - Will the proposal result in: a) Impact upon the quality of existing recreational opportunities? 4 ( ) ( ) (X) b) Restrict the religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( ) ( ) ( X ) XX. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Will the proposal: a) Result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archeological site? b) Result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? c) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic or cultural values? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) ( ) (X) XXl. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE - a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Short term: Does the project have the potential to achieve shod-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A shod-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definite period of time. Long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect on the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) ( ) (X) XXll. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Narrative description of environmental impacts) - XXlll. DISCUSSION OF LAND USE IMPACTS (Examine whether the project would be consistent with existing zoning, plans, and other applicable land use controls) - XXlV. 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 EIR 5 SENT BY: FI ~---~J~N-,GA CO~ DE'V,; 2-13-.97 !g:lg~=l; gO9 477 2847 XXVL APPLICANT C£RTIFICATIO~ (To be completed by applicator) - cerCy f. hat I a,m fhe ap,t::dic::an: fo~' the ~ tiescribed in ~ initial Study. I ec.~nowt4::dge tt'k~t I have re..,ad ~ Study and ~ pmpcsed '~ measures. Further. ! have revised the prc~ect plans or pro _p~-~ an(Eor re?. ~e tp the proposed m'rdgation measles to avoid the effec~ or m'digate ~ effects to a point where ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Initial Study - Part II Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Project Description: V__CPA 96-03 - Citation Homes : Proposed chanae in zonina desianation from Me. dium (8-14 dwellina units per acre) to l.ow-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for 12.4 acres of land located south of Highland Avenue. east of Woodruff Avenue VIII. Land Use: a) This application for a Victoria Community Plan is proposed to change the designation of the property from Medium residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre). The purpose of the amendment is to allow for conventional single family residences to be built on the property. The type of lots and future residences proposed are already permitted within this area and are consistent with the Victoria Community Plan. Therefore, no significant land use impacts associated with this subdivision or the related Specific Plan Amendment are anticipated. XI. Population: a) The proposed amendment could have a potential impact on the density in that it is proposing to lower the density range for the site. However, with the single family subdivision proposed being consistent with a potential type of housing already allowed with the existing density range, no adverse environmental impacts are expected. EARLIER ANALYSES The application is part of the Victoria Community. Plan for which an EIR was prepared and certified by the City. This document is available at the Planning Division, City Hall, 10500 Civic Center Drive. The Master Environmental Assessment for the General Plan was also referenced in evaluating the potential impacts of the application. This document is available for review at the Planning Division, City Hall, 10500 Civic Center Drive. Specific studies evaluating potenital impacts created by this project (i.e. Noise Study ) are also available for review at the Planning Division, City Hall, 10500 Civic Center Drive. 'H:\ETT15797.WPD (July 17, 1996) CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA _=NVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Project File #/Name: Tentative Tract 15797 Related Files: Victoria Community Plan Amendment 96-03 Applicant: Citation Homes Address: 19600 Fairchild Road, Suite 270, Irvine, CA 92715 Telephone #: (714) 250-6600 Project Description: 61 lot single family residential subdivision Project Accepted as Complete (date): January 27, 1997 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an explanation is required for all "Yes" and "Maybe" answers on attached sheets, including a discussion of ways to mitigate the significant effects .denrifled. EARTH - Will the proposal result in.' Yes Maybe N__p_o a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in the geologic structure? ( ) ( ) ( X ) b) Disruptions, displacement, compaction, or over covering of the soil? ( ) ( ) ( X ) c) Change in the topography or ground surface relief features? ( ) ( ) ( X ) d) The destruction, covering, or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) ( X ) e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? ( ) ( ) ( X ) f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sand, or changes in siltation, deposition, or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet, or lake? ( ) ( ) (' X ) g) Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards, such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? ( ) ( X ) ( ) II. AIR - Will the proposal result in: a) Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b) The creation of objectiona~l~e odors? " 1 ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Alteration of air movement moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? () () (X) III. WATER - Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b) Changes in theabsorption rate, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? c) Alterations to the course of flow of flood waters? d) e) Changes in the amount of surface water in any body? Discharge into surface waters, or in alteration of surface water quality, including, but not limited to, temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity? () () () () () () f) Alteration of the direction or rate of ground waters? g) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? ( ) h) Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ) i) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal pools? ( ) () () () () () () () () () (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) IV. PLANT LIFE - Will the proposal result in: a) Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? b) Reduction in the number of any unique, rare, or endangered species of plants? c) Introduction of new species of plants into an area or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? () () ( ) () (X) (X) (X) (X) ANIMAL LIFE - Will the proposal result in: a) Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of animals (birds, land animals, including reptiles, fish, and shellfish benthic organisms or insects)? b) Reduction of the number of any unique, rare, or endangered species of animals? c) d) Introduction of any new species of animals into the area or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? ( ) ( ) () () ( ) () () ( ) (X) (X) (X) (X) 2 Vl. NOISE - Will the proposal result in: a) Increase in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? () () ( ) (X) (X) () VII. LIGHT AND GLARE - Will the proposal: a) Produce new light and glare? () () (X) VIII. LAND USE - Will the proposal result in: a) Substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? () (X) () IX. NATURAL RESOURCES - Will the proposal result in: a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? () ( ) (X) Xo RISK OF UPSET - Will the proposal involve: a) A risk of explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? () () () ( ) (X) (X) Xl. POPULATION - Will the proposal: a) Alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? ( ) (X) ( ) XlI. HOUSING o Will the proposal: a) Affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? ( ) () (X) XlII. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION - Will the proposal result in: a) b) c) d) e) 0 Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? Effects on existing parking facilities or demand for new parking? Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? Alterations to the present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? Alterations to waterborne, rail, or air traffic? Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians? ( ) () () () () () (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) XlV. PUBLIC SERVICES - Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for, new or altered government services in any of the following areas.' a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? c) Schools? d) Parks and other recreational facilities? e) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f) Other governmental services? () () () () () () (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) XV. ENERGY - Will the proposal result in: a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b) Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy or require the development of new sources of energy? () () ( ) () (X) (X) XVl. UTILITIES and SERVICE SYSTEMS - Will the proposal result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? b) Communications systems? c) Water? d) Sewer or septic tanks? e) Storm water drainage? f) Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) ( ) (X) HUMAN HEALTH - Will the proposal result in: a) Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b) Exposure of people to potential health hazards? () () ( ) () (X) (X) XVlII. AESTHETICS - Will the proposal result in: a) The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public? b) Creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? () () ( ) () (X) (X) XlX. RECREATION - Will the proposal result in: a) Impact upon the quality of existing recreational opportunities? 4 ( ) ( ) (X) b) Restrict the religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( ) ( ) ( X ) XX. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Willthe proposal: a) b) c) Result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archeological site? Result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic or cultural values? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) ( ) (X) XXl. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE - a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Short term: Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definite period of time. Long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect on the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) ( ) (X) XXll. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Narrative description of environmental impacts) XXlll. DISCUSSION OF LAND USE IMPACTS (Examine whether the project would be consistent with existing zoning, plans, and other applicable land use controls) - XXlV. 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 EIR 5 SENT BY: R CLIC~M~0NGA C0M DEr; 2-13-97 9:19,~1; 909 477 2847 -> 7142506~56; Ma~!er En~4ronmentaJ Assessment for the 1989 Update of the Geoeral Plan industrial Area Specific Plan EIR Vi~toria Planned Communfty Terra V~sta Ptarme~ Co~nmuni~ Foeth~ Boulev, a~d Specif'~: Plan Eliwanda Ne,-th S~,,cifi= Plan Other. DE~RMINATION - O~ the basi~ of this initial e~luation: a) l rind that the proposed project co~0' r~ ha~e a sigr~'mant effec~ on ~e A NEC-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-~ATIVE DE~TION will b~ prepan~ .......................................................................... b) I Find that although th~ prot~ project could ha~ a have been added t~ the ~ A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be pf~a'ed .........................................................................( AN ENVIRONMENTAl. IMPACT REPORT is requin~ ............................................................... XXM!. APPIJCANT CERTIFICATION (To be compic'zd by appticar~) - I certify that I am the applicant for the project described in ~ Initial Study. ! ac~n~ treat I h~e r~ ~ I,~ S~ a~ ~ ~ '~~ ~ F~, ) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ns ~ pm~ ~or ~e ~ ~ ~o~ m~ ~~ to ~ ~ ~ ~ m'~ ~ ~ to a ~ ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKIJlST Initial Study - Part II Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Project Description: TT 15797 - Citation Homes Subdivision of 12.4 acres of land into 61 sin,ole family lots located south of Highland Avenue and east of Woodruff Avenue I. Earth: VI. VIII. g) The majority of California is susceptible to earthquakes. The project is within the special study zone established by the City for the inferred location of the Red Hill fault. Geelogic studies were done in conjunction with the consideration of the Victoria Community Plan during the Environmental Review process and no evidence of faulting was found within the special study area within Victoria. Noise: b) The noise levels for a portion of this project closest to Highland Avenue and the future Route 30 Freeway could be potentially severe. A noise study has been prepared to access the impacts associated with constructing this development in close proximity to Highland Avenue and the future Route 30 Freeway. The preliminary stud)' recommended that a 8-10 foot high screen wall be constructed along Highland and that certain construction elements (i.e. dual-glazed windo~vs) be provided to mitigate noise to safe levels. With these mitigations in place, people should not be exposed to severe noise levels. Land Use: a) In conjunction with this application, an amendment to the Victoria Community Plan is proposed to change the designation of the property from Medium residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre). The purpose of the amendment is to allow for conventional single family residences to be built on the property. The type of lots and future residences proposed are already permitted within this area and are consistent with the Victoria Community Plan. Therefore, no significant land use impacts associated with this subdivision or the related Specific Plan Amendment are anticipated. XI. Population: a) The project, with its related Victoria Community Plan Amendment, could have a potential impact on the density in that the related amendment is proposing to lower the density range for the site. However, with the single family subdivision proposed being consistent with a potential type of housing already allowed with the existing density range, no adverse environmental impacts are expected. XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance: c) The project is part of the larger Victoria Community Plan area for which an Environmental Impact was prepared and certified. The application most likely will contribute to the cumulative impacts within the Planned Community and the City. Therefore4 the application will be required to comply with the mitigation measures outlined in the Victoria Community Plan EIR to mitigate any potential cumulative impacts to a level of insignificance. EARLIER ANALYSES The application is part of the Victoria Community Plan for which an EIR was prepared and certified by the City. This document is available at the Planning Division, City Hall, 10500 Civic Center Drive. The Master Environmental Assessment for the General Plan was also referenced in evaluating the potential impacts of the application. This document is available for review at the Planning Division, City Hall, 10500 Civic Center Drive. Specific studies evaluating potential impacts created by this project (i.e. Noise Study ) are also available for review at the Planning Division, City Hall, 10500 Civic Center Drive. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 96-03, A REQUEST TO AMEND THE VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT DESIGNATION FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR APPROXIMATELY 12.4 ACRES OF LAND SOUTH OF HIGHLAND AVENUE AND EAST OF WOODRUFF PLACE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 227-011-26. A. Recitals. 1. Citation Homes has filed an application for Victoria Community Plan Amendment No. 96-03 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Victoria Community Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. On February 26, 1997, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on February 26, 1997, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to approximately 12.4 acres of land, basically a reverse "L" shaped configuration, located south of Highland Avenue and east of Woodruff Place and which is presently undeveloped. Said property is currently designated as Medium Residential; and b. The property to the north of the subject site is designated Low-Medium Residential within the Caryn Planned Community and the property is developed with single family residences. Immediately to the north is the right-of-way for the future Foothill Freeway, which is presently vacant. The property to the west is designated Village Commercial and developed with a neighborhood commercial shopping center. The property to the east is designated Low-Medium Residential and is developed with a single family residential subdivision. The property to the south is designated Low-Medium Residential and is developed with a neighborhood park and an elementary school. c. 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 and This amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. VCPA 96-03 - CITATION HOMES February 26, 1997 Page 2 e. This amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent properties and would not have a significant impact on the environment nor the surrounding properties. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. That the subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed distdct in terms of access, size, and compatibility with existing land use in the surrounding area; and b. That the proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor the surrounding properties; and c. That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and recommends adoption of a Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows: a. That the Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder; that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the application. b. That, based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission during the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby recommends approval of Victoria Community Plan Amendment No. 96-03. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 1997. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. VCPA 96-03 - CITATION HOMES February 26, 1997 Page 3 BY: E. David Barker, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Bullet, 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 26th day of February 1997, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15797, A PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF 61 LOTS ON 12.4 ACRES OF LAND IN THE MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) PROPOSED TO BE LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED SOUTH OF HIGHLAND AVENUE AND EAST OF WOODRUFF PLACE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 227-011-26. A. Recitals. 1. Citation Homes has filed an application for the approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 15797, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Tentative Tract Map request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 26th day of February 1997, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said headrig 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 dudrig the above- referenced public hearing on February 26, 1997, including wdtten and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located south of Highland Avenue and east of Woodruff Place with a Highland Avenue frontage of approximately 400 feet and maximum lot depth of approximately 890 feet and which is presently improved with curb and gutter along all vacant street frontages and trail and sidewalk along Highland Avenue; and b. The property to the north of the subject site is the right-of-way for the future Foothill Freeway and single family residential, the property to the south consists of a neighborhood park and an elementary school, the property to the east is single family residential and, the property to the west is a neighborhood commercial shopping center; and c. The application contemplates the subdivision of 12.4 acres of land into 61 single family residential lots that have an average lot size of 6,150 square feet; and d. The site is within the Victoria Community Plan and, in conjunction with this application, a Victoda Community Plan Amendment is proposed to change the Development District Designation from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre); and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. T'T 15797 - CITATION HOMES February 26, 1997 Page 2 e. The proposed subdivision design is in compliance with the development standards for the Low-Medium Residential Development District included within the Victoria Community Plan. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public headng and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. That the tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and any applicable specific plans; and b. The design or improvements of the tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and any applicable specific plans; and c. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; and d. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat; and e. The tentative tract is not likely to cause serious public health problems; and f. The design of the tentative tract will not conflict with any easement acquired by the public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows: a. That the Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder; that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the application. b. That, based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission dudng the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TT 15797 - CITATION HOMES February 26, 1997 Page 3 Planning Division 1) Approval of this tentative tract map is contingent upon approval of Victoria Community Plan Amendment 96-03. 2) Retaining walls throughout the project shall not exceed 4 feet in height above finished grade and be composed of a decorative block or exterior finish. The final design and heights of all retaining/block walls throughout the project shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to the issuance of any building permits for the walls. If any combination retaining/block walls exceed 6 feet in height, but are less than 8 feet in height (with the exception of the sound attenuation wall required along Milliken Avenue), then a Minor Exception shall be submitted for consideration by the City Planner prior to the issuance of any building permits for said walls. 3) The slope landscaping and retaining walls along the side of downslope lots that side onto two or more upslope rear yards shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits for said retaining walls. 4) The final design of the required trail connection shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and City Engineer prior to recordation of the Final Map. The final design shall include areas sufficient for trees within the trail connection, to the satisfaction of the City Planner and City Engineer. 5) The final map and grading plan shall be redesigned with each lot meeting the minimum 50-foot width, as measured at the front setback line, to the satisfaction of the City Planner, prior to recordation of the final map. 6) An exhibit shall be provided on the final grading plan that clearly depicts the typical side yard slope situation, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 7) A minimum of 5 feet shall be provided between the back of sidewalk and any walls in all corner side yards within the subdivision to allow sufficient area for future tree growth at the time houses are contemplated on the property, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Environmental Mitigation Measures 1) An 8-foot screen wall shall be constructed along Highland Avenue, consistent with the recommendations contained within the preliminary noise study. Also, certain construction elements (i.e. dual glazed windows) shall be provided at such time houses are contemplated within the subdivision. These elements shall be provided as also recommended in the preliminary noise study, and a final noise study, which shall be required for review and approval of the City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TT 15797 - CITATION HOMES February 26, 1997 Page 4 Enaineering Division 1) The conceptual grading plan shows grading and drainage on the future church site property. Permission to do so will be required from the church site property owners, pdor to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. 2) Landscape Maintenance District (LMD) plans shall incorporate cost efficient, low maintenance designs, including the use of hardscape compatible with or transitioning to existing LMD areas, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The maximum slope within publicly maintained landscape areas shall be 3:1. Where slopes occur, a 1-foot fiat area behind the sidewalk shall be provided, and at the top of slopes, where the slope height is 6 feet or greater, a 2-foot wide fiat shelf shall run along the base of the walls. Planting areas for shrubs should have a minimum width of 3 feet, clear of wall footings. Trees will require wider planting areas, as determined by the City Engineer. 3) This project is connected to or will disrupt an existing City-maintained landscape and irrigation area located along Woodruff Place, Kenyon Way, and possibly Highland Avenue and the existing trail. Prior to new construction, a joint inspection and documentation of the existing area's condition shall occur with both the new contractor and the City inspector. The existing irrigation system shall be relocated as needed and any damaged landscaping replaced to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. At this point, the new construction contractor shall be responsible for maintenance of both the new and existing areas. The developer shall assume maintenance responsibility for the altered landscape area for a minimum of 90 days after reconstruction. A follow-up inspection of both areas is required prior to the City's acceptance of the new area. 4) Street names shall be applied for through the Planning Division and shall be accepted and added to the final map prior to approval and recordation thereof. 5) The trail connection shall encompass a width of 20 feet minimum to 35 feet maximum with maximum landscape slopes of 3:1 and a 1-foot minimum width drainage swale located on both sides of the sidewalk to handle drainage and nuisance flows. If retaining walls are required, the height shall be no greater than 30 inches. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 1997. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TT 15797 - CITATION HOMES February 26, 1997 Page 5 BY: E. David Barker, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 26th day of February 1997, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CON DITIONS PROJECT#: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: Tentative Tract 15797 61-1ot residential single family subdivision Citation Homes S/o Highland Avenue, E/o Woodruff Place ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. Time Limits Completion Date Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, if building permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 24 months from the date of approval. Approval of Tentative Tract No. 15797 is granted subject to the approval of Victoria Community Plan Amendment 96-03. Prior to recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes first, the applicant shall consent to, or participate in, the establishment of a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District for the construction and maintenance of necessary school facilities. However, if any school district has previously established such a Community Facilities District, the applicant shall, in the alternative, consent to the annexation of the project site into the territoW of such existing District prior to the recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes first. Further, if the affected school district has not formed a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District within twelve months from the date of approval of the project and prior to the recordation of the final map or issuance of building permits for said project, this condition shall be deemed null and void. This condition shall be waived if the City receives notice that the applicant and all affected school districts have entered into an agreement to privately accommodate any and all school impacts as a result of this project. SC - 10/96 Prior to recordation of the final map or prior to the issuance of building permits when no map is involved, written certification from the affected water district that adequate sewer and water facilities are or will be available to serve the proposed project shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development. Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. Site Development Project No. TT 15797 Completion Date The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, Development Code regulations, and the Victoria Community Plan. / / Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. / / All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. / / 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. / / Street names shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval in accordance with the adopted Street Naming Policy prior to approval of the final map. / / All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall be submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and approved prior to the issuance of building permits. Six foot decorative block walls shall be constructed along the project perimeter. If a double wall condition would result, the developer shall make a good faith effort to work with the adjoining property owners to provide a single wall. Developer shall notify, by mail, all contiguous property owners at least 30 days prior to the removal of any existing walls/fences along the project's perimeter. Any wood fences shall be constructed with a 2-inch galvanized pipe, at each post, extending at least 4 feet, 6 inches above grade and imbedded in an 18-inch deep concrete footing. / / C. Landscaping A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in this case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. / / All private slopes of 5 feet or less in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope, but less than 2:1 slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for erosion control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent i,'rigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. / / All private slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, 1-gallon or larger size shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope banks in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one 5-gallon or larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered SC - 10/96 Project No. clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. For single family residential development, all slope planting and irrigations shall be continuously maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the developer until each individual unit is sold and occupied by the buyer. Prior to releasing occupancy for those units, an inspection shall be conducted by the Planning Division to determine that they are in satisfactory condition. The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to City Planner review and approval and coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the Engineering Division. 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. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division. Environmental The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Fourth Street Rock Crusher project in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the City Adopted Special Studies Zone for the Red Hill Fault, in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer wdtten notice of the Foothill Freeway project in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting 8. cash deposit on any property. 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, vedfy the adequacy of the mitigation measures. The building plans will be checked for conformance with the mitigation measures contained in the final report. Mitigation measures are required for the project. The applicant is responsible for the cost of implementing said measures, including monitoring and reporting. Applicant shall be required to post cash, letter of credit, or other forms of guarantee acceptable to the City Planner in the amount of $ to be determined, prior to the issuance of building permits, guaranteeing satisfactory performance and completion of all mitigation measures. These funds may be used by the City to retain consultants and/or pay for City staff time to monitor and report on the mitigation measures. Failure to complete all actions required by the approved environmental documents shall be considered grounds for forfeit. In those instances requiring long term monitoring (i.e.) beyond final certificate of occupancy), the applicant shall provide a written monitoring and reporting program to the City Planner prior to issuance of building permits. Said program shall identify the reporter as an individual qualified to know whether the particular mitigation measure has been implemented. ~r 15797 Completion Date / / / / / / / / / / SC - Proie¢~ No. ~,PPLICANTS SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: E. Site Development Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation and prior to issuance of building permits. F. Grading Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of application for grading plan check. 4. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: , G. Dedication and Vehicular Access Rights-of-way and easements shall be dedicated to the City for all interior public streets, community trails, public paseos, public landscape areas, street trees, traffic signal encroachment and maintenance, and public drainage facilities as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. Private easements for non-public facilities (cross-lot drainage, local feeder trails, etc.) shall be reserved as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. 2. Corner property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards. Vehicular access rights shall be dedicated to the City for the following streets, except for approved openings: Kenyon Way and Woodruff Place. All existing easements lying within future rights-of-way shall be quitclaimed or delineated on the final map. Easements for public sidewalks and/or street trees placed outside the public right-of-way shall be dedicated to the City. Street Improvements All public improvements (interior streets, drainage facilities, community trails, 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. TT 15797 Completion Date / / SC - 10~9'6 Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: Curb & A.C. Side- Drive Street Street Comm Median Bike Project No. Other Street Name Gutter Pvmt walk · Appr. Lights Trees Trail Island Trail Kenyon Way / e Woodruff Place / e Highland Avenue ,/' e 'f-r 15797 completion Date / / SC - 10/~5 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 STD. 114. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu of construction fee shall be provided for this item. (e) Landscape (planting and irrigation) also see Special Conditions - LMD plans. Improvement Plans and Construction: Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any other permits required. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR or any other locations approved by the City Engineer. Notes: (1) Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200 feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer. (2) Conduit shall be 3-inch (at intersections) or 2oinch (along streets) galvanized steel with pull rope or as specified. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. 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. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards, except for single family residential lots. / / / / / / Project No. Street names shall be approved by the City Planner prior to submittal for first plan check. 'IT 15797 Completion Date / / 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. / / 1 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. A permit shall be obtained from Caltrans for any work within the following right-of-way: Hiqhland Avenue. I. Public Maintenance Areas A separate set of landscape and irrigation plans per Engineering Public Works Standards shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval pdor to final map approval or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. The following landscaped parkways, medians, paseos, easements, trails or other areas shall be annexed into the Landscape Maintenance District: Kenyon Way. Woodruff Place, Hiqhland Avenue, and the trail as shown on the tentative tract map. Also. refer to the Special Conditions - LMD plans. 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. o All required public landscaping and irrigation systems shall be continuously maintained by the developer until accepted by the City. / / J. Utilities 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. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from the CCWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. K. General Requirements and Approvals A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated operating costs for all new street lights for the first six months of operation, prior to final map approval or prior to building permit issuance if no map is involved. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: General Fire Protection Conditions Mello Roos Community Facilities District requirements shall apply to this project. Project No. 2. Fire flow requirement shall be. 1,500 gallons per minute. a. A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department personnel prior to water plan approval. 3. Fire hydrants are required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants sha!l be installed, flushed and operable prior to delivery of any combustible building materials on site (i.e., lumber, roofing materials, etc.)..Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire department personnel. 4. Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided prior to water plan approval. Required hydrants, if any, will be determined by the Fire District. Fire District standards require a 6" riser with a 4" and a 2-1/2" outlet. Substandard hydrants shall be upgraded to meet this standard. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specifications on approved brands and model numbers. 5. Prior to the issuance of building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be submitted to the Fire District that an approved temporary water supply for fire protection is available, pending completion of required fire protection system. 6. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for all hydrants and installed prior to final inspection. 7. All trees and shrubs planted in any median shall be kept trimmed a minimum of 14'6" from ground up so as not to impede fire apparatus. 8. Plan check fees in the amount of S0 have been paid. An additional $. 125.00 shall be paid: X Prior to water plan approval. Note: Separate plan check fees for fire protection systems (sprinklers, hood systems, alarms, etc.) and/or any consultant reviews will be assessed upon submittal of plans. 9. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1994 UBC, UFC, UPC, UMC, NEC, and RCFD Standards 22 and 15. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: M. Security Hardware 1. A secondary locking device shall be installed on all sliding glass doors. 2. One-inch single cylinder dead bolts shall be installed on all entrance doors. If windows are within 40 inches of any locking device, tempered glass or a double cylinder dead bolt shall be used. 3. All garage or rolling doors shall have slide bolts or some type of secondary locking devices. N. Windows 1. All sliding glass windows shall have secondary locking devices and should not be able to be lifted from frame or track in sny manner. O. Building Numbering 1. Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime visibility. T'T 15797 Completion Date / / / / / / / / / / / / BURGER KING ROOF PLAN BURGER KING ROOF PLAN WITH E ! UIPMENT ROOF EOUIPMENT DIMENSIONS W L H A. 10 TON A/C UNIT 5' X 8' X 5' B. SAME C. EXHAUST FAN 3' X 3' X 3' D SAME E. CONDENSATION 6' X 6' X 3' UNiT PLATFORM 02,' 20,'97 12:26 '~'8153334554 TRANE CO ;Q-22'6.02 ~ ·. - ~ ~~ Packaged Un t ' , ~ ~~ YCD121B Un~t ~ ~aci.~ M~ C~¢uit Bre~r' ~el No. V~ ~e Dean Lo~.An§eJe~ Sales Dfsa'fct Tab_le 2 Electrfcal Characteristi~ -- Power Exhaust Accessory Model Numb~ Voltage ~ **; HP RP%~ FLA LRA .' GREENHECK · I Model CUBE Belt Drive Upblast Centrifugal Roof Exhauster installation Operating and Maintenance Manual Upon receiving unit, check for any damage Rnd report it immediately to the shipper, Also check to see that all accessory items are accounted for, Move fan to desired location and fasten securely through mounting holes in base. Shims may be necessary depending upon roofing material thickness. The diagram below shows dimensions fnr Mndel CUBE. Access to the motor compartment is accomplished by removing the screws designated "R" in. Fig. 1 . The cover can then be removed and placed on a flat surface in an area protected from strong winds. The motoffs amperage and voltage rating must be checked for compatibility to the supply voltage prior to final electrical connection. For NFPA - restaurant CUBE applications, the electrical supply must enter the motor compartment thrmfgh the breather tube, For other non-flammable applications the electrical supply can be routed through the conduit chase between the curt) cap and the bottom of the motor compartment. Consult local code authorities for your specific requirements. A drain trough is provided on all CUBE fans for single-point drainage of water and residue. Some means for collection of this residue must be provided, either a container directly under the trough or use of an adaoter and pipe to carry the residue to a remote coilaction point. An optional grease trap with water separator baffles is available from your Greenbeck representative. Dimensional Data Recommended Commercial Kitchen Installation MI~ItI~U r~ 1'l&4~ll'd MODE[, CUBC;-r~5, I~. 120, 130 ~I¢/OUBE,HP CUBE-HP 18n .. GU~E/GUaE t IP 3eo 22 uU 27': cid 23% I 17/. 24 ,', 10% Otmen~lou "A" in t~e In,tOe di.tcw~i,:m of the curb ~P. The roof curb ~hould hA IVZ" lUU~ tlIall t~e.Cu~ cup to ~dow for r~fing And flnnhing. *May vary depending on ~o{or 0t20. : ~, ,,~,,~,8,:~,,,;,!T,,&,~,~,T EE 'q~..4 £8~£ T8c, : 'of.,I :=INOHd tr'J:'"~ : ~0~-'4 .?~., P[T~ PAN DETAIL I ~., ~: S~A FACTORY CO~I~G ~I'~ DE[AIL CITY OF R.&NCHO CUCAtMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: February 26, 1997 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad. Buller, City Planner Steve Hayes, AICP, Associate Planner ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ - A request to construct a 2,900 square foot drive-thru facility and a 5,548 square foot restaurant on 3.7 acres of land in the Community Commercial designation of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-211-12 and 13. Related File: Pre-Application Review 95-04. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: Surrounding Land Use and Zoninq: North - Vacant; Community Commercial South - Vacant; Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) East - Service Station and Condominiums; Community Commercial and Medium High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) West Vacant; Flood Control and Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) General Plan DesiQnations: Project Site - Commercial North Commercial South Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) East Commercial and Medium High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) West Flood Control/Utility Corridor and Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) Site Characteristics: The site currently contains the historic Klusman House and related on- site improvements in the north central portion of the property. The balance of the site is currently vacant, and curb and gutter exist along the entire property frontage. Parkinq Calculations: Square Type of Use Footaqe PHASE ONE Drive-thru Facility 2,900 Restaurant 5,548 Outdoor Eating Area 2,000 Proposed & Existing Pad Buildings 11,030 PHASE ONE TOTAL 21,478 Number of Number of Parking Spaces Spaces Ratio Required Provided 1/75 39 1/100 55 1/100 20 1/250 44 158 23O MASTER PLAN TOTAL 74,478 1/200 372 414 ITEM E PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ February 26, 1997 Page 2 BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission conducted a Pre-Application Review 93-04 of the project on April 14, 1993; however, the scheme was considerably different from Conditional Use Permit 95-25. The Planning Commission conducted a Pre-Application Review 95-04 of the new project on October 25, 1995. The Commission identified a number of significant design issues. Staff identified several setback deficiencies, (see attached Exhibits "J" and "K"). The applicant formally submitted their request for this Conditional Use Permit on August 29, 1995. Unfortunately, the originally submitted development plans did not address the Commission's concerns and required a Variance. During the public hearing for Variance 96-01, the applicant requested a continuance when it appeared that the Commission would not support the request. At the applicant's request, the Commission continued indefinitely the hearing for Variance 96-01 on April 24, 1996. The project was subsequently redesigned to conform to required building and parking setbacks. Attached in Exhibit "L" is a chronology of the processing of this project. ANALYSIS: General: The applicant is proposing to develop Phase One of a larger shopping center with this application. The phase considered specifically under this application includes a Burger King drive-thru facility, a sit down restaurant with outdoor eating area and all related landscape and parking lot improvements, including the on-site improvements within the pedestrian activity center, as shown on the proposed phasing plan (see Exhibit "C"). As part of this phase of development, the existing parking area for the historic Klusman House (labeled as "Existing Building" on the Site Plan) will be modified and upgraded. Even though shown as part of Phase One, Buildings 1, 2, and 3 are shown in concept only and are not proposed to be built at this time; they will be required to go through a separate application through the Development Review process. The primary vehicular access to the project is proposed to be provided from driveways off both Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue. A secondary service driveway access is shown in concept on the Master Plan; this driveway would be intended to serve as access for large service vehicles only for the major tenants within the next phase of development. An extension of the pedestrian activity center is being proposed on-site near the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue. The use of the diagonally spaced Crape Myrtle trees and special paving is incorporated into the project design along the public right-of-way along both Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue to the first driveway access. Within the on-site expansion area is a proposed fountain with seating around its perimeter and expansive use of special paving in a circular pattern. In addition to these amenities, the applicant has also stated that additional seating areas will be provided and tenants within the buildings flanking the activity center will be carefully selected to enhance the pedestrian use of this area. Burger King has been designed to be consistent with the Interim Design Policies for drive-thru facilities established by the Planning Commission. The building and drive-thru lane is set back 45 feet from the ultimate face of curb along Vineyard Avenue and a combination of low walls and landscaping is proposed to completely screen activity in the drive-thru lane from view of Vineyard Avenue. The vehicular circulation pattern proposed for the Burger King is similar to that utilized at the Taco Bell at the southeast corner of Highland and Milliken Avenues; the drive aisle directly adjacent to the Burger King is proposed to be one-way so that traffic does not overflow into the main driveway entrance off Vineyard Avenue. In order to make it more obvious that this drive aisle is intended to be one way for southbound traffic PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ February 26, 1997 Page 3 only, on-site directory signage and painted arrows on the asphalt will be used to properly direct customers to the drive-thru lane, the parking spaces lining the adjacent drive aisle have been angled at 45 degrees, and the planter islands at the south end of the drive aisle have been expanded by using rolled curbing and turf-block, thus narrowing the width of the access to the main east/west drive aisle at this location. The proposed Master Plan includes a 41,250 square foot major tenant (i.e. a supermarket) and shop buildings totaling approximately 13,750 square feet. These buildings are shown south of and adjacent to the main east/west drive aisle with the main entrances facing the field of parking north of the buildings. On the south side of these buildings are potential loading docks with service drive areas for large vehicles. The Master Plan is not being considered at this time and is conceptual only. Design Review Committee: The Design Review Committee reviewed this item on numerous occasions as courtesy reviews prior to staff deeming the application complete. Most recently, the project was reviewed by the Committee (Bethel, Coleman) on February 18, 1997. The Committee determined that the applicant had not submitted the previously requested Roof Plan for Burger King nor provided sufficient information to explain the roof equipment. The applicant also wasn't sure whether the chimney element was to remain or if it was no longer functional and would be removed. The applicant indicated that his architect was not cooperating in providing plans. The Committee did not recommend approval and asked the applicant to provide plans and answer a number of specific questions regarding roof equipment, prior to tonight's meeting. Technical Review Committee: On January 2, 1997, the Technical Review Committee reviewed the project and determined that, with the recommended special and standard Conditions of Approval, the project is consistent with all applicable standards and ordinances. Grading Committee: The project was reviewed on several occasions by the Grading Committee but was rejected each time for incomplete plans and drainage problems. Most recently, the project was reviewed by the Grading Committee on February 18, 1997. The applicant chose to drain approximately two-thirds of the site to a drainage facility at the southwest corner o; the site which consists of graded berms designed to direct surface runoff into a basin, which feeds into a 36-inch pipe connecting into Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel. The proposed drainage system was rejected for the following reasons: o The overflow spillway height is 3 feet higher than the berm at the southeast corner of the basin area; therefore, water will overflow the berms before reaching the spillway. The overflow would drain uncontrolled onto the property to the south. The applicant has not obtained a letter of acceptance from this property owner. If not maintained properly, the drain pipe inlet may become plugged with mud and debris which would result in water ponding up to 10 feet deep. Historically, staff has recommended no greater than 18 inches of ponding to avoid creating an attractive nuisance and safety hazard. The area could be enclosed with a 6-8 foot high wrought iron fence. Surface runoff from the southerly parking lot is collected into a graded swale along the south property line which is proposed to drain westerly; however, the grade is 5.5 feet lower than the basin berm height. The plans simply do not show how the site will be graded to get the water from the parking lot swale uphill to the basin. To achieve the PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 95-25- RODRIGUEZ February 26, 1997 Page 4 necessary 1 percent flow grade, the parking lot would have to be raised about 9 feet higher than shown on Grading Plan. This would result in a fill condition of approximately 7 feet and create a 13-foot high wall along the south property line. At the time this report was prepared, staff was working with the applicant to revise the Grading Plan and drainage design to resolve these issues. The applicant was directed to submit a revised Grading Plan prior to tonight's meeting. An oral update will be provided. Environmental Assessment: Part I of the Initial Study has been completed by the applicant. Staff has completed Part II of the Initial Study. A portion of the site is located with a fault study zone; hence, a geologic report was prepared. Staff found that although the project could potentially have a significant effect on the environment in several areas (i.e. traffic, noise, air quality, geology, water, aesthetics) the project will not have a significant impact on the environment with the recommended mitigation measures being incorporated into the project design and/or being monitored on a periodic basis by staff. All of the recommended mitigation measures have been incorporated into the attached Resolution of Approval. Refer to attached Initial Study for detailed analysis. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property has been posted, and notices were sent to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit 95-25 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with Conditions and issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. City Planner Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Exhibit "B" - Exhibit "B-2" - Exhibit "C" - Exhibit "D" - Exhibit "E" - Exhibit "F" - Exhibit "F-I" - Exhibit "F-2" - Exhibit "F-3" - thru "F-5" Exhibit "G" Exhibit "H" Exhibit 'T' Exhibit "J" Exhibit "K" Exhibit "L" Site Utilization Phase One Site Plan Master Plan Phasing Plan Conceptual Landscape Plan Conceptual Grading Plan Building Elevations (Burger King) Roof Screen Alternatives Burger King Roof Plan Burger King Roof Equipment Plans dated Feb. 4, 18, & 20, 1997, consecutively Building Elevations (Restaurant) Design Review Committee Comments Initial Study, Part II Pre-Application Review 93-04 Minutes Pre-Apptication Review 95-04 Minutes Project Chronology Exhibit"M" - Photographs of Site Resolution of Approval with Conditions S U / NAP K£y V.~CA.U:T NYqd 31IS (]~IVA]NIA ~ -iqlH!OOJ JO ~qNUO3 ±S3MH_IFIOS .0~' : .I u a ld -~ ~ 4-~ ~ -tYFILd33N03 S31,!,W3dOWd 'S'~ ~o; .Lh'lW3d 3sn ,,-~olzioxo3 0 (]~W,3NIA ~ -I]IHiOOJ JO ~13N~103 IS3~HIFIOS I :1 NYqd Ills (]~%AqNIA ;~ -I-11HIO0-t -t0 ~3N~03 .LS]MH.LFIOS NYqd ]d¥O$(]NYq q¥fiJ. d33NO3 G~¥A3NIA 7? ]ltHlOOJ JO ~]NHO3 · "/!: 0 DATA C~FY C~ RANCHO CUCAMONGA C~NCEPTUAL C_,~AC~NQ Pt_~ I 1 ,1- F.- 0 Z Z © · L DINING DRIVE THRU KIT 18.5~ ROOF EQUIPMENT PLAN RECEIVED 12'-0" 29'.0· DINING FEB 2 0 i997 City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Divi.,,ion /THR, U WINDOW 0 ao DESIGN REVIE\V COMMENTS 5:00 p.m. Steve Hayes May 14, 1996 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PEP, z¥IIT 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ - A request to construct a 2,900 square foot dr/re-thru facility. and a 5,548 square tbot restaurant on 3.7 acres of land in the Communi¢' Commercial designation of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the south,vest comer of Foothill Boulevard'land Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-211-12 and 13. (Continued from May'l, 1996) Design Parameters: The site is currently developed with a single family residence that has been converted to commercial uses. The Klusman House is designated as a Local Landmark. The balance of the site is undeveloped v~-ith a gradual slope from north to south. The intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue is designated by the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan (FBSP) as an activiD' center. Background: On October 25, 1995, the Planning Commission conducted a Pre-Application workshop on the application. The Commission considered a site plan almost identical to the plans submit-ted with the current application. The Commission felt that the location of the drive-thru facility adjacent to the Klusman House was not acceptable. Also, the Commission did not believe introduction of a drive-thru facilits.' within the activity center was appropriate. The complete minutes of the Pre-Application are attached for the Committee's reference. Related Application: In conjunction with the Conditional Use Permit application, the applicant has submitted a Variance application to address building and parking setback defici,encies along both FootNil Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue. The Variance application was originall> scheduled for Planning Commission consideration on March 27, 1996, but was continued to April 24, 1996, at the request of the applicant. If the variance application is denied, the project site plan would have to be significantly modified. Staff Comments: The foltox~-ing comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: The comer of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue is designated by the FBSP as an activity center. The intent of the activity center is to allow buildings to be pulled closer to the street t~ create a pedestrian friendly environment. The FBSP encourages public entrances to be oriented toward Foothill Boulevard. Also, buildings should be designed and sited to minimize pedestrians/vehicular conflicts and a~.'oid locating driveways and ser~'ice areas which interfere u,'ith the flow of Foothill Boulevard pedestrian movements. The design provided by the applicant introduces the drive-thru lane for Burger King in the middle of the activits.' center block. Not only is the access to Burger King oriented away from Foothill Boulevard, but the wall necessao' to screen the drive-thru lane inhibits pedestrian access across the frontage to specific points. The Klusman House is designated as a Local Landmark. The exterior of the house has been improved over the past few years and many' improvements were made to the interior to accommodate commercial uses. As a local landmark, staff believes that the site should be designed to "show off' this local feature. The area ,,vest of the building has been maintained open to the drive aisie and, ultimately, to the street. A 40-foot landscaped setback is provided between the drive aisle and the structure. The applicant, however, has introduced a drive-thru lane and 4- foot high wall within 25 feet of the east side of the building. Also, the proposed Burger King is sited 15 feet closer to Foothill BouIex'ard than the existing house. The combination of the wall and the building location obscures visibiiity of the historic structure. The site should be redesigned to open up visibility of the Klusman House. DRC COMMENTS CUP 95-25 - RODP,2GUEZ May 14, 1996 Page 2 The current drive-thru policies adopted by the Planning Commission require drive-thru lanes to be screened from public view. The drive-thru lane can be screened through building orientation, a combination of Low walls, and/or laridscaping, and trellis work. While the applicant is proposing wall~' and a trellis, the drive-thru stack. ing area is located parallel to the street, resulting in the l-fighest visibility. The drive-thru lane is also located adjacent to the activity center which is designed with hardscape and formal tree planting - little oppommity for landscaping exists. As suggested in the Pre-Application workshop, the drive-thru facility. could be located to other areas of the site where the stacking lane could be screened by the building and/or more extensive landscaping. \Vh/ie the Design Review Committee does not review the Variance application, it is important to note the design implications of the reduced setbacks requested by the applicant. Along both Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue the formal hardscape/landscape treatment required by the FBSP is interrupted. The double row of Crape Myrtle trees is reduced to a single row along the drive-thru lane and the restaurant building. The colonnade feeling of the double tree rows will be eliminated. The current drive-thin policy requires the drive-thin lane to be setback 45 feet from the face of curb. As proposed, the drive-thru lane is only' 20 feet from the Footh/tl Boulevard curb. The plans should be revised to comply with the policy. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time pertaining, the Committee will discuss the following secondary. design issues: The architecture proposed yahes between the drive-thin faciliD' and the restaurant. The drive-thru facility is designed with stucco walls, large roof overhangs v,-ith exposed rafter tails, vertical wood siding on the roof screen parapet, and a brown, fiat concrete tile. The restaurant is designed with stucco walls, large roof overhangs with exposed rafter tails in some areas, clipped eaves in other areas, and a terra cora barrel tile roof. W-bile, individually the styles may be acceptable, the building(s) should be redesigned to provide a consistent architectural theme for the center. Additional architectural treatment should be provided to the south elevation of the drive-thru facility.. and the east elevation of the restaurant to break up fiat stucco walls. The Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan calls for the formal landscape/hardscape treatment used for the activity center to extend from Vineyard westerly to bey'ond the Klusman House. Logically, the activity center treatment would stop at the Foothill Boulevard drb,'e approach. To accentuate the Klusman House, the formal landscape,,~hardscape treatment of the activity' center shouId extend from the public sidewalk to the house entu'. Pedestrian amenities (benches, a fountain, etc.) can be incorporated into the hardscape area. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy' and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. A decorative cap should be provided on the 4-foot screen wall adjacent to the drive-thru facility.. 2. Where river rock is proposed, native stone should be used as the veneer (as opposed to manufactured stone). DRC COMMENTS CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ May 14, 1996 Page 3 Recommendation' Staff recommends that revised plans be provided to address the concerns Ilsted above. The plans should be resubmitted for additional Committee review. Attachment: Pre-Appli'cation Workshop Minutes dated October 25, 1995 Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: LarD' McNiel, Heinz Lumpp, Larry.. Henderson Staff Planner: Steve Hayes The Committee directed the applicant to work with staff to revise the Site Plan to address the following conccFns: The plotting of the Burger King building, as shown on the proposed Site Plan, was not acceptable to the Committee as previously stated in the October 25, 1995 Pre-Application Workshop. The building should be relocated to another area of the property such as west of the Foothill Boulevard driveway access or along the Vineyard Avenue frontage, possibly "swapping" locations with the proposed Zendejas Restaurant. Because it does not appear that the applicant has responded to the October 25, 1995 comments and because of time constraints other issues ,,,,'ere not discussed by the Committee. Therefore, the Committee recommended that the applicant work with staff to address this concern and revise the plans accordingly for further review of the Corm-nittee. The Committee agreed to hear this item again at the next regular Design Review Cornmittee meeting if the applicant desired, however, the preference of the Committee was tbr the applicant to work wSth staff to address the Committee's concerns prior to ~rther review of' the Committee. 5:40 p.m. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS Steve Hayes September 3, 1996 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PEP, zMIT 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ - A request to construct a 2,900 square foot driVe-thru facility and a 5,548 square foot restaurant on 3.7 acres of land in the Community Commercial designation of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-211-12 and 13. Background: The Design Review Committee last reviewed the project on May I4, 1996, '*'here the Committee directed the applicant to work with staff to resolve site planning issues associated with the Burger King and Zendejas restaurants. Basically, the Committee recommended that the Burger King be relocated to another area on the property, away from the pedestr/an Activi¢' Center area. Comments from the May 14th Design Review Committee meeting as well as the October 25, t995 Planning Commission Pre-Application Review meeting have been attached for your convenience. Staff Comments: The follo~4ng comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Major Issues: The following broad design issues ~411 be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: The Site Plan has been revised to position the Burger King and Zendejas at the minimum required setbacks. In doing so, the field of par.king south and west of the restaurants has been modified to a more standard configuration, without the pedestrian pathway that leads to the future Master Planned shopping center. The appIicant has made these revisions in an attempt to address previous concerns of the Planning Commission and Design Review Committee without significantly modifying the Site Plan. However, it has been requested by members of the Planning Commission and Design Review Committee in the past to relocate the Burger King away from the Activity Center. Therefore, the Committee should determine if the setback modifications are significant enough to allow the applicant to move forward '~Sth the Site Plan as modified. Staff feels that the setback modifications still do not adequately address previous Commission comments regarding the re-positioning of the Burger King to another area on the property nor the potential conflict of having a drive-thru facility in such close proximity to the pedestrian Activity Center. Now that the Burger King has been set back 25 feet further from Foothill Boulevard, the historic Klusman House is no longer as hidden from view for westbound traffic on Foothill Boulevard. A low retaining wall is proposed to be constructed for the Burger King project that is closer to the street than the Klusman House, but it should not detract from the viewing of the house. The drive-thru lane is still proposed to be within 24 feet of the east side of the house, which is significant enough to insure that the existing trees on the east side of the house 'MIi not have to be removed. A majority of the east side of the house is already screened by existing landscaping. Therefore, staff feels that, with the combination of the Burger King DRC AGENDA CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ September 3, 1996 Page 2 being moved southerly 25 feet and the existing landscaping on the east side of the building slated to remain in-place, that the viewst-ied to the Klusman House from westbound Foothill Boulevard should not be significantly altered. With the additional setback area between Foothill Boulevard and the drive-thru lane for Burger icing, a better opportunity exists to provide additional screening of the lane, through the use of landscaping, berming, and low walls. The building and drive-thru lane have not been re- oriented, so that the stacking area is still the closest element to Foothill Boulevard and the Pedestrian Actiyity Center area. However, ~-ith the increased setback, staff feels that the concerns of having the drive-thru lane adjacent to the street and the Activity Center can be completely mitigated. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary. design issues: All of the required improvements within the Pedestrian Activity. Center should be installed on both street frontages, including the double row of Crape Myrtle trees and the appropriate width of decorative hardscape, to the satisfaction of the CiLy Planner and City Engineer. The Committee should consider if the contrasting tS,-pes of architecture between the Klusman House and the new buildings is acceptable. If the Committee finds the architectural style to be acceptable, then staff would recommend that the south elevation of the drive-thru facility and the east elevation of the restaurant be upgraded. To accentuate the Klusman House, the formal landscape/'hardscape treatment used for the Activity Center should extend from the public sidewalk to the house entry. Pedestrian amenities (benches, a fountain, etc.) could be incorporated into the hardscape area. Policy issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. A decorative cap should be provided on all screen and retaining walls throughout the project. Where river rock is proposed, native stone should be used as the veneer. Staff Recom men datio n: Staff recommends that, if the Committee deems the new Site Plan acceptable, then the Committee should recommend approval of the project to the Planning Commission. However, if the Committee still feels that the location of the two new buildings should be modified, then the Committee should recommend that the applicant make the appropriate changes and resubmit the project for further Committee review. Attachments DRC AGENDA CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ September 3, 1996 Page 3 Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Rich Macias, Larry McNiel, Brad Bullet Staff Planner: Dan Coleman The Committee did not recommend approval of the revised Site Plan concept for the following reasons: The plotting of Burger King restaurant drive-thru lane creates an island that impedes pedestrian circulation contrary to the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan goal to create a pedestrian oriented "activity,' center." The use is automobile oriented which is contrary' to the intent to have "destination" land uses which generate pedestrian activity and a synergy bet~veen commercial tenants. No information was provided regarding the future use of the pad between Burger King and the intersection. A Master Plan is needed to show the relationship between uses and buildings. 3. The latest scheme deleted the strong diagonal pedestrian access from the intersection through the site to the future major anchor. No information was provided regarding the impact of the latest site plan on overall parking of the entire shopping center. Calculations were only provided for Phase I. The Committee repeated their May 14, 1996 recommendation that ira drive-thru restaurant is to be located within this project that consideration should be given to locating it either west of the project entry on Foothill Boulevard or south of the project entry' on Vineyard Avenue. The Committee indicated they were willing to consider a third alternative which swapped the Burger King and Zendejas pads subject to suitable site plan analysis. The Committee requested site plan alternatives for their review. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 5:1> p.m. Steve Hayes December 3, 1996 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ - A request to construct a 2,900 square foot drive-thru facility and a 5,548 square foot restaurant on 3.7 acres of land in the Community Commercial designation of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the southwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-211-12 and 13. Back_around: The Design Review Committee last reviewed the project on September 3, 1996, where the Committee directed the applicant to work with staff to resolve site planning issues associated with the Burger King and Zendejas restaurants. Basically, the Committee recommended that the Burger King restaurant be relocated to another area on the propert3,' away from the pedestrian Activity Center area. Comments from the September 3rd and May 14th Design Review Committee meetings as well as the October 25, 1995 Planning Commission Pre-Application Review meeting have been attached for your convenience. The purpose oftonight's meeting is to review the revised Site Plan prepared by the applicant to determine if it is in compliance with past recommendations of the Planning Commission and Design Review Commit-tee. Based on the comments that come out oftonight's meeting, the applicant will then formally address any outstanding issues related to the Site Plan and resubmit it along with the building elevation for Phase 1 development for additional review and consideration of the Committee. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. .x. lajor Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: l. :~faster Plan - The following issues should be discussed regarding the new Master Plan: The main entrance driveway from Foothill Boulevard should align with a focal point (i.e., tower element on Major Anchor, plaza, major landscape element, etc.). The Master Plan does not indicate that sufficient parking is being provided for Phase II at ultimate build out. The distribution of par 'king in relation to structures is such that the Phase I buildings will consume all of the central parking lot (west of Burger King) and result in a lack of parking to se~'e the future retail buildings west of Zendejas restaurant. There is no loading area capability provided at the rear of the first future retail building west of Zendejas restaurant. Also, parking rows should be revised to eliminate dead-ends. Ten foot wide planters, at a minimum, should be provided along both sides of the main north-south drive aisle to Foothill Boulevard entry,. f. The new Site Plan layout shows two smaller buildings flanking a circular hardscape and activiw area on-site that acts as an extension of the pedestrian Activity Center. Building 2 has a circular element on the side adjacent to the Activity Center. These buildings are proposed as part of a later phase of the Master Plan and will not be developed at this time. Hence, the type of tenants anticipated for these buildings is also not kno~w~ at this time. Staff feels that the concept of these buildings at the Activity Center could promote and stimulate pedestrian activity in this area but questions the realit,,,' of getting appropriate DRC COMMENTS CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ December 3, 1996 Page 2 tenants and buildings oriented in this manner. The Committee may wish to consider options or conditions that would guarantee pedestrian oriented buildings and tenants in this portion of the site. The original schemes showed a strong diagonal pedestrian connection from the Activity Center area at the comer of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue to the major line of tenants. This pedestrian connection has been revised to a small sidewalk behind the Burger King trash enclosure and requires customers to cross the drive-thru lane twice. Staff feels that a stronger pedestrian connection between the Activity Center and the major tenants should be introduced back into the Site Plan. (The Committee directed the applicant to incorporate this element back into the Site plan at the last Design Review Committee meeting). 2. Burger King The Burger King restaurant has been relocated to be on the Vineyard Avenue frontage, consistent wSth past recommendations of the Design Review Committee and Planning Commission. However, staff is concerned that the right turn into the drive-thru lane fi'om the Vineyard Avenue entrance is too tight and the stacking area in the lane is limited such that the I~o,.v of traffic may be impeded entering the shopping center. ,An alternative drive- thru lane layout should be considered by the Committee. Adaptive reuse of existing historic buildings for quick ser~'ice restaurants has been successful in many communities across the counto'. Attached for your consideration is an article that references several examples. The Committee may wish to consider and comment on whether the Klusman House may be a viable structure to house a quick ser~'ice or sit down restaurant. The Burger King restaurant is oriented so that the elongated portion of the drive-thru lane is the closest element to the street. Screen walls and trellises are proposed to screen the drive-thru area. Given that the required setback is being provided along Vineyard Avenue, there should be ample opportunity to provide sufficient screening of the lane through the use of dense landscaping and betming in addition to the elements already provided. Secondary' Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following seconda~ design issues: All of the required improvements within the Pedestrian Activity Center should be installed on both street frontages, including the double row of Crape Myrtle trees and the appropriate width of decorative hardscape, to the satisfaction of the City Planner and City Engineer. Additional areas of special paving should be provided throughout the project. To accentuate the Klusman House, the formal landscape/~hardscape treatment used for the Acttrig, Center should extend from the public sidewalk to the house ento'. Pedestrian amenities (benches, a fountain, etc.) could be incorporated into The hardscape area. The Burger King restaurant trash enclosure should be relocated to a place where it would not have as high of potential to interfere with vehicular circulation. DRC COMMENTS CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ December 3, 1996 Page 3 Significant screening of the site should be provided along the southern property line to screen the proposed parking lot, as well as any future loading and unloading areas from view of the residentially zoned land to the south. The offset 4-way intersection on-site near the northernmost Vineyard Avenue vehicular access location to the project should be modified to that the offset is eliminated. The driveway throat for the southernmost vehicular access to Vineyard Avenue should be elongated to avoid blockage of parked vehicles related to stacking of cars leaving the site. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. A decorative cap should be provided on all screen and retaining walls throughout the project. Where river rock is proposed, native stone should be used as the veneer. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that, if the Committee deems the new Site Plan acceptable, then the Committee should recommend that the site plan, building elevations and all other required plans be resubmitted for formal review and consideration of the project as a whole by' the Design Review Committee. However, if the Committee still feels that the location of the building(s) should be modified or if the adaptive reuse of the Klusman House has validity. and should be pursued, then the Committee should recommend that the applicant make the appropriate changes and resubmit the project for further Commit-tee review. Desion Review Committee Action: Members Present: Also Present: Staff' Planner: Larry McNieI, Rich Macias, Nancy Fong Councilmember Paul Biane Steve Hayes The Design Review Committee recommended that the Site Plan be revised and the project return to the Committee as a ful[ item, along with the building elevations and revised Grading and Landscape Plans consistent with the revised Site Plan. Requested revisions to the Site Plan are as follows: The Master Plan should be revised to reflect that the shopping center as a whole meets the minimum parking requirements of the City. The pedestrian connection from the Activits.' Center to the major tenant in the Master Plan should be completed by providing a north/south walkway along the east side of the main vehicular entrance off Foothill Boulevard. Palms and decorative paving should be used to denote the main pedestrian routes :hroughout the project. DRC COMMENTS CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ December 3, 1996 Page 4 The parking and vehicular circulation around the Burger King building should be revised as follows: The drive aisle immediately west of the Burger King should be made for one-way travel only (southerly) and the southern end of the drive aisle should be enhanced to discourage any northbound traffic by necking down the width of its access by extending the planter south of the entrance to the drive-thru lane. b. Turf block and a rolled curb should be used in the planter extension area. Special paving should be provided in a raised manner in the drive aisle between planters and in the two locations where the pedestrian spine crosses the drive-thru lane. do The parking spaces should be angled accordingly on both sides of the drive aisle west of Burger King to promote the one-way traffic scheme. Signage should be strategicall.,,' used to denote proper vehicular circulation in the area of Burger King. Seating should be provided in the main on-site extension of the Activity Center area to promote the use of the Activity Center for patrons of Burger King and other future users in the immediate vicinity. The north/south drive aisIes west of Burger King and west of the restaurant should be aligned to form a 4-way intersection south and west of Burger King. All other Seconda.,-y and Policy design issues shall become recommended conditions of approval for the project. In addition to these comments, the applicant agreed to eliminate the southernmost vehicular access to Vineyard Avenue to address concerns raised by the Engineering Division. This area ~-il[ now be landscaped. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:50 p.m. Steve Hayes December 30, 1996 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ ~ A request to construct a 2,900 square foot drive-thru facility and a 5,548 square foot restaurant on 3.7 acres of land in the Community Commercial designation of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the southwest comer:of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-211-12 and 13. Background: The Design Review Committee (Macias, McNiel, Fong) last reviewed the project on December 3, 1996, where the Committee directed the applicant to work with staff to resolve site planning issues associated xvith the Burger King and Zendejas restaurants. Basically, the Committee recommended that the area around the Burger King be upgraded to include elements to provide safer vehicular and pedestrian circulation around the building. See attached minutes. The purpose oftonight's meeting is to review the revised Site Plan prepared by the applicant to determine if it is in compliance with past recommendations of the Planning Commission and Design Review Committee. Also, it is intended that the architecture be reviewed formally for the first time during the review process for this project. Based on the comments that come out oftonight's meeting, the applicant ~vill then formally address any outstanding issues related to the Site Plan and resubmit it along with the building elevation for Phase One development for additional review and consideration of the Committee. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Major Issues: The following broad design issues ~vill be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: 1. MASTER PLAN: The following issues should be discussed regarding the new Master Plan: The Design Review Committee specifically requested that the Master Plan be revised to meet the minimum parking requirements of the City. The Master Site Plan is still 60 spaces deficient, based on the required ratio of one parking space per 200 square feet of building area. Please note that the parking calculations shown on the Site Plan are incorrect: the project requires 452 spaces and 392 are provided. The distribution of parking in relation to structures is such that the Phase I buildings ~vill consume most of the central parking lot (west of Burger King) and result in a lack of parking to serve the future retail buildings west of Zendejas restaurant. The 4-way intersection on-site near the Vineyard Avenue vehicular access has been aligned, per the request of the Design Review Committee. As a result of the alignment and the drive aisle west of Zendejas shifting westerly, the amount of hardscape on the west side of the building has been increased greatly. The Landscape Plan shows a majority of this area being landscaped, but the Site Plan shows it'as hardscape. Staff would recommend that the area be designed consistent with the Landscape Plan. The north/south pedestrian link from the Activity Center to the Major Tenants has been incorporated into the Site Plan along the east side of the main driveway entrance off Foothill Boulevard, per the request of the Desig, n Revie~v Committee. The southerly driveway entrance off Vineyard Avenue has been eliminated, per the request of the Engineering Division, and the area labeled "Not-a-Part", since it is a separate parcel under different ownership. It is anticipated that the applicant will attempt to purchase this parcel and develop it as part of the shopping center with development of the Major Tenams. As a result of this modification, a landscape planter should be provided at the very southeast coruer of this phase of the project, west of the "Not-a-Part" parcel. DRC COMMENTS CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ December 30, 1996 Page 2 The applicant desires to have all other applicable comments related to the Master Plan from the attached December 3, 1996 Design Review Comments placed as recommended Conditions of Approval for the project. BURGER KING: The following issues should be discussed regarding the development around the proposed Burger King building: The par'king and vehicular circulation around the Burger King building has been revised consistent with the direction of the Design Review Committee, as follows: The drive aisle west of the Burger King has been made one-way and the width of the planter at the south end of this drive aisle increased to discourage northbound traffic. During peak times cars waiting to get into the drive-thru lane will obstruct the parking spaces adjoining the west side of Burger King. The Taco Bell at Milliken and Highland Avenues solved this problem by having parking only on one side (opposite the ento'). b. Turf block and a rolled curb are being shown in the extended planter area c. Parking spaces have been angled on both sides of this drive aisle d. The location of all directional signage has been indicated on the Site Plan. However, staff would recommend that the parking spaces be placed at more of an angle and any "dead" space at the ends of rows of angled parking stalls be landscaped. Also, the requested raised special paving is not shown on the revised Site Plan. If acceptable to the Committee, staff will place this as a Condition of Approval and staff will work with the applicant on how the special paving application will occur. Finally, the seating situation in the main Activity Center area should be identified better so that staff can verify that adequate seating will exist to promote the use of the Activity Center to patrons of Burger King; this can also be placed as a Condition of Approval if acceptable to the Committee. 3. ARCHITECTURE: The following issues should be considered regarding the proposed architecture: Additional architectural treatment should be provided on the south elevation of the Burger King an.d the east elevation of the Zendejas restaurant to break up flat stucco walls. Secondary and Policy Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary and policy design issues: Reduce height of the Zendejas wall sign on the east elevation, measures 48 inches. In situations like this, where building is at setback line, the Commission has limited signs to 18 inches. Further, the Commission has reserved 48 inch high letters for major anchor tenants. All applicable secondary design comments (comments 1-5 from the attached December 3, 1996 comments) and all applicable policy design issues are recommended to be placed as Conditions of Approval for the project. The applicant has agreed to this direction. DRC COMMENTS CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ December 30, 1996 Page 3 Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that, if the Committee generally finds the revised Site Plan and building elevations acceptable, that the C6mmittee recommend approval of the project with any unaddressed issues be incorporated as Conditions of Approval for the project. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Rich Macias, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Steve Hayes The Committee recommended that the applicant revise plans to address the following design issues and submit for further Committee review: 1. Master Plan. Revise the total square footage for the major anchor to address the deficiency in the required parking spaces. b. The applicant agreed to modify the Site Plan to be consistent with the Landscape Plan. Increase the width to a minimum of 10 feet for the north/south pedestrian link on both sides of the main driveway entrance off Foothill Boulevard. Increase the width of the landscape planters at each end of two pedestrian links. Provide tree wells with tree grates along the two pedestrian links. d. Revise Master Plan to address any technical issues. 2. Burger King. Provide 45 degree parking stalls for the parking bay (double loaded parking spaces with a drive aisle) located west of Burger King building. Provide a double white or yellow line to show two lanes for one way direction. One lane is to be signed for the drive-thru lane. The row of parking spaces immediately west of the building should be striped for handicap spaces and a loading zone. Provide landscaping to the "dead" space at the ends of rows of the angled parking spaces. Show location of direction signs for the drive-thru lane. Provide additional architectural treatment to the south and west elevations. Examples of architectural treatment are but not limited to recessed areas with metal trellis and vines, additional windows, surface treatment to the building plane, etc. Consider reducing the height of the parapet wall and the chimney, and design them to be more integrated with the building design. d. Reduce the size of the proposed signs. DRC COMMENTS CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ Page 4 3. Zendejas. a. The Committee recommended further discussion on mixing or maintaining a variety of architectur'al styles within a shopping center and providing a policy direction to staff and to the applicant on this subject. b. Reduce the size of the proposed signs. c. Provide additional architectural treatment to the east elevation. The applicant has agreed to address all applicable secondary design issues and policy issues of the December 3, 1996 Design review comments. DESIGN REVIEW CON,EX'~NTS 6:10 p.m. Steve Hayes January' I4, 1997 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT .&N'D CONDITIONAL USE PERaMIT 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ - A request to construct a 2,900 square foot drive-thru facility and a 5,548 square foot restaurant on 3.7 acres of land in the Community Commercial designation of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-211-12 and 13. Background: The Design Review Committee last reviewed the project on December 30, 1996, where the Committee directed the applicant to work with staff to resolve site planning and architectural issues associated with the Burger King and Zendejas restaurants. Comments from this most recent Design Review Committee meeting have been attached for your convenience. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion: At the time of comment preparation, revised plans had yet to be received by staff..An oral update will be presented to the Committee at the meeting. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that, if the Committee generally finds the revised site plan and building elevations acceptable, that the Committee recommend approval of the project with any unaddressed issues be incorporated as conditions of approval for the project. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Peter Tolstoy, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Steve Hayes The applicant was unable to submit revised plans for Committee review prior to the meeting. The plans the applicant brought to the meeting were incomplete in that a grading plan was not included as part of the submittal package. Furthermore, the Burger King elevations have not yet been revised to reflect the currently proposed cord:iguration of the building and outdoor eating areas on Vineyard Avenue. The item ~vas continued to their next meeting on Februa0' 4, 1997 contingent upon submittal of complete sets of revised plans by January' 23. DESEGN REVLEW CO.X'~X,I~XTS 8:30 p.m. Steve Hayes February 4, 1997 ENV~ON.rMENTAL ASSESSN~NT .&X'D CONT)ITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ - A request to construct a 2900 square foot drive-thru facility and a 5548 square foot restaurant on 3.7 acres of land in the Community Commercial designation of the FootNil Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the southwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-211-12 and t3. Background: The Design Review Committee last reviewed the project on December 30, 1996, where the Committee directed the applicant to work with staff to resolve site planning and architectural issues associated with the Burger King and Zendejas restaurants. The item was then scheduled for the January 14, 1997 meeting with the understanding that the plans could be revised in a timely manner to allow staff and the Committee ample opportunity to review the revised plans prior to the meeting. Given that the plans did not arrive until after an item on the meeting had already star-ted, the Committee did not have time to review the pIans and therefore; did not formally review the project on January 14th. Comments from these most recent Design Review Committee meetings have been attached for your convenience. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion: The revised plans should be reviewed to determine if the direction from the two most recent Design Review Committee meetings has been adequately followed by the applicant. Specific issues are as follows: ao Signage for the Burger King has been reduced in size to be consistent with the new Jack in the Box at Foothilt Boulevard and Masi Drive, but the location of the sign should be removed from the proposed roof screen element; The roof screen on the Burger King has been changed from a wood sided to a stucco element to be more consistent with the building architecture; No information regarding the roof equipment and plan has been submitted to staff at the time off preparation of'these comments. An oral update regarding this issue will be discussed at the meeting; Street dimensions still require correction as deemed necessary by the Engineering Division; and Revised ~ading plans had not yet been submitted the time of comment preparation, any oral comments regarding the grading plan will be discussed at the meeting. Staff Recommendation' Staff recommends that, if the Committee generally finds the revised site plan and building elevations consistent with the direction given to the applicant at the previous meetings, then staff would recommend that the Design Re~Se,.v Committee recommend approval of the project to the Planning Commission with Conditions. DRC AGENDA CL~ 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ February. 4, 1997 Page 2 Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Bill Bethel, Rich Macias, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Steve Hayes The Desist Review Committee directed the applicant to return to the Committee on February 18, 1997 with a specific roof plan that show all of the necessary roof mounted mechanical equipment and a more detailed solution for the roof screen parapet. The Committee also recommended that all other items included in the above comments as well as pre,,'iously referenced comments from past design reviews that have not yet been resolved will be incorporated as recommended Conditions of Approval for the project. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:40 p.m. Brad Buller Februao' 18, 1997 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PEP, zMIT 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ - A request to construct a 2900 square foot drive-thru facility and a 5548 square foot restaurant on 3.7 acres of land in the Community Commercial designation of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-211-I2 and 13. Background: The Design Review Committee last reviewed the project on February 4, 1997, where the Committee directed the applicant to have a specific roof plan and possible architectural enhancements for the proposed roof parapet available for review at the next meeting. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion: At the time of comment preparation, the requested roof plan had not yet been received by staff. An oral presentation will be provided at the meeting. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee forward the project to the Planning Commission for their consideration at the February 26, 1997 meeting. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Bill Bethel, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Brad Bullet The applicant was unable to submit a Roof Plan for Burger King and did not submit revised elevations which accurately depicted the roof elements. Further, the applicant stated that the chimney element would probably be deleted. The Committee did not recommend approval of roof screen Alternatives A,B orC. The Committee did not recommend approval and requested the applicant to address the following, prior to the Planning Commission meeting: 1. Submit a Roof Plan for Burger King. 2. Submit revised elevations for Burger King which correct all inconsistencies. 3. Explain why the chimney, that was previously indicated by the applicant as functional, is no longer necessary? DRC AGENDA CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ Februau' 18, 1997 Page 2 4. Submit documentation that the four condensation units can fit onto the 5-foot x 5-foot platform indicated and meet manufacturer's specifications for proper air circulation around the units. 5. Verify the dimension of the 10 ton A/C units, particularly the height. The applicant ~vas also advised of the Grading Committee recommendation to not approve the Conceptual Grading Plan. The applicant was reminded to submit a complete set of colored plans, including the Site Plan, Landscape Plan, and elevations, as well as, 8 V2 inch x 11-inch reductions of all sheets within the development package. I:\STEVE\CUP9525.ENV City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: CUP 95-25 2. Related Files: Pre-Application Review 95-04 3. Description of Project: Shopping center Phase I including 2,900 s.f. Burger King and 5,548 s.f. restaurant on 3.7 acres at SWC Foothill and Vineyard. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: U.S. Properties 759 N. Mountain Avenue Upland, CA 91788 5. General Plan Designation: Commercial 6. Zoning: Community Commercial (Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan) 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Vacant to the north, south and west. Service station and condominiums to the east. Existing single family residence at SEC of site (not a part). The project site includes the Klusman House a local historic landmark. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Contact Person and Phone Number: Steve Hayes (909) 477-2750 10. Control District Other agencies whose approval is required: Caltrans, San Bernardino County Flood Initial Study for CUP 95-25 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, including "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. () Land Use and Planning ( ) Population and Housing (x) Geological Problems (x) Water (x) Air Quality (x) Transportation/Circulation () Biological Resources ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources ( ) Hazards (x) Noise ( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance ( ) Public Services ( ) Utilities and Service Systems (x) Aesthetics (x) Cultural Resources ( ) Recreation DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: () I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. () I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project, or agreed to, by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. () I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. () I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based upon the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. (X) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. S igned~ ,~ "------- Initial Study for CUP 95-25 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an explanation is required for all "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact" answers, including a discussion of ways to mitigate the significant effects identified. Issues and Supporting I~formation Sources: LAND a) b) c) d) Potentially SignScant Impact Less PotentiallyUnless Than SignScant Mitigation S~gnificant NO USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Issues and Su12poc,~ng Informalion Sources: POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal.' a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? () () () (x) () () () (x) () () ( (x) Initial Study for CUP 95-25 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 4 Issues and SupDort. ing Information So~rces: GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving.' a) b) c) d) e) 0 g) h) i) Fault rupture? Seismic ground shaking? Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? Seiche hazards? Landslides or mudflows? Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? Subsidence of the land? Expansive soils? Unique geologic or physical features? Potentially SignificaNt Imoact () () () ( ( ( ( ( () Po[endally Si~r~ificant Impact Less Llnless Than MitiGation Sign~ca~,( IncorooratedImpact NO Impact (x) () () (x) () () (x) () () () () (x) () () (x) () () () () (x) () () () () (x) (x) (x) Comments' a-c) The northwesterly portion of the project site is located within the City adopted Special Study Zone for the Red Hill fault. A geologic report was prepared for the project site (Rasmussen, January 29, 1996) and reviewed by the City's geologist (Reeder, December 5, 1996). The geologic report concludes that no faults cross the site, and further concludes that none of the following are expected: ground rupture, landsliding or other slope stability hazards, or liquefaction. The geologic report concludes that "severe seismic shaking of the site can be expected within the next 100 years from an earthquake along the Cucamonga fault." The report contains a number of recommended mitigation measures that will be included as recommended conditions of approval for the project. A i'evised geologic report was prepared in response to comments from the City's geologist; however, was not available at the time the Initial Study Part 2 was completed. A mitigation measure should be included that requires review and acceptance of a final geologic report by the City's geologist prior to issuance of any permits. All mitigation measures in the final geologic report be incorporated into the project, and verified during plan check, prior to issuance of any permits. The geologic report concludes that "sufficial materials on the site are considered to be moderately susceptible to erosion by water." The report contains a number of recommended mitigation measures that will be included as recommended conditions of approval for the project. A revised geologic report was prepared in response to comments from the City's geologist; however, was not available at the time the Initial Study Part 2 was completed. A mitigation measure should be included that requires review and acceptance of a final geologic report by the initial Study for CUP 95-25 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 5 City's geologist prior to issuance of any permits. All mitigation measures in the final geologic report be incorporated into the project, and verified during plan check, prior to issuance of any permits. Potentially Significant ; Impact Lass PotentiallyUntess Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: SignrficantM~dgation SignScant [moact Incon2oretedfrn~act c) d) e) g) h) i) Im2act WATER. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: a-b) The proposed project will result in changes to the absorption rates, drainage patterns or the rate and amount of surface water runoff through increases in developed area, buildings, and paved areas. The project will result in a surface water runoff of Q~oo=18.0 cubic feet per second for the majority of the site, which is proposed to drain southwesterly. The project design includes a drainage system that will divert and collect surface water runoff into a pipe that will connect into existing Cucamonga Creek Channel. Permit required from San Bernardino County Flood Control District for all work within their property or easement area. Initial Study for CUP 95-25 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 6 The project will pave over 3 acres of land thereby reducing percolation into ground water. The project design includes a drainage system that will divert and collect surface water runoff into a pipe connected into existing Cucamonga Creek Channel, which ultimately drains into the Prado Basin spreading grounds where it can recharge the ground water. AIR QUALITY. a) b) c) d) Potentially SignrEcanf~ Impact Less PotentiallyUnless Than SignificantMitigation S,gnifican~NO Imoacl Incor=x~ratedImoact Ira=act Would the proposal: Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) ( ) (X) ( Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) ( ) (X) ( Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ( ) ( ) (X) ( Create objectionable odors? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) Comments: a) The project will generate vehicle trips, as well as car idling in the drive-thru lane, which will contribute air pollutants. The City's General Plan EIR and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan EIR address the short term and long term cumulative impacts of traffic upon air quality. b) The land to the south is planned for residential and the land to the east is developed with residential condominiums. There are no schools, hospitals or convalescent home facilities nearby. The City's General Plan EIR and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan EIR address the short term and long term cumulative impacts of traffic pollutants upon sensitive receptors. Impact considered less than significant. c) The project include development of buildings and paved areas which will act as a heat sink increasing temperatures at or near the site. The project design includes extensive landscaping, particularly shade trees around buildings and within parking areas, to reduce this heat sink effect to a less than significant level. d) Although the project includes parking areas and a drive-thru restaurant which will produce vehicle exhaust that may be objectionable, the level of emissions produced is not considered significant in comparison to that which will be produced by vehicles traveling on the two major streets fronting the site. Initial Study for CUP 95-25 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 7 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. proposal result in: a) b) c) d) e) 0 g) Would the Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ( ) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ( ) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) Rail or air traffic impacts? ( ) Potentially Significant ImDacl Significant () (x) () () () (x) () () (x) () () (x) () () (x) () () (x) () () (x) Comments: a) The project includes 19,748 square feet of commercial space which will increase vehicle trips on both Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue, and impact the intersection thereof. The City's General Plan EIR and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan EIR address the shod term and long term cumulative impacts of traffic upon these streets. The project design includes completion of both streets to their full width across the full frontage; therefore, the impact is considered less than significant. The project design also includes a bus turnout on Vineyard Avenue to support the use of public transit. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to.' a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees, eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? Sigrm~cant Impa~ Less PotentiallyUnless Than SignificantMitigation S,gnrficant NO () () () (x) () () () (x) Initial Study for CUP 95-25 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 8 Potentially Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant lincact c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? ( ) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? ( ) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) d) e) Signr~cant Impact Less Unless Than Mifiga:ion Significant NO () () (x) () () (x) () () (x) o Issues and Supcoding [nfar'r'nation Sources: Potentially Signrficant ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ( ) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? ( ) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? ( ) Significant Impa~ Less Unless Than M~tiga[~on SignScant () () (x) () () (x) () () (x) Issues and SuDpoc, mg Information Sources: HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve.' a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? Potentially SJgn~c. an! Impa~ Less Unless Than Mihgation Significant NO Im2acl ) () () (x) ) () () (x) ) () () (x) ) () () (x) lnitiat Study for CUP 95-25 e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 9 Significant $;gnificantMitigation Sig~dicant NO () () () (x) 10. Issues and Suppoding Information Sources: NOISE. Will the proposal result in.' a) Increases in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? Potentially SignScant Impact Less PotentiallyUnless Than SignrficantMitigation Signn~cant NO Impact IncorporatedIm pact Ira=am () () (x) () () () (x) () Comments: a) The project will generate vehicle trips which will increase existing noise levels, particularly for the existing residence at the southeast corner of site and the land to the south that is planned for residential. The project design includes a 6 foot high screen wall along the common property line with the existing residence to provide buffer and reduce noise to an acceptable level. b) The project includes buildings, outdoor dining areas and plazas near both street frontages which could expose people to traffic noise. The City's General Plan indicates future noise levels at build out of the community at greater than 70 L,.n, and acknowledges that the outdoor environment will seem noisy. The General Plan does not require sound attenuation mitigation measures for exterior areas. The General Plan does require a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements and incorporation of needed noise insulation features in the project design; however, indicates that conventional construction with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice. An acoustical study should be prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer to address interior noise levels of all buildings within project prior to issuance of building permits. Initial Study for CUP 95-25 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered government: services in any of the foilowing areas: a) b) c) d) e) Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? Other governmental services? S;gnificant City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 10 Potent;alh! S,gnrdcan[ impart Less Unless Than Mitigation Signrficant () () () (x) () () () (x) () () () (x) () () () (x) () () () (x) 12. Issues and Sup~xirbng Information Sources: UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or substantial alterations to the following utilities.' a) b) c) d) e) 0 g) Power and natural gas? Communication systems? Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? Sewer or septic tanks? Storm water drainage? Solid waste disposal? Local or regional water supplies? Potentially Signr~c..ant Imoact Polenb. ally Sign d-~c:ant Irnpac~ Less Unless Than Mitigat~ SignScent NO () () ( () () ( () () ( () () ( () () ( () () ( () () () (X (X (x) (x) (x) (x) 13. Issues and Suoportlng Inforrnahon Sources: AESTHETICS. Would the proposal.' a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? Potentially Sign~cent Signet. ant Impa~ Unless Mitigation () Less Than SignScant () (x) Initial Study for CUP 95-25 b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? c) Create light or glare? Comments: City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 11 Potemially Signr~can~ Im~am Less Potenbally Un;ess Than S~gnrficantMitigation Signiflcan(No Im c'act IncorporatedImoact tmoa~ () () () (x) () (x) () () c) The project will include parking lot lights and various lighting on and around buildings which could create light or glare on surrounding properties, in particular the existing single family residence at the southeast corner of site and the property to the south which is planned for residential. Light fixtures should be shielded and directed away from residential areas. A detailed lighting plan, including a photometric diagram, should be prepared prior to issuance of building permits to provide proper shielding of light sources from adjoining properties. 14. Polentialh/ Issues and Su~l:>3rting Information Sources: Smgnrficar~t CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposaL' a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) c) Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? Comments: Potenbalfy Sign~ca~t Irnpac: Less Uniess Than M~tigadon Signdicanl Incor'totaledIt-iDac1 () () (x) () () (x) () (x) () () () () (x) () () () (x) c) The project site includes the Klusman House, a local historic landmark of considerable significance to the community. The project has been designed to preserve this landmark structure as a major focal point at the main entrance to the site from Foothill Boulevard. The nearest proposed structure lies 43 feet to the east. No alterations to this landmark are proposed with this application. Initial Study for CUP 95-25 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 12 15. Issues and SupponJng Information Sources: RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? Sign'~icam S~gnlficant Impact Less Unless Than Mitigation Significant () () () (x) () () () (x) 16. Issues and Supporting Information Sources; Potentially MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Potential to degrade: Does the proiect have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ( ) b) Short term: Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time. Long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) () c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) . ( ) d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ( ) Potenlially Signifcant Impact Less Unless Than Mmfigahon Significant Incor':,o ra!edIreDact fmoa~ () () (x) () (x) () (x) () (X U.S. PROPERTIES 714985~958 SErqT 8'¢: R CUCAMONOA COM OEV,; 2-!9-97 3;30Ptl; BOg ~'77 2-~47 :> 7149850950,; .-~14/1 4 Initia! Study for CUP 95-25 City of Rancho Cucamonga Corerpants: c) The project wit[ generate traffic. vehicle emissk~ns, noise and ~Ight. These effects were ahab/zeal by the City's General Plan EIR and Foolhill Boulevard Specific Ptan EIR and were found to be not significant or were found to be significant but irreversible and a statement of overriding consideration was adopted, 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 15C63(c)(3)(D), Th~ effe~s identified above for th[s project were within the scope of and adequately analyzed In the fol!owing eadier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the eadier analysis. The following eadier analy~es were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are availab!e for review in the City el' Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices, 10500 CMc Car, let Drive (check all that apply): ix) General Plan EtR (Carried April 6, 1981) (X) Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH ~f,88020115, certified January 4, 1989) (x) Foothill Boulevard Specific P~an EIR (SCH #87021615, certified September 16, 1987) APPLICANT CERTIFICATION I cert;fy tha[ I am the applicant ~o~ the project described in this Initial Study. I acknowledge that I have read this IrtJdal Study and the proposed mitigation measures. Further, I have revised the pmJec_J p(ans or proposals and/or hereby agree to the proposed mitigation measures to avoid the effects or mitigate (he effects to a point where clearly no significant environmental effects would oct'Jr, Pr;nt Name and Title: ,/- Post-it' Fax Nole 7671 CO. Fax ~ 0 Z °--9- -.~ rrl _~.~ ~ o ,10' 0 40' Sunlu: 1" ~ 40' 'l'~¢nch ;red sutx'c)'cd huh .';i,c,'i::l .'-;hi,lie s (;L'~h)L;y by II:J I):;d'Icd h)' I't\(; I"CJHII:II¥ I~), i CITY OF ~ANCHO CUC~MONGA PL~N'NiNG CO~M!SSiON MINUTES Adjourned Meeting April 14, 1993 Chairman McNi~l called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 9:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the De Anza Room at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, John Me!cher, Peter Tolstoy, Wendy Vallette ABSENT: None STA~-F PRESENT: Brad Bullet, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Larry Henderson, Principal Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; BeverlyNissen, Associate Planner PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW 93-04 - RODRIGUEZ - Review of site plan for a proposed grocery store, existing historic structure, and related pads on approximately 10 acres at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - A~N: 207-211-05, 12, 13, 14, 15, 38, and 40. An introduction to the project was provided by the applicant, Gil Rodriguez. He explained that the proposed grocery store would most likely not be built because of the approval of the Smith's Food and Drug Store on the northwest corner of Vineyard Avenue and Foothill Soulevard. He did state, however, that they still desired comments on the plan from the Commissioners in the event that another user expressed interest in the project site. Mr. Rodriguez indicated that at this _point, they are anxious to utilize the Klusman House as an office building and want to proceed with this before going forward with the entire conditional use permit for the corner. He explained that they are interested in pursuing the 5,000 square foot proposed building fronting on Foothill Boulevard as part of Phase I. He indicated this building would be utilized as a delicatessen and specialty food store. Staff presented the main p~ints regarding the site plan to the Commissioners, who then made their comments. Commissioner Me!chef felt the site plan is beautiful, however, probably not workable because of the lack of visibility from Foothill Boulevard to the main tenant. He thought the Klusman House should have a more enhanced setting to the south which would create a more appealing sense of entry into the building. He also felt that the parking along the west side of the main building would be virtually worthless. Commissioner Va!lette stated that she would support moving the building back if it could make the proposed site plan more workable. She felt there are other options for the major tenant besides a market, such as a theater. Commissioner Tolstoy stated the designer did a nice job on the site plan but he was concerned with the lack of visibility from Foothill Boulevard. He felt that the site plan should be opened up to increase visibility. He felt that relocating the free-standing building from Foothill Boulevard to Vineyard Avenue might solve the problem. He also felt the parking along the rear could provide a buffer to the residential area to the south, but would probably not be used. He cited the example of the NuWest center at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Hellman Avenue as a similar condition. Comraissioner Chitlea said the project was very innovative, but she voiced concerns regarding the lack of view corridors into the center. She thought perhaps one of the buildings along Foothill Boulevard could be shifted to Vineyard Avenue to provide greater visibility. She liked the pedestrian connection from the corner to the main building. She felt a buffer of some sort is needed on the south side of the project. She thought the parking along the west side of the project site could be workable if additional connections to the front of the site are provided. Chairman McNiel stated that the front of the building is more oriented towards Vineyard Avenue and that he did not have a problem with visibility of the structure to Foothill Boulevard. He liked the innovative concept of the site plan and thought it might be able to work with another tenant rather than a grocery store. He thought the Klusman House needs a better setting along the south side. He indicated that he would support a reduction in parking spaces if it would provide additional area to upgrade the back of the house. Bob Schmidt, Historic Preservation Commissioner, indicated he was participating in this workshop as an observer and remarked that he was pleased with the project and agreed that the rear of the Klusman House would be addressed. Mr. Rodriguez concluded by indicating that he felt in the past, anchor tenants would drive retail sites, but that is not the case in today's market. He felt all tenants are of equal value and that high visibility of the anchor tenant is not an absolute necessity. He observed that a traffic/view study was conducted from both Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue indicati~ that visibility was not a problem. He felt that rear parking was acceptable since there is a connection to the front of the site. (Staff noted earlier in the presentation that the site is deficient in the number of parking stalls provided.) He indicated that employee parking is proposed for the rear of the site. Rodriguez was informed that he could proceed with the utilization of the Klusman House as an office building by processing a Minor Deve!op~ent Review. The Com~nission concluded that the concerns noted and the technical issues mentioned by staff need to be addressed. P C Workshop Minutes 2 April 14, 1993 A/~ J O UP~N~{E NT The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Brad Bullet Secretary P C Workshop Minutes -3- April 14, 1993 CiTY OF kANCHO CUC}~ONGA PL.~%':;iNG COYMiSSiON Mit;UTES Adjourned Meeting October 25, 1995 Chairman Barker called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cuc~T. onga Planning Commission to order at S:05 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains Room at the Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cuc~onga California. Chairman Barker then led in the pledge of allegiance. a. Building setback b. Parking setback 2. Master Plan requirements 3. The Planning Co~ission drive-thru a. Drive-thru lane setback b. Distance from intersection c..Screening of the drive-thru lane PR_ESENT: David Barker, Heinz Lumpp, Larry McNie!, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: None STAFF PP~ESENT: Brad Bu!!er, Cit?' Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Dan Ja_~es, Senior Civil Engineer; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no announcements. NEW BUSINESS A. PRE-APPL!CATION REVIEW 95-04 - RODRIGUEZ - Review of a proposed fast food __staur .... Dad in the Com. T. unity Com.,mercia! restaurant (with drive-thru) and ~= ~ . :oo~n~__ Boulevard Specific Plan, located at designation (Subarea 2) of the - ~' {: ~ the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-211-12 and 13. Gil Rodriguez, Jr., the applicant, gave a brief presentation of the project. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presen5ed -.he staff issues and concerns'~hich included the following: 1. Consistency 'with uhe Focuhi!l Boulevard Specific Plan ROLL CALL CO~=MISSIONERS: d. 2otentia! revisions to the policy contemplated by %he Planning Commission subcommittee reviewing the policy. 4. Relationship to the K!usman House Vice-Chairman McNie! asked what was anticipated for the future pad identified as ~mu!ti-use." Mr. Rodriguez stated that the anchor tenant for the center will decide if a building will be pe_~mitted at all. He said that if no building is allowed, the pad would be u~ed for s?ecial seasonal events such as pumpkin patches, Christmas tree lots, etc. Com~nissioner McNiel stated that rarely does fast food contribute to an activity center other than introducing cars to the area. He felt the fast food restaurant does nothing for the intersection. He acknowledged Burger King's desire to be at the corner but he did not feel that was the appropriate location because Burger King would dominate the corner. He suggested locating Burger King on the west side of the Foothil1 entry Commissioner M~Niel liked the location of Zendejas restaurant and the future pad. Commissioner Me!chef stated that no Master Plan is available at this time and the Master Plan should be the first item comp!ete~ to market the project. He felt the architect had done a good job disguising the Burger King; however, Burger King does nothing to respect the Klusman House. He thought the proper setting is essential for the Klusman House and the setback provided on the east side of the Klusman House should match the west side of the building. He felt the diagonal pedestrian walk through the center is the boldest and most imaginative attempt presented to the City. He did not think the parking lot layout is workable because there are an excessive number of turning movements over !20 degrees that would be necessary to Dull into the parking stalls. Commissioner Lmmpp indicated than if Burger King feels it is essential to be at the intersection, the more appropriate location may be along the Vineyard frontage. He suggested the Burger King and Zendejas' locations could be reversed and such a switch would make the drive-thru less dominant. He thought the orientation might even allow some pedestrian play off Burger King into the activity center area. He acknowledged Burger King probably wants to be on Foothill Boulevard because of the greater traffic volumes; however, he felt Burger King should not be located adjacent to the Klusman House. Commissioner Lumpp stated that if Burger King had to be located on Foothill Boulevard, the building should be on the west side of the Foothill entry, as suggested by ComMissioner McNiel. He felt the architecture was acceptable, although he believed Burger King should be designed more consistent with the Klusman House. He noted some elements of the Burger King drive-thru design are consistent with the direction being taken by the Planning Conmission Subcommittee studying the drive-thru policy; however, he reitera5ed his desire to see Burger King relocated to the Vineyard frontage. Commissioner Tolstoy co~nented that the site design approved for the Christmas House on Archibald Avenue results in a very he~ed in appearance. He felt the same situation will occur with this project if the site plan is approved as submitted by the applicant. He thought Burger King should be relocated to the west side of the Foothill entry or closer to the activity center to share seating with the other restaurant. He noted the drive-thru lane is however in conflict with the activity center goal of pedestrian orientation. He agreed relocating Burger King to the Vineyard frontage may be a good a!~ernative. He thought the angled parking arrangement provided by the applicant is not workable. PC Adjourned Minutes October 25, 1995 Chairman Barker indicated his appreciation of the major entry at the activity center and the link into ~he site. He had not given much thought to relocating Burger King to Vineyard Avenue but felt ~hat Burger King ~ ' = ' '. . m_~.. D_ Lnterestec He suggested the Planning Commission should look at the 19-foot setback proposed .. . ._ 1 .... o the for Vineyard Avenue and provide direction to the aoolicant H= ~"~' ~ ' ~ ~ ' ~ _. _ _ . Chairman Barker stated that the Burger a_cn_t_c~u_- proposed by the a~D!{c=n~. ' King on Base Line Road and Haven Avenue has a serious circulation problem with the drive-thru lane obstructing the pedestrian access to the building. He indicated his support for another large, outdoor plaza/eating area. Mr. Rodriguez" indicated he has been working with Burger King for the past six months on various design schemes. He observed the location on the west side of the Foothill entry is not desirable because the trees within the San Bernardino County Flood Control District block visibility of the site. He said he had reworked the site to make it economically feasible. He stated that the contrasting design between the Klusman House and the Burger King was intentional in order to set the two structures apart rather than trying to blend them together. Chairman Barker asked the Commissioners to address the setback deficiency questions. Commissioner Me!chef stated that when working with a large parcel such as this, there is no reason to sacrifice the minL~=m standards. He observed that s~reets are being widened by developers throughout the City and in some cases, greater dedications and improvements are re.a/mired than ~i!l be required of this site. He stated that Wohl Properties had a willing tenant for their site on Foothill Boulevard but it is not the right site for that tenant. He said that Burger King may be proposed on this site but that does not mean it is right. Co,~missioner Lumpp agreed with Commissioner Me!chef. He felt sufficient land is available to accommodate the design. Ccr,missioner Tolstoy asked what would happen if Burger King was shifted southerly. Commissioner Lumpp felt that Burger King should not be located adjacen~ ~o the Klusman House. Commissioner HcNie! stated that the Foothill Boulevard Soecific Plan requires a ac~_~_~3 centers the setback 45-foot building setback everi~where exceD~ the ~' ;'" where is reduced to 25 feet. He ~hought the applicant needs to adhere to. that criteria. He observed tha% if the Planning Cor.~ission approves a varian:e for a ~oduced setback, ;~ would clearly set m ureuedent for future actions. uo did not think shifting Burger King to the south would be good for the K!usman House or for the activity center. He stated that Burger King is not a point of destination with the nature of the business being that peou!e get in and out of the facility quickly. Brad Bu!!er, City Planner, recapped the Cc.~r~ission's discussions. He stated that Burger King was not acceptable next to the K!usman House and other options should be considered. He noted there was no support for a variance for building setbacks because of a shift in the street centerline. PC Adjourned Minutes October 25, !995 There were no public comments. COMMISSION BUSINESS There was no Commission business at this time. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at S:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Brad Bullet Secretary PC Adjourned Minu~es October 25, 1995 Chronology of Rodriguez Project CUP 95-25 April 14, 1993 - Pre-Application review presented to Planning Commission. Commission provides specific direction regarding major issues. August 29, 1995 - Application formally submitted to City. Sept. 21, 1995 - First incompleteness letter mailed to applicant; suggested that another Pre- Application review on new site plan and elevations occur with the Planning Commission to discuss major design issues relative to site plan. October 25, 1995 - Pre-Application review workshop with Planning Commission. Commission provides specific direction on how to addresss site planning and architectural concerns. November 30, 1995 - Applicant requests time extension to address completeness items raised by staff in 9/21/95 letter. Staff informs applicant via letter of acceptance of time extension on 12/7/95. February 13, 1996 - Applicant resubmits plans. Design issues, technical problems still not addressed as previously raised by staff via letter and by the Planning Commission at the Pre-Application Review'. February 29, 1996 - Second incompleteness letter sent out by staff with numerous second requests for identical information and or to address identical design issues identified in the first reviexv 5 months earlier. March 12, 1996 - Applicant submits Variance request for numerous setback reductions for proposed next phase development along Foothill Boulevard. Variance agendized for March 27, 1996 Planning Commission meeting. One of the Completeness items, a Geologic study, submitted by applicant, which was originally requested on 9/21/95. March 13, 1996 - Letters requesting a second review by registered Geologists mailed out by staff. March 27, 1996 - Variance reviewed by Planning Commission but continued to April 24, 1996 at the request of the applicant. March 28, 1996 - Staff selects geologist to conduct second review of plans and asks applicant to submit deposit (S350) to cover cost of review. April 24, 1996 - Variance again continued at request of applicant. April 30, 1996 - May 14, 1996 Sept. 3,1996- Sept. 9,1996- November 7,1996- December 3, 1996- December 5, 1996- December 30, 1996 - Application scheduled for courtesy review (application still incomplete) for Grading Committee, DRC and TRC on May 1, 1996. These items were continued for two weeks at the request of the applicant, who made his request on April 29, 1996. Application receives courtesy review by all three Committees (TRC on May 15, 1996). All three Committees provide specific direction regarding revisions to plans and any other issues and recommend that the applicant revise plans and have project return to Committees once deemed complete. Application again reviewed on courtesy basis by Grading and Design Review Committees. Previous direction regarding major site planning issues (first passed on at the 10/25/95 Pre-Application Review) still not addressed and DRC reinterated these concerns. Staff prepares third incompleteness letter to remind applicant of all outstanding completeness items and other technical and design related issues, including need for $350 deposit to have geology study reviewed, first requested on 3/28/96. Staff receives check to review Geology study. Geologist selected and information mailed to geologist on 11/24/96. Other incompleteness items from 9/9/96 letter still not addressed. Application again reviewed on courtesy basis (still incomplete) for third time by DRC. Major site planning issues starting to be selectively addressed by applicant, but embellishments necessary, to Master Plan and area around proposed tenants which require further review of Committee. Staff receives comments from our Geologist and FAXes comments to applicant and original geologist same day. (As of 1/17/97, staff has yet to receive revisions from original geologist thereby making application still incomplete). Application reviewed on a courtesy basis again (Still incompleteness items) by DRC and Grading Committees (and TRC on 1/2/97). Site plan, Master Plan reviewed again by DRC. Some specific issues from 12/3/96 DRC meeting still not addressed regarding Master Plan. Architecture reviewed for first time, minor revisions requested and information needed from applicant before a recommendation of approval could be forwarded. Grading Committee deems plans incomplete and requests additional information previously asked for on May 14, 1996. Applicant states that modifications to plans can be made in sufficent time to allow staff, Grading Committee and DRC members to review for 1/14/ January 2, 1997 - January 7. 1997 - January9,1997- January 13, 1997 - January 14, 1997 - January15,1997- January16,1997- January21,1997- January22,1997- January23,1997- 97 meetings. TRC reviews plans and has repeat comments of information that should be shown on plans from previous 5/15/96 TRC meeting. Staff meets xvith applicant to go over DRC and Grading Committee action from 12/30/96 meeting. Reminds applicant of incompleteness of application and asks him to check on status of Geology study revisions. Staff gives applicant deadline of 1/9/97 to get revised plans to staff for review and distribution to Committees (one week less review time than usually requested for other projects). Applicant leaves voice mail message approximately 5:20 p.m. saying that revisions are being worked on. No plans reveived by end of day. Staff reveives one copy (eight sets requested on 1/7/97) of plans. Grading plan reviewed by Grading Commitee on January 14, 1997 and information specifically requested at staff/applicant meeting on 1/7/97 still missing. Scheduled for Grading Committee review again on February 4, 1997. Applicant submits plans 45 minutes before item is to be reviewed on courtesy basis by DRC (application still incomplete). The DRC meeting has already started, as another item is being reviewed, so DRC members have no opportunity to review plans ahead to time. Due to this, DRC recommended that the item be scheduled for the next (February 4, 1997) meeting. Applicant sends FAX to clarify, issues and submittal deadlines of plans for 2/4/97 meetings. Staff responds back via FAX immediately, adding several issues to applicant did not include. Applicant sends revised FAX incorpoating items staff included in original FAX previous day. FAX looked accepatable and accurate to staff. Called to verify submittal dealines for 2/4/DRC meeting with applicant. Talked to engineer and informed him of changes and submittal deadline (end of Day - 1/22) to remain on 2/4 Grading Committee. Site, landscape and architectural plans received by deadline given to applicant (end of work day). This deadline was established after 1/14 DRC meeting and ac 'knowledged by applicant in 1/15 and 1/16 FAX. However, revised grading plan not received by deadline. Left message for applicant early a.m. to check on status of grading plans. Januao'28, 1997 - Applfcant returned call and said that the grading plan would be here by tomorrow (1/29). Januao' 30, 1997 - Grading Plan finally received. Februao'4,1997- Project reviewed by DRC and Grading Committee. Neither Committee recommends approval; addittional information previously requested by both Committees not yet received. Despite this, staff still keeps item pre- scheduled for February 26th Planning Commission hearing. Staff informs applicant of oppommity to revie~v project at the February. 18th Grading Commirtee and DRC meeting. Staff gives applicant submittal deadline of February, 12th for additional information. February 5,1997- Staff writes DRC follow-up letter to the previous days meeting, which includes final submittal deadlines for additional information needed for Planning Commission meeting. Febmar,,,' 12, 1997 - Staff calls applicant regarding status ,of requested submittal int~rmation. Not received by end of day. Februau 13, 1997- Staff receives DRC information and revised Grading Plan in early afternoon. Final submittal requirements for Planning Commission not received, even though due on this date. Februaoj18,1997- Grading Committee and DRC again review project and do not recommend approval. However, Conditions of Approval incorporated into the Resolution of Approval to co,,'er remaining issues. PHOTOGRAPHIC LOCATION MAP RECEIVED C.U.P. 95-25 or Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 6 "! RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 95- 25, A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A 2,900 SQUARE FOOT DRIVE-THRU FACILITY AND A 5,548 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT ON 3.7 ACRES OF LAND IN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION OF THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND VINEYARD AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 207-211-12 AND 13. A. Recitals. 1. Gil Rodriguez, Jr. has filed an application for the issuance of Conditional Use Permit No. 95-25, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 26th day of February 1997, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on February 26, 1997, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue with a Foothill Boulevard street frontage of approximately 644 feet and lot depth of approximately 608 feet and is presently improved with a historic residence and related landscape and parking lot improvements; and b. The property to the north of the subject site is vacant, the property to the south consists of vacant land, the property to the east is a service station and apartments, and the property to the west is the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel and vacant land; and c. The application contemplates the construction of a portion of Phase One improvements, which includes a fast food restaurant with a drive-thru facility, a sit-down restaurant, and an on-site extension of the pedestrian activity center area near the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue; and d. The application contemplates the removal of the interim parking lot for the existing historic Klusman House as part of Phase One development; and e. The balance of the buildings shown in Phase One around the on-site pedestrian activity center area will not be constructed initially and will be required to be reviewed under a separate application through the City's development review process in the future; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ February 26, 1997 Page 2 f. The application indicates Phase Two of the Conceptual Master Plan as being the balance of the 3.7 acre site and includes a 41,250 square foot major tenant, such as a supermarket, and approximately 13,750 square feet of shops space. This portion of the development will also be required to be processed through a separate development review application(s) in the future. 3. Based Upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. b. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. c. The proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral repods included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows: a. The Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder; that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the application. b. Based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission during the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-1~d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Plannina Division 1) Approval is for Phase One development only, as shown on the proposed Phasing Plan. The remainder of the Master Plan is shown in concept only. A new Conditional Use Permit or Development Review application (as applicable) shall be submitted for review and approval PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ February 26, 1997 Page 3 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) of the Planning Commission or City Planner (as applicable) for all buildings within future remaining phases. TemporaW fencing with a green mesh or similar material shall be provided around Phase Two as shown on the proposed Phasing Plan, pdor to occupancy of any buildings within Phase One. All construction activities and traffic for Phase One shall be within its parcel. A detailed construction activities plan showing the area for storage of earth materials, building materials, the staging of construction equipment such as skip loader, excavator, etc., the construction traffic route, shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval, prior to the issuance of any building permits for Phase One, as shown on the proposed Phasing Plan. All construction activities and traffic for Phase One shall not negatively impact any business activities at the Klusman House. A Uniform Sign Program for the shopping center, indicating provisions for major tenants, other in-line tenants and pad buildings, shall be submitted for review and approval of the Planning Commission, pdor to the issuance of any building permits for Phase One development. The standards shall be designed to be compatible with the architectural style of the shopping center. The size of the sign copy shall be visually balanced and proportionate to the buildings and the architectural style. A comprehensive Design Guideline supplement, which shall include integrated architectural and landscape themes and examples of architectural styles for the shopping center, including, but not limited to, major tenants, in-line shops, and freestanding pad buildings, shall be prepared for review and approval of the Design Review Committee, pdor to issuance of any building permits for Phase One construction, as shown on the Phasing Plan. In addition, a uniform hardscape and street furniture treatment, including trash receptacles, freestanding potted plants, trellises, special paving, bicycle racks, light bollards, benches, etc., shall be utilized for the shopping center and shall be designed to be compatible with the architectural style. Detailed designs shall be included in the Design Guidelines supplement. Parking lot light standards shall be designed to be architecturally compatible with other pedestrian level lighting used within the Activity Center area along Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue and shall be limited to a maximum height of 15 feet above finished grade. Details of the parking lot lighting shall be included on the on-site Photometric Lighting Plan, which shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division and the SherifFs Department, prior to the issuance of any building permits for Phase One construction. There shall be provisions for the following design features in the trash enclosures to the satisfaction of the City Planner (the exact location for the trash enclosures shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner, prior to the issuance of building permits): a) Architecturally integrated into the design of this project; PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ February 26, 1997 Page 4 8) 9) 10) 11) 13) b) Separate pedestrian access that does not require opening the main doors; c) Large enough to accommodate two trash bins; d) Trash bins with counter weighted lids; e) Architecturally treated overhead shade trellis; and Chain link fencing on top to prevent trash from blowing out of the enclosure. The screen shall be designed to be hidden from view. The following trees shall be at least 36-inch box size: a) Trees framing the main focal point; b) Entry access trees framing the main drive aisles throughout the project; and c) On-site Activity Center trees at the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue. The final landscape and irrigation design of the 10-foot wide landscaped areas flanking both sides of the main entrance off Foothill Boulevard shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division, prior to issuance of any building permits for Phase One development. A pedestrian walkway incorporating the special paving scheme used throughout the project shall be provided on the east side of the drive aisle to provide a continuous pedestrian access route from the Foothill Boulevard sidewalk to the front of the major and shops tenants, as shown on the conceptual Master Plan. All slopes and any area disturbed in Phase Two, on the conceptual Master Plan, shall be seeded and irrigated for erosion control. Detailed plans shall be included within the Landscape and Irrigation Plans and shall be submitted for Planning Division review and approval, prior to the issuance of building permits for Phase One. All future projects within the shopping center shall be designed to be compatible and consistent with the architectural program established, as determined by the Planning Commission and City Planner (as applicable). A Security Patrol Plan for the shopping center shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval, prior to the issuance of any building permits for Phase One development. A bus shelter on Vineyard Avenue shall be installed with Phase One improvements. The final design and location shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval, prior to the issuance of any building permits for Phase One development. Any modifications to the proposed Phasing Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ February 26, 1997 Page 5 14) 15) 16) 17) 18) 19) 20) 21) 22) 23) 24) No restaurant use (other than that proposed with Phase One) is proposed for the center. If over 15 percent of the gross leasable area is occupied by food service uses, one additional parking space per 100 square feet of gross leasable floor area used for food service shall be provided. Likewise, if a cinema or offices are proposed, then additional parking may be required. Truck loading and unloading zones shall be properly marked to the satisfaction of the City Planner. The pedestrian Activity Center shall be continued for a distance west along the Foothill Boulevard frontage to the first driveway and south along Vineyard Avenue to the first driveway. The final design of the on- site extension of the pedestrian Activity Center, including the art piece, pedestrian furniture, and focal elements such as a water feature, shall be submitted for review and approval of the City Planner, prior to the issuance of any building permits for Phase One development, as shown on the Phasing Plan. A portion of the amenities within the on-site pedestrian Activity Center area shall be completed with Phase One development, including the plaza between Buildings I and 2. The final design of the Activity Center and the phasing of improvements shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval, prior to the issuance of any building permits for Phase One development, as shown on the Phasing Plan. The final design of the enhanced storefronts and the focal point within the Phase Two Master Plan area shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee, pdor to the issuance of building permits for any development within Phase Two, as shown on the Phasing Plan. An art piece at the Activity Center plaza shall be installed within 180 days after the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for either building in Phase One, whichever occurs first. The final design of the sidewalk connections from the Foothill Boulevard sidewalk to the pad buildings, where applicable, shall be reviewed by the Design Review Committee as part of each Design Review application for the development of the pad buildings. The property owner and/or trustee shall be responsible to maintain the two art work focal elements for the life of this commercial center. Public telephones shall be placed inside the building. Placement of outside public telephones may be allowed and shall be subject to City Planner review and approval, prior to installation. Placement of newspaper racks and other street furniture may be allowed if consistent with the approved street furniture guidelines and subject to City Planner review and approval, prior to installation. Any outdoor vending machines shall be recessed into the building faces and shall not extend into the pedestrian walkways. The design details PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 95-25- RODRIGUEZ February 26, 1997 Page $ 25) 26) 27) 28) shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner, prior to the issuance of building permits. No permanent outdoor storage of shopping carts shall be permitted, unless otherwise approved by the Planning Commission. The shopping carts shall be collected and stored at the approved designated place at the end of each work day. The entire site shall be kept free of trash and debris at all times, and in no event shall trash and debris remain on the site for more than 24 hours. Graffiti shall be removed within 24 hours. Trash collection shall occur between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. only. 29) The business shall be conducted to comply with the following standards: 30) 31) 32) 33) a) Noise Levels: All commercial activities shall not create any noise that would exceed an extedor noise level of 60 dBA during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. and 65 dBA during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. b) Loading and Unloading: No person shall cause the loading, unloading, opening, closing, or other handling of boxes, crates, containers, building materials, garbage cans, or similar objects between the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., unless otherwise specified herein, in a manner which would cause a noise disturbance to a residential area. Any outdoor displays of merchandise shall be limited to specific areas that will be considered as part of Phase Two development, as applicable. Berming, low walls, dense hedgerows of evergreen shrubs, or any combination thereof, shall be provided to sufficiently screen all parking areas, drive-thru lanes and any other vehicular activity areas from public view of perimeter streets, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. The detailed Landscape/Irrigation Plans shall indicate compliance with this requirement. The applicant shall resolve any Building Code compliance difficulties (with construction of canopies, property lines in relation to walls and other openings, and roof tile installation to withstand severe winds) with the Building and Safety Division, prior to the issuance of any building permits. Bicycle storage facilities shall be provided on the property in accordance with current City regulations. Security racks shall be provided for each storage space and shall be located near the main building entrances in highly visible areas to minimize theft and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ February 26, 1997 Page 7 34) 35) 36) 37) 38) 39) 40) 41) 42) vandalism. An aisle or other space shall be provided for bicycles to enter and leave the storage spaces with a minimum width of 5 feet to the front or the rear of a standard 6-foot bicycle parked in the space. The final design, material use, and height of the parapet and chimney on the Burger King building shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner, prior to the issuance of building permits. The Burger King building and drive-thru lane shall be shifted westedy 3 feet to comply with the minimum 45-foot setback from the ultimate face of curb along Vineyard Avenue. Since this shift will cause a reduction in the amount of landscaped area on the west side of the building, the final landscape and irrigation design of this area shall be reviewed as part of the detailed Landscape/Irrigation Plan, and approved, prior to the issuance of building permits for Phase One development. The parking spaces along the drive aisle immediately west of the Burger King building shall be angled at 45 degrees and painted arrows shall be used to identify the proper travel direction, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Directional signage shall be used to properly direct vehicular traffic to the drive-thru lane and one-way drive aisle west of Burger King, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Rolled curbing, turf block, and raised special paving consistent in design with that used throughout the shopping center, shall be used at the narrowed (south) end of the one-way drive aisle west of Burger King, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. The landscape palette along the southerly and east property lines shall be selected so as to provide a dense landscape buffer between the shopping center, the existing residence, and any future development on the vacant residentially zoned parcel to the south, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Additional areas of special paving shall be used throughout the project, especially at all vehicular entrances to the site, key pedestrian routes across vehicular drive aisles and to demarcate primary pedestrian walkways and gathering areas within the shopping center, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. This shall include the circular "compass rose" pattern treatment where each entrance driveway intersects with the first interior drive aisles (see Exhibit "D" of Staff Report). The formal landscape/hardscape treatment used for the Activity Center shall extend from the public sidewalk to the house entry. Amenities used within the Activity Center such as benches, a fountain, etc., could also be used in this area, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. A decorative cap shall be provided on all screen and retaining walls throughout the project, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ February 26, 1997 Page 8 43) Native river cobble shall be used (as opposed to a manufactured rock veneer product) in all areas where rock is proposed on the building and wall elevations throughout the project. 44) The final design of the radius curve south and west of the on-site pedestrian Activity Center area shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and the Fire District, prior to the issuance of building permits for Phase One development. 45) A uniform hardscape and street furniture including seating benches, trash receptacles, free-standing potted plants, bike racks, light bollards, etc., shall be utilized and be compatible with the architectural style. Detailed design shall be submitted for Planning Division review and approval, prior to issuance of building permit. 46) Textured pavement shall be provided across circulation aisle, pedestrian walkway, and plaza. They shall be of brick/tile pavers, exposed aggregate, integral color concrete or a combination of them. Full samples shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval, prior to issuance of building permit. 47) All future building pads shall be seeded and irrigated for erosion control. Detailed plan shall be included in the Landscape and Irrigation Plans to be submitted for Planning Division approval, prior to issuance of building permits. 48) Revise southerly parking lot to provide a minimum two-way drive aisle width of 24 feet in all drive aisles. Engineering Division 1) The project as proposed will require the processing of a Lot Line Adjustment. Note: All conditions referencing project frontage or APN's are with respect to lot lines subsequent to the Lot Line Adjustment. 2) Along Foothill Boulevard a total of 64 feet is required as measured between the street center line and ultimate curb face. Additional right- of-way is required for the proposed parkway improvements (Activity Center) to include both rows of tree wells and pedestrian corridor. The right-of-way dimensions are subject to Caltrans approval during Technical Plan Review. 3) Along Vineyard Avenue a total of 35 feet plus an additional 11 feet, to accommodate a bus bay right-turn lane is required for a total of 46 feet as measured between the approved survey line and ultimate curb face. Additional right-of-way is required for the proposed parkway improvements (Activity Center) to include both rows of tree wells and pedestrian corridor. 4) The Activity Center pedestrian corridor along Vineyard Avenue shall include two rows of tree wells, similar to the corridor as shown along PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ February 26, 1997 Page 9 5) 6) 7) Foothill Boulevard to provide a colonnade feeling, pursuant to the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. 8) Pursuant to the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan a minimum spacing of 10 feet is required between center line of tree wells. In addition, a minimum distance of 6 feet is required from center line of tree well to curb face to allow for a 2-foot minimum planting area. 9) Easements will be required for the cross-lot drainage and any proposed on-site drainage facility. All on-site drainage facilities are subject to review by the Building and Safety and Engineering Divisions. A separate set of Landscape and Irrigation Plans for the Foothill Boulevard median island, per Engineering Public Works Standards, shall be submitted for review and approval, prior to issuance of building permits, and shall be constructed thereof. The developer may request a Reimbursement Agreement to recover one-half the cost from future development as it occurs on the opposite side of the street. Said Reimbursement Agreement shall be submitted within 6 months of the public improvements being accepted by the City, or all rights of the developer to reimbursement shall terminate. However, if Caltrans does not allow the construction of a median island, and subsequent landscaping, then an in-lieu fee as contribution to one-half of the future cost of constructing and landscaping said median island shall be paid to the City, pdor to the issuance of building permits. The amount shall be as determined during Technical Plan review times the length of the project frontage to the center line intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue. Full frontage improvements shall be constructed across the Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue frontages. A right-turn lane shall be constructed for the Foothill Boulevard driveway. The driveway on Vineyard Avenue shall be constructed as a bus bay right-turn lane. Driveways shall be standard commercial type, per City standards, with no ramps or pavers. All right-of-way necessary to construct right-turn pockets, bus bays, driveways, and transitions on Foothill Boulevard and/or Vineyard Avenue shall be dedicated and constructed as a part of this project, all to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. An in-lieu fee as contribution to the future undergrounding of the existing overhead utilities (telecommunications and electrical) on the north side of Foothill Boulevard shall be paid to the City, prior to the issuance of building permits. The amount shall be one-half the City adopted unit amount times the length from the center line intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue to the project's westerly boundary. An in-lieu fee as contribution to the future undergrounding and/or previous undergrounding of the existing overhead utilities (telecommunications and electrical, except for the KV electrical) on the east side of Vineyard Avenue shall be paid to the City, prior to the issuance of building permits. The fee shall be one-half the City adopted unit amount times the length from the center line intersection of PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ February 26, 1997 Page 10 Vineyard Avenue and Foothill Boulevard to the project's southerly boundary and/or the reimbursable amount for the previous undergrounding improvements pursuant to the Reimbursement Agreement, whichever is applicable, at the time of payment of the in- lieu fee. 11) A cash contribution in lieu of construction towards one-fourth the cost of construction of special pavers within the Foothill BoulevardNineyard Avenue intersection shall be paid to the City, prior to the issuance of building permits and shall be based on the calculated amount as determined for the project located on the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue. 12) The parkway Activity Center shall be constructed per the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan fronting Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, City Planner, and Caltrans. 13) Modification and relocation, as necessary, of the traffic signal at the Foothill BoulevardNineyard Avenue intersection shall be the responsibility of the developer. The modification and relocation shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Caltrans. 14) Construct the local storm drain pipe in Foothill Boulevard from the existing connection at the intersection of Vineyard Avenue to Cucamonga Creek to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 15) "No Parking/Stopping" signs shall be posted along the frontages of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue. The proposed project is draining 70 to 80 percent of the site to the southwest corner and conveying the drainage flows directly into Cucamonga Creek Drainage Channel. San Bernardino County Flood Control Distdct approval and permit is required, prior to the issuance of a building permit. The connections shall be sized to accommodate the drainage for the whole site in its ultimate condition. Since this is a sump condition, a secondary overflow is required. The sump condition shall pond a depth of water no greater than 18 inches. Building and Safety/Fire Protection District 1) Submit comprehensive foundation soils report, prior to issuance of grading permits, including recommendations for existing uncompacted fill. 2) Assembly-type occupancy uses within building will require additional and specific review and comments. Environmental Mitigation Measures 1) A final geologic report shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and accepted by the City's geologist, prior to issuance of any PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ February 26, 1997 Page 11 permits. The applicant shall pay the cost of the review by the City's geologist by depositing funds for this purpose. 2) The recommendations of the final geologic report shall be incorporated into the project, and verified during plan check, prior to the issuance of any permits. These recommendations include, but are not limited to, the following: a) No human occupancy structures shall be placed within the approximate restricted use zone as shown on Plate One unless a subsurface engineering geology investigation finds this portion of the site to be free of active faulting. The recommended restricted use zone applies to proposed structures only. The restricted use zone on the site can be used for purposes other than the placement of human occupancy structures, such as parking areas. b) The southeast boundary of the recommended restricted use zone shall be surveyed. This restricted area zone shall be shown on all site development plans, including Grading Plans. c) Positive drainage of the site should be provided, and water shall not be allowed to pond behind or flow over any cut or fill slopes. Where water is collected in a common area and discharged, protection of the native soils shall be provided, as the native soils are moderately to highly susceptible to erosion by running water. d) The maximum inclination of all cut slopes shall be two horizontal to one vedical up to a maximum height of 10 feet. e) All cut slopes shall be planted as soon as possible to minimize erosion, as material on-site may be susceptible to erosion from wind and water. The final Grading Plan for the site shall be reviewed and approved by an engineering geologist, prior to any grading. g) The trench backfill was not compacted. The suitability of this material for future use shall be determined by the geotechnical engineer if any man-made use of this area is planned. 3) A detailed acoustical study shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer, prior to issuance of building permits, to address interior noise levels of all buildings within the project. 4) Light fixtures shall be shielded and directed away from residential areas. A detailed Lighting Plan, including a photometric diagram, shall be prepared, prior to issuance of building permits, to provide proper shielding of adjoining properties from light and glare. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ February 26, 1997 Page 12 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 1997. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chairman AT'TEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 26th day of February 1997, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT#: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-25 BURGER KING AND 5,548 SQ. FT. RESTAURANT U.S. PROPERTIES SOUTHWEST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD & VINEYARD AVENUE ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: ao Time 1. Limits Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, if building permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 2.4 months from the date of approval. Coml~letion Date / Prior to recordation of the final map or prior to the issuance of building permits when no map is involved, written certification from the affected water district that adequate sewer and water facilities are or will be available to serve the proposed project shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development. Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. Site Development The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, Development Code regulations, the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Division to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. / / SC - ~0;96 1 Go Project No. CUP 95-25 Completion Date Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the time of building permit issuance. A detailed on-site lighting plan, including a photometric diagram, shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and Police Department (477-2800) prior to the issuance of building permits. Such plan shall indicate style, illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties. Trash receptacle(s) are required and shall meet City standards. The final design, locations, and the number of trash receptacles shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 10. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination. 11. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall be submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and approved prior to the issuance of building permits. / / 12. The project contains a designated Historical Landmark. Any further modifications to the site including, but not limited to, exterior alterations and/or interior alterations which affect the exterior of the buildings or structures, removal of landmark trees, demolition, relocation, reconstruction of buildings or structures, or changes to the site, shall require a modification to the Historic Landmark Alteration Permit subject to Historic Preservation Commission review and approval. 13. Six foot decorative block walls shall be constructed along the project perimeter of APN: 207-211- 05. If a double wall condition would result, the developer shall make a good faith effort to work with the adjoining property owners to provide a single wall. Developer shall notify, by mail, all contiguous property owner at least 30 days prior to the removal of any existing walls/fences along the project's perimeter. Building Design All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Details shall be included in building plans. SC - 10/9-3 2 Project No. CUP 95-25 Completion Date Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans) All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet and shall contain a 12oinch walk adjacent to the parking stall (including curb). / / All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances, and exits shall be striped per City standards. Handicap accessible stalls shall be provided for commercial and office facilities with 25 or more parking stalls. Designate two percent or one stall, whichever is greater, of the total number of stalls for use by the handicapped. / / / / Motorcycle parking area shall be provided for commercial and office facilities with 25 or more parking stalls. Developments with over 100 parking stalls shall provide motorcycle parking at the rate of one percent. The area for motorcycle parking shall be a minimum of 56 square feet. / / Bicycle storage spaces shall be provided in all commercial, office, industrial, and multifamily residential projects or more than 10 units. Minimum spaces equal to five percent of the required automobile parking spaces or three bicycle storage spaces, whichever is greater. After the first 50 bicycle storage spaces are provided, additional storage spaces required are 2.5 percent of the required automobile parking spaces. In no case shall the total number of bicycle parking spaces required exceed 100. VVhere this results in a fraction of 0.5 or greater, the number shall be rounded off to the higher whole number. Carpool and vanpool designated off-street parking close to the building shall be provided for commercial, office, and industrial facilities at the rate of 10 percent of the total parking area. If covered, the vertical clearance shall be no less than 9 feet. / / Trip Reduction 1. Transit improvements such as bus shelters, bus pullouts, and bus pads shall be provided. / / Landscaping A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in this case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed lan,dscape architect and submitted for City Planr:er review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. / / Existing trees required to be preserved in place shall be protected with a construction barrier in accordance with the Municipal Code Section 19.08.110, and so noted on the grading plans. The location of those trees to be preserved in place and new locations for transplanted trees shall be shown on the detailed landscape plans. The applicant shall follow all of the arborist's recommendations regarding preservation, transplanting, and trimming methods. Within parking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-gallon tree for every three parking stalls, sufficient to shade 50% of the parking area at solar noon on August 21. Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent to and along structures at a rate of one tree per 30 linear feet of building. All private slopes of 5 feet or less in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope, but less than 2:1 slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for erosion SC - 3 Project No. CUP 95-25 ComDletJon Date control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. All private slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, 1-gallon or larger size shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope banks in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one 5-gallon or larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. / / For multi-family residential and non-residential development, property owners are responsible for the continual maintenance of all landscaped areas on-site, as well as contiguous planted areas within the public right-of-way. All landscaped areas shall be kept free from weeds and debris and maintained in healthy and thriving condition, and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing, and trimming. Any damaged, dead, diseased, or decaying plant material shall be replaced within 30 days from the date of damage. / / The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to City Planner review and approval and coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the Engineering Division. / / Special landscape features is required along Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue per the Activity Center guidelines of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. / / Go 10. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on the perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer. 11. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division. 12. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. Signs The signs indicated on the submitted plans are conceptual only and not a part of this approval. Any signs proposed for this development shall comply with the Sign Ordinance and shall require separate application and approval by the Planning Division prior to installation of any signs. A Uniform Sign Program for this development shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. Other Agencies The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location of mail boxes. The final location of the mail boxes and their design shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. / / / / / / / / SC - 10196 4 Project No. CUP 95-25 Cornoletion Date ,PPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: I. Site Development The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of issuance of relative permits. Please contact the Building and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new commercial or industrial development or addition to an existing development, the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: Transportation Development Fee, Drainage Fee, School Fees, Permit and Plan Checking Fees. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation and prior to issuance of building permits. / / J. Existing Structures Existing sewage disposal facilities shall be removed, filled and/or capped to comply with the Uniform Plumbing Code and Uniform Building Code. Underground on-site utilities are to be located and shown on building plans submitted for building permit application. K. Grading Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. / / 3. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. / / APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: L. Dedication and Vehicular Access Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets (measured from street centerline): Please see Engineerincl Division's Special Conditions in the Resolution. Reciprocal access easements shall be provided ensuring access to all parcels by CC&R's or by deeds and shall be recorded concurrently with the map or prior to the issuance of building permits, where no map is involved. 3. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be provided. SC - ~0/96 5 Project No. CUP 95-25 Completion Date Easements for public s~dewalks and/or street trees placed outside the public right-of-way shall be dedicated to the City. Additional street right-of-way shall be dedicated along right turn lanes, to provide a minimum of 7 feet measured from the face of curbs. If curb adjacent sidewalk is used along the right turn lane, a parallel street tree maintenance easement shall be provided. Street Improvements -' 1. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: Curb & A.C. Side- Drive Street Street Comm Median Bike Other Gutter Pvmt walk Appr. Lights Trees Trail Island Trail · / b v' ,/ ,/ / Street Name Foothill Blvd. / / b ,/' ¢' ,/ ,/ / / / / e e 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 STD. 114. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu of construction fee shall be provided for this item. (e) Activity Center. Improvement Plans and Construction: Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any other permits required. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR or any other locations approved by the City Engineer. Notes: (1) Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along strests, a maximum of 200 feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer. (2) Conduit shall be 3-inch (at intersections) or 2-inch (along streets) galvanized steel with pull rope or as specified. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. 6 / / / / / / / / Project No. CUP 95-25 Completion Date 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. / / ho Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards, except for single family residential lots. Street names shall be approved by the City Planner prior to submittal for first plan check. 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. A permit shall be obtained from Caltrans for any work within the followin~o right-of-way: Foothill Boulevard. Public Maintenance Areas A separate set of landscape and irrigation plans per Engineering Public Works Standards shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. The following landscaped parkways, medians, paseos, easements, trails or other areas shall be annexed into the Landscape Maintenance District: Foothill Boulevard ('see Special Conditions). 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. / / All required public landscaping and irrigation systems shall be continuously maintained by the developer until accepted by the City. Parkway landscaping on the following street(s) shall conform to the results of the respective Beautification Master Plan: Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue ('Acitivity Center). O. Drainage and Flood Control A permit from the San Bernardino County Flood Control District is required for work within its right-of-way. Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe measured from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk. Utilities Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas, electric power, telephone, and cable 'IV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility Standards. Easements shall be provided as required. 2. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Prejec: No. CUP 95-25 Completion Date Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from the CCWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. Q. General Requirements and Approvals A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated operating costs for all new street lights for the first six months of operation, prior to final map approval or prior to building permit issuance if:no map is involved. / / APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: R. General Fire Protection Conditions 1. Fire flow requirement shall be 2,000 gallons per minute. / / A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department personnel prior to water plan approval. For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional fire flow test of the on-site hydrants shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by the fire department personnel after construction and prior to occupancy. Fire hydrants are required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed and operable prior to delivery of any combustible building materials on site (i.e., lumber, roofing materials, etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire department personnel. Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided prior to water plan approval. Required hydrants, if any, will be determined by the Fire District. Fire District standards require a 6" riser with a 4" and a 2-1/2" outlet. Substandard hydrants shall be upgraded to meet this standard. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specifications on approved brands and model numbers. Prior to the issuance of building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be submitted to the Fire District that an approved temporary water supply for fire protection is available, pending completion of required fire protection system. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for all hydrants and installed prior to final inspection. 6. An automatic fire extinguishing system(s) will be required as noted below: X Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15. / / Note: Special sprinkler densities are required for such hazardous operations as woodworking, plastics manufacturing, spray painting, flammable liquids storage, high piled stock, etc. Contact the Fire Safety Division to determine if sprinkler system is adequate for proposed ope:ations. 7. Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District's fire lane standards, as noted: / / X Special provisions would be required for rolled curbs in FIRE LANES. Emergency access, a minimum of 26 feet wide, shall be provided, and maintained free and clear of obstructions at all times, during construction in accordance with Fire District requirements. SC * !C/96 Project No. CUP 95-25 Completion Date 9. A Knox rapid entw key vault shall be installed prior to final inspection. Proof of purchase shall be submitted prior to final building plan approval. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specific details and ordering information. 10. Plan check fees in the amount of $~0 have been paid. An additional $1,290.00 shall be paid: X Prior to final plan approval. Note: Separate plan check fees for fire protection systems (sprinklers, hood systems, alarms, etc.) and/or any consultant reviews will be assessed upon submittal of plans. 11. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1994 UBC, UFC, UPC, UMC, NEC, and RCFD Standards 22 and 15. S. Special Permits 1. Special permits may be required, depending on intended use, as noted below: a. Places of assembly (except churches, schools, and other non-profit organizations). b. Compressed gases (storage, handling or use exceeding 100 cubic feet). APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: -r Security Lighting 1. All parking, common, and storage areas shall have minimum maintained 1-foot candle power. These areas should be lighted from sunset to sunrise and on photo sensored cell. 2. All buildings shall have minimal security lighting to eliminate dark areas around the buildings, with direct lighting to be provided by all entryways. Lighting shall be consistent around the entire development. 3. Lighting in exterior areas shall be in vandal-resistant fixtures. U. Security Hardware 1. One-inch single cylinder dead bolts shall be installed on all entrance doors. If windows are within 40 inches of any locking device, tempered glass or a double cylinder dead bolt shall be used. 2. All roof openings giving access to the building shall be secured with either iron bars, metal gates, or alarmed. Building Numbering 1. Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime visibility. Alarm Systems 1. Install a burglar alarm system and a panic alarm if needed. Instructing management and employees on the operation of the alarm system will reduce the amount of false alarms and in turn save dollars and lives. / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / KEv~x E. Moxsox, EsQ. M.:~RK R. MATTHEWS, ESQ. KEVIN E. MONSON .A. T T 0 R N F.. Y A T [. A W 17330 BROOKHURST STREET, SLqTE 240 FOUNTAIN V&LLEY, C.A. 9_ / 08 TELEPUO.','E (714) 962-9S97 FACSIMILE (7 t4) 968-4039 February 25, !997 DOUGLAS F. ROSE. LD. BY FEDEPoAL EXPRESS AND FAX (909) 477-2847 Mr. Rick Gomez Community Development Director CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Re: OilMax 10 Minute Oil Change Dear Mr. Gomez: I represent OilMax 10 Minute Oil Change with regard to its appeal of a signage permit decision, currently on calendar for the hearing tomorrow (February 26, 1.99~) at 7:00 p.m. Three issues arose with regard to the signage proposed by OilMax: !) OilMax proposed to use red and yellow colors in the signage (instead of just red as in the other approved signs), 2) OilMax proposed signage larger than 50 square feet, and 3) OilMax proposed using the name "OilMax !0 Minute Oil Change" (which Mr. Bullet deemed to be des- criptive) . OilMax is wi!lin9 to comply with the limitations of color and size, i.e., OilMax will limit the si9nage to red lettering and to 50 square feet in size. OilMax requests a reversal of Mr. Buller's denial of OilMax's request to use its name in the signage. The name "OilMax !0 Minute Oil Change" is a legal and registered name of OilMax. The Sign Ordinance states in relevant part, "The name of the ... business shall be the dominant message on the sign." OilMax asks only co be able to use its name on the sign. In the highly competitive oil change industry, it is very important to establish and hold loyal customers who seek and recognize a specific provider of automotive services. The use of OilMax's distinctive name is critical to the success of its business operation. Mr. Rick Gomez February 25, 1997 Page Two This exact issue, under very similar regulations, has arisen in connection with other new OilMax facilities. When this issue was reviewed for the signage at Carmel Moun- tain Ranch (an upscale shopping center in San Diego County), the use of "OilMax 10 Minute Oil Change" was approved. Enclosed is a copy of the letter approving the signage. Please accept this letter as a compromise of the three signage issues by approving the use of "OilMax I0 Minute Oil Change" at the Foothill Marketplace Shopping Center. If you have any questions with regard to this matter, please call me. V~ry truly you~ ~!VIN E-M~ KEM/kkp cc: OilMax !0 Minute Oil Change Carmel Mountain Ranch April 19, 1993 Hal Tucker OilMax 9862 Adams Avenue Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Dear Mr. Tucker: Thank you for your recent submittal of plans and elevations for a proposed OilMax facility at Carmel Mountain Plaza to the Carmel Mountain Ranch Business Community Association Master Ar. chitectura] Committee. The Committee met and reviewed the plans and elevations for the five bay garage on April 2, 1993. The architectural design of the building with its clean lines and cornice treatment wlll 'c~nplement other buildings in the center and blend in well with the overal~ architectural theme of Carmel Mountain Plaza. Plans and elevations are approved as submitted. The signage for OilMax has also been reviewed by the Committee and is approved on the condition that signage is in compliance with the PCD signage. program. (It is the Committee's understanding that all signage will be internally illuminated.) We look forward to review..of final working drawings for Committee approval. Sincerely, CARMEL MOUNTAIN RANCH BUSINESS COMMUNITY' ASSOCIATION MASTER ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE Kathleen Riser Celia Lamendol a cc: Walters Management 15C)gO Avenue of Science. Suite 201. Son Diego, CA 92128 (619) 451-63OO Fax (61c~) 487-7307 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: February 26, 1997 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Steve Hayes, AICP, Associate Planner APPEAL OF SIGN PERMIT FOR UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM NO. 119 - OIL MAX o An appeal of the City Planner's decision regarding signs for Oil Max, an approved project within the Foothill Marketplace Shopping Center, located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard, east of Interstate 15 - APN: 229-031-37. ABSTRACT: Oil Max, an approved automobile service facility within the Foothill Marketplace Shopping Center, is currently under construction immediately south of the existing In-N-Out Burger restaurant. The applicant is seeking approval of wall signs on the southwest and northeast elevations of the building that are not in compliance with the approved Uniform Sign Program for the Foothill Marketplace Shopping Center. The proposed signs exceed the maximum size for wall signs for pad tenants (50 square feet) and the word "Oil" in the wall signs is proposed to be yellow in color. The sign program currently allows only red or white as colors for wall signs for pad tenants. In addition, the applicant is requesting that a secondary sign reading "10 Minute Oil Change" be allowed to be incorporated into the wall signs on the southwest and northeast elevations. The signs on these elevations exceed the 50 square foot maximum because of the request for the secondary information to be incorporated into the wall signs on these elevations. The applicant contends that both the sign color and secondary information are needed because it is part of their registered trade name. Please refer to the applicant's letter (Exhibit "A") for further details. ANALYSIS: Ao Sign Color: The applicant is requesting to have the word "Oil" in yellow letters and the word "Max" (as well as the proposed secondary sign, which will be analyzed later in this report) in red letters, consistent with their corporate color scheme used throughout Southern Califomia. Red is an approved color for pad tenants within the shopping center. However, yellow is not an allowable wall sign color for pad tenants at this time; only red and white are allowed at this time. The applicant has asked staff to consider their total "Oil Max" sign as a logo, because the approved sign program allows for flexibility in color for corporate logos. However, it has been the policy of the Planning Commission and upheld by staff that typically a logo constitutes only a very small portion of the overall sign area. Some businesses (example: In-N-Out Burger) have logos that comprise a very small portion of the overall sign area, typically less that 10 percent. Therefore, staff determined that the entire sign could not constitute a logo and recommended that the whole sign either be red or white (or a combination thereof) consistent with the approved Uniform Sign Program. ITEM F PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SIGN PROGRAM ¢¢119 - OIL MAX February 26, 1997 Page 2 When the Planning Commission first reviewed the sign cdteda for this'shopping center, it was specifically noted th;at continuity in the signage for pad tenants, especially those along Foothill Boulevard, would be essential. Since the developer felt it necessary to allow nationally registered companies to use their own letter and logo style the element to ensure this continuity would be through the letter color. It should be noted that the pad in question is not directly on Foothill Boulevard, where the Planning Commission's concern for continuity was essential. However, given that Oil Max will be immediately adjacent to In-N-Out Burger and highly visible from the Foothill Boulevard off ramp from northbound Interstate 15, staff feels that it will appear as a continuation of the project frontage from areas of public view. Currently, all four of the other pad tenants along Foothill Boulevard have red letters and the pad under construction, Hollywood Video, will have a combination of the two allowable colors. One more retail pad and a service station pad are the only other pad projects that are yet to be developed. By allowing Oil Max the yellow color within their sign, essentially a third color of sign is being introduced for pad tenants. In reviewing other sign programs for similar size shopping centers within the City, such as Terra Vista Town Center and Town Center Square, it is typical that only one or, at most, two pdmary colors (excluding logos) be allowed for pad tenants. To alter from the precedent at this stage of development of the shopping center would be inconsistent with the goals and policies of the Planning Commission. Therefore, staff feels that, in order to ensure consistency in signage for the street (and off ramp) scene, the applicant's request to allow yellow letters for a portion of their wall sign should be denied and the City Planner's decision for denial should be upheld by the Planning Commission. B. Secondary Wall Sign: The Sign Ordinance states that "sign copy shall include minimal information only. The use of subordinate information such as telephone numbers, lists of products, pictures of products, etc. are discouraged. The name of the use or business shall be the dominant message on the sign." In staff's opinion, the "10 Minute Oil Change" secondary wall sign is advertising of a product or service; therefore, the applicant's request was denied. The applicant contends that this is part of their registered trade name and, therefore, should be allowed. The limitation of content for signs is intended to provide consistency and visually attractive and uncluttered signage throughout the community. Examples of other relatively new businesses of similar magnitude which have complied include much larger tenants such as Wal-Mart and Home Depot and businesses such as the new Mobil and Arco service stations along Foothill Boulevard. Typically, the Planning Commission has only allowed secondary business identification signage for significantly larger tenants (Pdce Club, Target) that have a pronounced secondary entrance where specific speciality goods (Garden Centers, Tire Service) or services are offered. In these instances, the Commission noted that these were in fact separate businesses operating under the same roof but having their own entrances. The business under consideration does not offer any type of secondary products or services similar to situations noted above. Approval of the applicant's requested secondary sign copy would, in staffs opinion, be inconsistent with the Sign Ordinance and with situations where certain cdteria warranted secondary signage. Further, staff finds no unique circumstances with this situation that would warrant the applicant's request for secondary signage. Staff believes that the three wall signs reading "Oil Max," the business' high visibility from the freeway off ramp, and other PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SIGN PROGRAM #119- OIL MAX February 26, 1997 Page 3 identification tools allowed under the Sign Program (i.e. existing Freeway pylon sign and the existing Foothill Boulevard monument signs) provide ample business identification. It should be noted that by upholding the City Planner's decision on this issue, the issue of overall sign area will disappear with the elimination of this portion of the sign copy. Staff believes that approval of the appeal would set a precedent and lead to similar requests by other businesses. The Planning Commission has consistently interpreted the Sign Ordinance to prohibit the use of advertising slogans in sign copy. On February 12, 1997, the Planning Commission denied a similar appeal by Orchard Supply Hardware to have a secondary sign which reads "Complete Hardware and Garden." In their decision, the Commission noted that most retail chains have a slogan for advertising as shown in the attached examples (see Exhibit "D"). As shown in these examples, the advertising slogan often overpowers :he business name and becomes the dominant message. "Ralphs" is the business name which should be identified by a sign, not "Ralphs,. First in Savings." RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission uphold, by minute action, the City Planner's decision regarding proposed signage for Oil Max and deny the appeal. Respectf..~.~su bmitted, Brad"Buller City Planner BB:SH/mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" Exhibit "B" Exhibit "C" - Exhibit "D" - Appeal Request Letter Sign Elevations Site Plan Examples of Secondary Advertising CITY O~-~ RANCHO i]UCAMUNGA DESIGN REVIEW STAFF, THANK YOU FOR YOUR RECENT REVIEW AND COMENTS ON THE 12589 i=00'T'HILL BLVC~. OILMAX 10 MIN. OIL CHANGE BUILDING PROJECT, HOWE'.2EP I;]Y CLIENT AND WOODS SIGN & LIGHTING ( AGENT ) FEEL THAT AN AP?Ii~AL. OF YOUR DECISION TO THE PLANNING COMMISION IS IN OUR BEST L~NT[-iRbSST TO ALLOW US TO USE OUR. REGISTERED TRADE NAME .~ AND D,B.A. ON OiSR NE!,~ BUiLD!N(3. THANKS TO THE STAFF &. STEVE HAYES FOR YOUR TIME AND ASS ISTANCE LOREN WOODS OWNER ) WOODS SIGN & LIGHTING. OiiMax 10-Minute Oil Change SIGN (~)"OIL MAX". 1 (ONE) REQ SIGN (~) "011_ ivlAX 10-MINU rE OIL Ct lANGE", 2(fWO) EEQ INDIVIDUAL CHANNEL LETTEES, ~NrE~.~OF. ~t LUMINATED "OIL MAX": FACES TO ~E ~)J,~g.# 2¢ H,, FLEX W/~/4" KEfUKN5 10 ~g ~ ~NAMEL FINISH. ILLUMINAFION TO DE ~ NEON TUDING. "10-MINUTE OIL CIIANGE": FACE& 10 DE ~ ~ Z?~FLEX W/b/4" KErURN~ TO DE ~ENAMEL FINISH. ILLUMINAIION rO ~E ~, NEON TU~ING. Scale: CttANNEL LEYrER DETAIL and INSTALLATION DETAIL ~t'1)I)!).~ g!t';~ & 1_i61 fl I,~t) CI). l'roject l.'or.' OilMax (71 4) 841-7454 /.o,.,,~i,,,,.. 125,~'9 I.',)ulhill lih,d. I?miHu, (',,n,,mm,~,,,, CA 9152 Madeline Drive l)tttC.' 4Jnn97 IhmtingtonBeach, CA 92647 );hr 21'-5" . ......... OiiMax 10-Minute Oil Change NORTH-EAST ELEVATION Scale: 1/8"=1'-0" i..16111-1~I~ !1-7454 rive h, CA 92647 Project For.' OilMax Location.' 12589 Foothill Blwl. Rancho CLtcanlonga, CA Date: 300ct96 Design No.' ............... ,-,,.~, ,r,,::n r:~THI::I~ I~ WHOLE OR P~,,,~ WITHOUT WRI'F~'EN CONSENTFROM WOODS SIGN AND LIGHTING. 43'-0" 9'-2" 2'-5" OiiMax 73'-9" 33'-0" 21'-5" 10-Minute Oil Change SOUTH-WEST ELEVATION Scale: 1/8"=1'-0" II-]flINl} CI). 7454 92647 Project For.' OiiMax .Locatiore' 12589 Foothill Blwl. Ra~cho Cttcamottga, CA l)ctte.' 300ct96 l)e.¥ig~ Nt)..' ItOPEIITY OF WOODS SIGN AND LIGttTING SERVICE AND CANNOT BE REPRODUCED EITHER IN WtlOLE OR PART WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENTFROM WOODS SIGN AND LIGHTING. 21'-0" EQ 9'-2" EQ OiiMax [[ I m 1__1 I I -----F--]] SOUTH-EAST & NORTH-WEST ELEVATIONS ~11}~ & !_lft-lllNt~ CI). Project For.' OilMax :) 841-7454 Location: 12589 Foothill Blvd. Rancho Cucamonga, CA ~deline Drive Date: 4Jan97 Design No..' :ton Beach, CA 92647 ~]HE EXCLUSIVE PROPER"-" OF WOODS SIGN AND LIGHTING SERVICE AND CANNOT BE REPRODUCED EITHER IN WHOLE OR PART WITHOUT WRITrEN CONSENTFROM WOODS SIGN AND LIGHTING. I l 124.77' SIGN (~ ~-. LOCATION '~/ BLDG SIGN (~ ; LOCATION ; " --SIGN (~) ~.- LOCATION -, ~ ~o¢~vv ~ SITE PLAN Scale: NrS I~/t)l)1)~ .~!I}N & I_I~1111N~ Ct~.Project For: OilMax (714) 841-7454 Location: 12589 Foothill Blvd. Rancho Cucamonga, CA 9152 Madeline Drive Date.' 4Jan97 Design No..' Huntin§ton Beach, CA 92647 QTHIS DESIGN IS THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF WOODS SIGN AND LIGHTING SERVICE AND CANNOT BE REPRODUCED EITHER IN WHOLE OR PART WITHOUT WRIttEN CONSENTFROM WOODS SIGN AND LIGHTING. AMERICA'S BEST HOME IMPROVEMENT WAREHOUSE' HERITAGE AND REDHILL PARK INFORMATION IF YOU I-LAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR CO: i: fE. rTS, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CALL RICK GOMTZ, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, AT (909) 477-2700 EXT. 2298 AT ANY TIME. PD-85 District Formed: July 1, 1985 Purpose: To Build and Maintain Red Hill and Heritage Park Area of PD-85 Coverage 16,666 acres 24,853 parcels · ' I i /'"'1 ................................................. .,; ......................I /' .,. ..................'_~ ..:.-'.,:.~.:~ ........I/~,_,~ ~, · ' I ' \ ........................: ...........: .......~....1., ....I.__ [;~': ..........................a .~0.~,, \ [ , . .' i i · :.: ............: i.:_.} .............7 ....-...~, !!~!?.,..~._~:? .....~ [ x:,:k.,.,....... ......................~_..::..._'..'::_7/ ., ...........! ..... ..... .,~.,,., \ ' '' / I ......., ........ f . ~,~,.,~ ~ i I ~ \ ! .......i"': .......' ..... .............. ~ ................~ .......~ , . .......... ' ' ' ' .....'ili I ; ~ · . ~ .~ ~..:.' ,. , ~,. b, ~' . ., ~ ..o.. . : .... :,~.~.:, .! ........~.-d.... i.~ ..... .',' ,, ~ ~..., .~, .,,;...,. ..... .... ~ ~ '.i ~ '::'~' ~ ........':~'" N.~ '/;, ~ .~"'~t"" "' '"'~' ,.;,,J, .,i~ I:,~l~~ / ..:.}.~.+ .....L,.~..,.=..~..j.. . ' I ' . L._~', ' ·:'j '~'":": " :.'~ '~ ~: "= i. "= ..... CONTINUED FUND1NG FOR RED HILL AND HERITAGE PARKS TO ]BE VOTED UPON On November 5,,,1996, the California voters passed Proposition 218 - also referred to as "The Right To Vote Initiative. Proposition 218, among other things, amends the California Constitution by revamping the way Assessment Districts are administered. The proposition requires a ballot vote of the affected property owners to ratify certain Districts for any future increases in assessments. Park District 85, referred to as PD-85, includes Red Hill and Heritage Parks, which have pro- vided exceptional recreational space for the community's families. Both Red Hill and Heritage Parks were desig-ned and developed titrough local, resident Task Forces. PD-85 was formed July 1, 1985 by City Council action for the purpose of funding construction and maintenance and operation costs of Red Hill Park's 44 acres and Heritage Park's 40 acres. PD-85 is self-support- ing in that all of the funds collected are used to retire the bonds used to construct the parks and for all annual operational expenses at these parks. The facilities provided at Red Hill Park include: 2 baseball fields, 2 softball fields, 2 soccer fields, an amphitheater, a lake, tot-lots, walk- ing paths, picnic areas, horseshoe pits, restrooms, a par course, and snack bars. Heritage Park includes: 3 baseball fields, 2 overlay soccer fields, equestrian facilities, an arena, walking paths, a par course, tot-lots, bas- ketball courts, restrooms, picnic areas, and snack bars. Since 1993, there have been no increases in assessments for PD-85. Proposition 218 now requires the existing property owners to ratify the existing rates through an election prior to July 1, 1997. The vote to ratify the existing maintenance por- tion of $31.00 of the total assessment amount of $52.00 per year per single family residence, will be before property own- ers in the Spring of 1997. Property owners will be receiving a ballot in the mail with a detailed explanation of the ballot, the dollar amounts involved, and the date to return the ballot. This vote by property owners will determine if the annual operational funds can still be collected through the District to maintain these parks. The ballots will then be tabulated at a public hearing conducted by the City Council. If you are interested in any additional information regarding Proposition 218 or the upcoming property owner vote, please call Rick Gomez, Community Development Director or Joe O'Neil City Engineer at 477-2700, extensions 2298 and 2301 respectively. ATTACHMENT SUMMARY INFOR XLATION FOR PD-$5 DisTrict formed in Jul.,,' I. 1985 by CiV Coronal Action District fluads construcrio, ofR~ ~ (4¢4 acres) =_rid H~m-itage Park (40 acres) and its a.n.nual maintenance and operations costs. Park Amen/ties; · Red Hill Park: 2 baseball fields, 2 so~i~a/l fields. 2 'soccer fietds, arnph./thearer, lake, rot-lots wg~ng patiu, par course, picn/c areas. horseshoe pits, restrooms, snackbars. Heritage Park: 3 baseball fields, 2 overlay soccer fietds, equestrian hciliries, w-~-xg palM, ?,- course, toMors, basketball courts, restroom. s, pic~c areas, snackbars. Geographic area of PD-85 Coverage: · 16,666 acres · 24,853 parcels Current Assessmen~ Rares: · Single Family: · Muln-r a~nmly. · Cornwflndus:: · "v'acanr Lmnd: 552.00 p~ year 552.00 per year per up. Jr Formula: varies by size of =arce! Formula: varies by size o£parcel 552.00 .Assessmen: Kate Di,,-ision: · S 21.00 Debt Se~-ice (Bonds) · S31.00M&OCost Total Aza.nua2 Revenues Generated by PD-85:51.68 n_;ilion · 5 677,000 Debt Se~-ice · S 1,006,370 M & O A.~?roxima,'e Revenue Distribution By Gen~a.:ion Source: · Shngle Family: 5 476,763 DeN Ser,'ice/ 5 703.793 M & 0 · ,Mut~i-Fam.ily: 5 122, ! 99 Debt 5er,-ice/5 180,389 .M & O · Comn~'Indusr: S 80,860 Debt Se.,',H.c~ S t I9,366 M & 0 Current es'fimared cost to imnlement voter ele~ion for PD-85:550,000-75,000 ATTACH,MENT Late ARemotive RED HILL & HERITAGE PARK PROPERTY' OWNER ELECTIONS PROCESS ACTIONS TO RATIFY PD-85 Iml~tement~fion Actions 1. CiD' Council direms Ci~ Aaorney and City' Ma.nager to develop formal ballot language based on Council Direction. 2. CiD' Council adopts resolution to tal<e the £ollow'Lqg actions: · Approving Engi.neer's Report and designating Civ Engineer as En_~.n~r of' Work. · Calling for a propen5' owner election for PD-g5 and directing the City' Clerk to proc~d with al.l measures to implement The measure. · Approves 'the ballot language, form of ballot, and all ballot materials. · Sets the date for the 1972 .Act PubLic Hezr'ing and Proposition 218 Hearing. 3. Last day for CiD' Clerk to sub,n-~it ballot materials to Elections Consultant for prSn~ing a.nd mailing prepa.ra~ion. 4. Elections Consultant delivers bldlots to 7o~ O~ce for maiJ~ng. 5. Last day' for CiD' Clerk To submit 10-day Public He..~-ing Notice. 6. CiD· Council conducts 1972 Act Public Hearing. 8. CiD' Council conduc'~s Public Hearing to Canvas Votes. 9. CiD' Council adopts resolution ce,~if,,-ing the fina! vo~e. 10. City. Council adoa~s resolution authorizing ,:he assessment b' aDdroved. Wed- Dec. 11, 1996 Wed-April 2, 1997 'Fnurs-Aaril 17. !997 Thurs-May S, 1997 Wed-June l l, 1997 T'nurs-June 26, 1997 Thurs-June 26, t997 Thurs-June 25, !997 Thurs-June 26, [997