No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997/03/11 - Agenda Packet - Adj (Workshop)CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY MARCH 11, 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 Vice Chairman McNiel Commissioner Bethel __ Commissioner Macias __ Commissioner Tolstoy II.ANNOUNCEMENTS III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 12, 1997 February 26, 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. A. 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. Related file: Pre-Application Review 95-04. (Continued from February 26, 1997) Co Do F° DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT g6-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the satellite dish antenna regulations in all zones to be consistent with Federal Communications Commission recent regulations. (Continued from February 12, 1997) INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 96-04 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the satellite dish antenna regulations in all zones to be consistent with Federal Communications Commission recent regulations. (Continued from February 12, 1997) SUBAREA 18 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 96-0! - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the satellite dish antenna regulations to be consistent with Federal Communications Commission recent regulations. (Continued from February 12, 1997) INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 97-01 - MILLER FAMILY AND ASSOCIATES. INC. - A request to add Funeral and Crematory Services as a conditionally permitted use in Subarea 8 (General Industrial) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 97-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to change the zoning from Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) to General Commercial to be consistent with the General Plan for approximately 4.34 acres of land on the east side of Archibald Avenue, south of Arrow Route -APN: 209-041-27, 41, and 47. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 97-01 - TEXACO - A request to amend the Sign Ordinance by adding regulations to allow the identification of sub-tenants within service stations. V. OLD BUSINESS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-24 - MASI - A review of the car wash facility for the Mobil gas station within Masi Plaza, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Masi Drive - APN: 229-011-36. Page 2 Vl. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS REQUEST TO INITIATE AN AMENDMENT TO THE SIGN ORDINANCE WITHIN THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD AUTO CENTERS AS A CLASS OF SIGNS WITHIN SECTIONS 14.20.100 SIGNS - COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE ZONES AND SECTION 14.20.110 SIGNS - INDUSTRIAL ZONES. VII. PUBLIC COMMENTS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Commission. Items to be discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda. VIII. COMMISSION BUSINESS J. DESIGN AWARDS NOMINATIONS K. SIGNS/MULTI-FAMILY TASK FORCE UPDATE (Oral report) L. FOOTHILL BOULEVARD/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TASK FORCE UPDATE (Oral report) IX. 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. 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 March 6, 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~:~i.:.!.i~i3;:!:i:!~i.i.i.i......~~.~:.:.:.:~!.:.:.i.i.i.i~i.f.i.i.i:i:i:i:i:i~f.i.!.i~.~...~~...!..."..".-~~....i:i:!:!:!3i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i.i~!.!.i.i.................v.v~.~......:.3i:i:i.!.i.!.v.v.v~i.....~...~...: I:::::: :.:.: :.:-:-:.:.:.:.:::::::::::: :.:.Z.:.:.:.:.:-:-:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. ::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::: :':':':':':':'e I .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:............:.:.:.:.:...:.:.:.:.:.........-...-.-..................:.:.:.:.:.: ......:.:.:.:.:.:.-..:.:.:.:............:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: ....:..:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.........-..........:-:-:-:.:.:.:.: ....:.:.:.:.... .-....., . Ii I 'i' 'i'i i i' '--~--' 'i'I i i,,,, i I I i .. ........ : ...... :.'.'.'.'.-...'.............-.-.... .........:.:.:.: .....'.'.'.-......-:'~ .... · I · .:.:...:.:.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.':':.:.:.:.:.:..Z..:.~.-:.:.'.:.:..:.:...:.:.:.:.'...........C.'-:-:-'-'/,..:.. · ! _,,~=,~ ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::...;;.:.: I c.,,,,~ . .....:-:.:.:.'.-.'.-.'.'.'.'........ ......:':'__:':'"L~:':' ':':':''""'"""'"'"'"'"'"I ..... _ ~ · ...........:.:.:.-.-.........-.......-~.,,,~........~.:.......-.....-.....-.. · .... I .... :.'.'.'.'.'.'.':':':':':':-:.:.:.' '. .-.......-..;-:.:.:.:-:-:-:.:.:.:.1 ... 4 I:' .:.:.:.:-:.'.:.'.'.'.'.'.-:':':':'L--. I':':':-:':""-':': I'.:.:.:.. ~ W~ I:: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::..'.'! ".'.';-.~:':'~ ' :- ~ ~ ~ ~: ~' 1" ' = A,T.A S.F. AR CITY HALL CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- STAFF RF, PORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: March 11, 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. (Continued from February 26, 1997). BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the above-referenced project at its meeting on February 26, 1997. Because of the significant number of recommended Conditions of Approval and the overall lack of information on certain issues, the Planning Commission continued this item until March 11, 1997, for the purpose of having staff prepare a Resolution of Denial. Both the original Resolution of Approval and the new Resolution of Denial have been attached to this staff report. Staff has met with the applicant on two separate occasions since the last Planning Commission meeting to identify those issues which are being conditioned that normally would have been addressed prior to a request for Phase One approval. The applicant has indicated an interest in preparing a draft set of Design Guidelines for his project as soon as possible. Staff will present at the meeting any updated information from our meetings with the applicant. The applicant has stated his desire to work with the Commission and staff and address any unresolved issues. If the Planning Commission denies the current application, no application for a Conditional Use Permit for the same or substantially the same use on the same or substantially the same site shall be filed within one year per Development Code Section 17.04.030.H. RECOMMENDATION: At the direction of the Planning Commission a Resolution of Denial has been prepared for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, City Planner Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Planning Commission Staff Report dated February 26, 1997 Resolution of Approval with Conditions Resolution of Denial ITEM A DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT 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 Zoning: 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) eo General Plan Designations: 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. Parking Calculations: Square Type of Use Footage PHASE ONE Drive-thru Facility 2,900 Restaurant 5,548 Outdoor Eating Area 2,000 Proposed & Existing Pad Buildings 11,0;30 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 44 158 230 MASTER PLAN TOTAL 74,478 1/200 372 414 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: Ao 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 Co 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: 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. o 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. Attachments: Exhibit"A" - Site Utilization Exhibit "B" - Phase One Site Plan Exhibit "B-2" - Master Plan Exhibit"C" - Phasing Plan Exhibit "D" - Conceptual Landscape Plan Exhibit "E" Conceptual Grading Plan Exhibit "F" Building Elevations (Burger King) Exhibit "F-I" - Roof Screen Alternatives Exhibit "F-2" - Burger King Roof Plan Exhibit "F-3" - Burger King Roof Equipment Plans dated Feb. 4, 18, & 20, 1997, thru "F-5" consecutively Exhibit "G" Building Elevations (Restaurant) Exhibit "H" Design Review Committee Comments Exhibit "1" Initial Study, Part II Exhibit "J" Pre-Application Review 93-04 Minutes Exhibit "K" Pre-Application Review 95~04 Minutes Exhibit "L" Project Chronology Exhibit "M" Photographs of Site Resolution of Approval with Conditions ~(~ ~, ZA Tl ON NAP CC = COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL ~C $ P £C1.~ I.'rY COSI.M ERCL~ L ~ MII R- ,M EDII.:31-IIIGII R£$1D£NTL4, L COMM£RCIAL M~ 51EDIL'.M RESIDENTL~.L $-14 ~=n'~,.,c p p o~orr,c~ O0 FUTURE BUILDINGS fROPOSED BL ILDINGS VACANT LAND I Z z ~ > i, ~,, [ ._J 0 0 L Z - - % ?/ CONCEPTUAL M~s'/'~r ~ I[] SITE PLAN CONCEPTUAl I ANDSCAPF P ~ NOT l,.i ~Cx~Y ~)ATA Cfl'Y O~: RANCHO CUCAMONGA CONCEFTUAL GClADe~ F'I_AN I I z o z 0 DINING DRIVE I~'D~ THRU WI ~ ROOF EQUIPMENT PLAN [I 12'-0' 2g'-O' 0'-0'. x -' DINING 'WINDOW RECEIVED FEB £ 0 19,97 City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 5:00 p.m. Steve Hayes May 14, 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'mad Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-211-12 and 13. (Continued from May 1, 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 with a gradual slope from north to south. The intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue is designated by the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan CFBSP) as an activity 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 submitted 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 facility 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 deficiencies along both Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue. The Variance application was originally 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 following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: 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 to 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 avoid locating driveways and service areas which interfere with 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 activity center block. Not only is the access to Burger King oriented away from Foothill Boulevard, but the wall necessary to screen the drive-thru lane inhibits pedestrian access across the frontage to specific points. 9 The Klusman House is designated as a Local Landmark. The exterior of the house has been improved over the past few years and man>' 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 west of the building has been maintained open to the drive aisle 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 Boulevard than the existing house. The combination of the wall and the building location obscures visibility of the historic structure. The site should be redesigned to open up visibility of the Klusman House. DRC COMMENTS CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ 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 landscaping, and trellis work. While the applicant is proposing walls and a trellis, the drive-thru stacking area is located parallel to the street, resulting in the highest visibility. The drive-thru lane is also located adjacent to the activity center which is designed with hardscape and formal tree planting - little opportunity 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. While 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-thru policy requires the drive-thru lane to be setback 45 feet from the face of curb. As proposed, the drive-thru lane is only 20 feet from the Foothill 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 permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: The architecture proposed varies between the drive-thru facility and the restaurant. The drive-thru facility is designed with stucco walls, large roof overhangs with exposed rafter tails, vertical wood siding on the roof screen parapet, and a brown, flat 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. While, 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 flat 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 beyond the Klusman House. Logically, the activity center treatment would stop at the Foothill Boulevard drive approach. To accentuate the Klusman House, the formal landscape/hardscape treatment of the activity' center should extend from the public sidewalk to the house ento'. Pedestrian amenities (benches, a fountain, etc.) can be incorporated into the hardscape area. Policv 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 listed above. The plans should be resubmitted for additional Committee review. Attachment: Pre-Application Workshop Minutes dated October 25, 1995 Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Heinz Lumpp, Larry Henderson Staff Plarmer: Steve Hayes The Committee directed the applicant to work with staff to revise the Site Plan to address the follow'ing concerns: 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 were 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 Committee. The Committee agreed to hear this item again at the next regular Design Review Committee meeting if the applicant desired, however, the preference of the Committee was for the applicant to work with staff to address the Committee's concerns prior to further review of the Committee. 5:40 p.m. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS Steve Hayes September 3, 1996 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERaM-IT 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ - A request to construct a 2,900 square foot driv'e-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 last reviewed the project on May 14, 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 be relocated to another area on the property away from the pedestrian Activity Center area. Comments from the May 14th Design Review Committee meeting as well as the October 25, 1995 Planning Commission Pre-Application Review meeting have been attached for your convenience. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: 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, Mthout the pedestrian pathway that leads to the future Master Planned shopping center. The applicant has made these revisions in an attempt to address previous concerns of the Planning Commission and Design Review Commirtee 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 with 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 will 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 viewstied 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 King, 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, with 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 City Planner and City Engineer. The Committee should consider if the contrasting types 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. Policv 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 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 ~,~5~;1 DRC AGENDA CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ September 3, 1996 Page 3 Design Review Committee Action' Members Present: Pdch Macias, Larry McNiel, Brad Buller 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 between 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. 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 if a drive-thru restaurant is to be located within th/s 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 s~vapped the Burger King and Zendejas pads subject to suitable site plan analysis. The Committee requested site plan alternatives for their review. .... DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 5:15 p.m. Steve Hayes December 3, 1996 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND 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 FootNil 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 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 property a~vay 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 Committee. 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 Conunittee. Staff Comments: The following 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: 1. Master 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 par'king is being provided for Phase II at ultimate build out. The distribution of par 'k/ng 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 serve 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 ent~. The new Site Plan layout sho~vs two smaller buildings flanking a circular hardscape and activity 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 known 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 reality 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 ~Sth past recommendations of the Design Review Committee and Planning Commission. However, staff is concerned that the right mm into the drive-thru lane from the Vineyard Avenue entrance is too tight and the stac 'king area in the lane is limited such that the flow of traffic may be impeded entering the shopping center. An alternative drive- thru lane layout should be considered by the Commitlee. Adaptive reuse of existing historic buildings for quick service restaurants has been successful in many communities across the country. 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 service 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 herming in addition to the elements already provided. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitling, 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 City Planner and City Engineer. 2. Additional areas of special paving should be provided throughout the project. To accentuate the Klusman House, the formal landscape/hardscape treatment used for the Activih, Center should extend from the public sidewalk to the house entry. 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 o Significant screening of the site should be provided along the southern property line to screen the proposed par'k/ng 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. Policv 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. 2. 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 Committee review. Design Revie~v Committee Action: Members Present: Also Present: Staff Planner: Larry McNiel, 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 full item, along with the building elevations and revised Grading and Landscape Planq 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 CID'. The pedestrian connection from the Activif-y 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 throughout 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. Go 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. 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 strategically 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 nortk/south drive aisles 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 Secondary 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 will 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 with 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 of tonight'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 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 will 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 will 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 Design Review 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 Tenants. As a result of this modification, a landscape planter should be provided at the very southeast comer of this phase of the pr~2~ec~w~t of the "Not-a-Part" parcel. DRC COMMENTS CUP 95-25 - RODR/GUEZ 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 parking 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 entry). 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 and the east elevation of the Zendejas restaurant to break up flat stucco walls. Secondarv and Policv 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. o 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 Committee recommend approval of the project with any unaddressed issues be incorporated as Conditions of Approval for the project. Desi~on 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. ao 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 noah/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 parlong 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. Go 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 Zendejas. a. The Committee recommended further discussion on mixing or maintaining a variety of architectural 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~vIENTS 6:10 p.m. Steve Hayes January 14, 1997 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. 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 configuration of the building and outdoor eating areas on Vineyard Avenue. The item was continued to their next meeting on February 4, 1997 contingent upon submittal of complete sets of revised plans by January 23. DESIGN REVLEW CON'k-MENTS 8:30 p.m. Steve Hayes February 4, 1997 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AN'D CONDITIONAL USE PERa¥IIT 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 comer 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. 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 started, the Committee did not have time to review the plans 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 fi-om the two most recent Design Review Committee meetings has been adequately followed by the applicant. Specific issues are as follows: Signage for the Burger King has been reduced in size to be consistent with the new Jack in the Box at Foothill 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 of 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 Review Committee recommend approval of the project to the Planning Commission with Conditions. DRC AGENDA CUP 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 Desi=m~ 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 previously 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 February 18, 1997 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL 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 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 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 Buller 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 February 18, 1997 Page 2 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 was 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 ½ 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 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 91786 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. o Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 o Contact Person and Phone Number: Steve Hayes (909) 477-2750 10. 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. 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 Information Sources: LAND a) b) c) d) Potentially Sign~ant Impact Less PotentiallyUnless Than SignificantMitigation SignificantNo Imoact IncorooratedImpact Im0act 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) o Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Sign~cant Impact Less PotentiallyUnless Than SignificantMitigation SignificantNo Impact Inceq~oraleclImpact Imoact c) POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( ) ( ) () (X) Initial Study for CUP 95-25 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 4 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving.' a) b) c) d) e) 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 Impact Potentially Significant Impact Lass Unless Than Mitigation Significant IncorporatedImpact 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 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 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 "surficial 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. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: WATER. a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) i) Potenbally Significant Impact Less PotentiallyUnless Than SignScant Mitigation Signd~cant No tml~act IncorooratedIml~act Impacl Will the proposal result in: Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) 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 Q10o=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. o Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Sign hr~'.,an t Impact Less Potential{yUnless Than SignifcantMitigation SignificantNo Impact IncorooratedImpact Irnoact AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? () () (x) () b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? () () (x) () c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? () () (x) () d) 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 shod 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 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: 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? ( ) Potenbatly Significant Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Unlass Than Mitigation Significant IncorporatedImpact () (x) () No Impact () () (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 short 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. Issues and Supposing Information Sources: 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.)? Potentially Significant Impact Less PotentiallyUnless Than SignificantM~tigation Signify. antNo Imoact IncorporatedImpact Impact () () () (x) () () () (x) Initial Study for CUP 95-25 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 8 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Impact Lass Unless Than Mitigation Significant IncorporatedImpact No Impact () () () (x) () () () (x) () () () (x) issues and Suppocting Information Sources: ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. proposal: a) b) c) Would the Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? 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? Polentially Significant Impact Potentially SignScent Impact Less Unless Than Mitigat~o~ Significant IncorporatedImpact No Impact () () () (x) () () () (x) () () () (x) Issues and Suppotl~ng 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 Significant Impact Potentially S~gnif~.,ant Impact Less Unless Than Mitigation S~gnificant IncorporatedImpact No Impact () () () (x) () () () (x) () () () (x) () () () (x) Initial Study for CUP 95-25 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 9 Issues and $upportir~ Information Sources: e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? Potentially Sigmficant Impact Potentially Signn~cant Impact Less Unless Than M~t~gation Signr~cant Incc~orated Impact No () () () (x) 10. Issues and Supporting Information Sources; NOISE. Will the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Unless Than Mitigation Sigmficant IncorporatedImpact No Impact () (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 Ld,, 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. Issues and SuppoMing Information Sources: 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? ( ) Potentially Significant Imoact City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 10 Potentially Significant Impact Less Unless Than Mitigation Significant IncorporatedImoact No Impact () () (x) () () (x) () () (x) () () (x) () () (x) 12. Issues and Supporting Infomlatlo¢l 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) f) 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 Significant Impact Potentialty Significant Impact Less Unless Than Mitigation Significant IncorporatedImoact No Impact () () () (x) () () () (x) () () () (x) () () () (x) () () () (x) () () () (x) () () () (x) 13. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: AESTHETICS. Would the proposal.' a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? Potentially Significant Impact () Potenhally Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Inco~orated () Less Than S~nificant Impact () No tmoact (x) Initial Study for CUP 95-25 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? c) Create light or glare? Comments: City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 11 Potentially Significant Impact Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Imoact () () () (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. Issues and Supporting Infonmation Sources: CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) b) c) d) e) Disturb paleontological resources? Disturb archaeological resources? Affect historical or cultural resources? Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? Comments: Poter~tiaily S.~nificent Impact Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Sig nif*v'_..an t NO Impact Incorporated Impact Imoact () () () (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 15. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? Sigmficant City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 12 Potentially Significant Impact Less Unless Than Mitigation Significant Incomorated impact No Iml~act () () () (x) () () () (x) 16. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potenlially Significant Impact b) c) d) MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ( ) 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.) ( ) 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.) . ( ) Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ( ) Potentially Significant Impact Less Unless Than Mitigalion Significant Incc~r'poratedImpact No Impact () () (x) () () (x) () (x) () () () (x) U. $.PROPERTIES ~14985~950 P. ~1 SENT BY: R CUCAMONGA COM DEV~ 2-19-97 3;30PM; ~0i~ 477 2847 => 7149850950; #14/14 Initial Study for CUP 95-25 City of Rancho Cucamonga Co, .'t~rpenta: c) The prOJeot will generate b'affic, vehicle emissions, noise and Ilght. These effects were analyzed by the Ci(y'$ General Fian EIR and Foothill Boulevard Specific Pian EIR and were found to be not signifJoent or were found to be significant but irreversible and a atatement of overriding consideration was adopted. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EiR, or other CEQ,~ 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 irl the following eadJer document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Tlle following eadier analylle$ were utilized in completing this II~itial Study and are avallab!e for review in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply): (x) General Plan E1R (Certified April 6, 1981 ) (X) Master Environmental Assessment for the 198g General Plan Update ($CH tlt88020115, cadiliad January 4, 1989) iX) Foothill Boulevard S~oecific Plan EIR (SCH #87021615, certified Se13tember 16. 1987) APPLICANT CERTIFICATION I cert;fy that I am the applicant for the project described in this initial Study. I acknowledge that I have read this Irtitial Study and the proposed mitigation measures. Further, I have revised the pmjecl plans or proposals and/or hereby agree to the proposed mitigation measures to avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a poinl where clearly no significant environmental effects would 04:cur. j-- -- · ~,'~.' ,. .. .: 40' 0 40' Scale: 1" = 40' 0 o .71 m ::13 rrl ITI F:NCI.O.~UI(I.: 3 TRI':NCII I~OCA'I'ION MAP P.)jccl No. ~?)].1 I clLc m~l ~ 'l',cnch a,M su~vc)'cd lads I*,ccommcr.lcd l(,.'~;t r icl,.'d [lOlllid;if)' (icolol.;y by I:l'J I ),;Ll'tcd by I"ch~u;u'y 19. 1997 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting April 14, 1993 Chairman McNiel 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 Melcher, Peter Tolstoy, Wendy Vallette ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Larry Henderson, Principal Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Beverly Nissen, 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 - kPN: 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 Boulevard. 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 points regarding the site plan to the Commissioners, who then made their comments. Commissioner Melcher 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. Coramissioner Vallette 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. Me 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. Commissioner Chitiea 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 indicating 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. Mr. Rodriguez was informed that he could proceed with the utilization of the Klusman House as an office building by processing a Minor Development Review. The Commission concluded that the concerns noted and the technical issues mentioned by staff need to be addressed. P C Workshop Minutes -2- April 14, 1993 ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Secretary P C Workshop Minutes -3- April 14, 1993 CITY OF ~ANCHO CUC~MONGA PLANNING CO~M!SSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting October 25, 1995 Chairman Barker called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cuc~onga Planning Commission to order at 6:05 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains Room at the Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga California. Chairman Barker then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: STAFF PRESENT: PRESENT: David Barker, Heinz Lumpp, Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: None Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no announcements. NEW BUSINESS A. PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW 95-04 - RODRIGUEZ - Review of a proposed fast food restaurant (with drive-thru) and restaurant pad in the Community Commercial designation (Subarea 2) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at 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, presented the staff issues and concerns"which included the following: 1. Consistency with the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan a. Building setback b. Parking setback 2. Master Plan requirements 3. The Planning Commission drive-thru policy a. Drive-thru lane setback b. Distance from intersection of the drive-thru lane d. Potential revisions to the policy contemplated by the Planning Commission subcommittee reviewing the policy. 4. Relationship to the Ktusman House Vice-Chairman McNiel asked what was anticipated for the future pad identified as "multi-use." Mr. Rodriguez stated that the anchor tenant for the center will decide if a building will be permitted at all. He said that if no building is allowed, the pad would be used for special seasonal events such as pumpkin patches, Christmas tree lots, etc. Commissioner 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 Foothill entry. Commissioner McNiel liked the location of Zendejas restaurant and the future pad. Commissioner Melcher stated that no Master Plan is available at this time and the Master Plan should be the first item complete~ 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 120 degrees that would be necessary to pull into the parking stalls. Commissioner Lumpp indicated that 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 K!usman 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 K!usman House. He noted some elements of the Burger King drive-thru design are consistent with the direction being taken by the Planning Commission Subcommittee studying the drive-thru policy; however, he reiterated his desire to see Burger King relocated to the Vineyard frontage. Commissioner Tolstoy commented that the site design approved for the Christmas House on Archibald Avenue results in a very hemmed 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 act£vity 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 alternative. He thought the angled parking arrangement provided by the applicant is not workable. PC Adjourned Minutes -2- ~--~ O.~obe~ 25, 1995 Chairman Barker indicated his appreciation of the major entry at the activity center and the link into the site. He had not given much thought to relocating Burger King to Vineyard Avenue but felt ~hat Burger King might be interested. He suggested the Planning Commission should look at the 19-foot setback proposed for Vineyard Avenue and provide direction to the applicant. He liked the architecture proposed by the applicant. Chairman Barker stated that the Burger 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 apar% rather than trying to blend them together. Chairman Barker asked the Commissioners to address the setback deficiency questions. Commissioner Melcher stated that when working with a large parcel such as this, there is no reason to sacrifice the minimum standards. He observed that streets are being widened by developers throughout the City and in some cases, greater dedications and improvements are required than will 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. Commissioner Lumpp agreed with Commissioner Melcher. He felt sufficient land is available to accommodate the design. Commissioner Tolstoy asked what would happen if Burger King was shifted southerly. Commissioner Lumpp felt that Burger King should not be located adjacent to the Klusman House. Commissioner McNiel stated that the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan requires a 45-foot building setback everywhere except the activity centers where the setback is reduced to 25 feet. He thought the applicant needs to adhere to, that criteria. He observed that if the Planning ComMission approves a variance for a reduced setback, it would clearly set a precedent for future actions. He did not think shifting Burger King to the south would be good for the Klusman 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 people get in and out of the facility quickly. Brad Bu!ler, City Planner, recapped the Co~nission's discussions. He stated that Burger King was not acceptsiDle next to the Klusman 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. PUBLIC COM. MENTS PC Adjourned Minutes October 25, 1995 There were no public comments. CO~MISSION BUSINESS There was no Commission business at this time. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Secretary PC Adjourned Minutes 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. February29,1996- 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 review 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 ($350) to cover cost of review. April 24, 1996 - Variance again continued at request of applicant. April 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. May 14, 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. Sept. 3,1996- 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. Sept. 9, 1996 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. November 7, 1996 - 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. December 3, 1996 - 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 furtl/er review of Committee. December 5, 1996 - 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). December 30, 1996 - 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/ 97 meetings. January 2, 1997 - TRC reviews plans and has repeat comments of information that should be shown on plans from previous 5/15/96 TRC meeting. January 7. 1997 - Staff meets with 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). January 9, 1997 - Applicant leaves voice mail message approximately 5:20 p.m. saying that revisions are being worked on. No plans reveived by end of day. January 13, 1997 - 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. January 14, 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. January 15, 1997 - 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. January 16, 1997 - Applicant sends revised FAX incorpoating items staff included in original FAX previous day. FAX looked accepatable and accurate to staff. January21,1997- 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. January22,1997- 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 acknowledged by applicant in 1/15 and 1/16 FAX. However, revised grading plan not received by deadline. January 23, 1997 - Left message for applicant early a.m. to check on status of grading plans. January. 28, 1997 January 30, 1997 - February 4, 1997 - February. 5, 1997 - February12,1997- February13,1997- February18,1997- Applicant returned call and said that the grading plan would be here by tomorrow (1/29). Grading Plan finally received. 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 opportunity to review project at the February 18th Grading Committee and DRC meeting. Staff gives applicant submittal deadline of February 12th for additional information. Staffv~xites DRC follow-up letter to the previous days meeting, which includes final submittal deadlines for additional information needed for Planning Commission meeting. Staff calls applicant regarding status r)f requested submittal information. Not received by end of day. 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. Grading Committee and DRC again review project and do not recommend approval. However, Conditions of Approval incorporated into the Resolution of Approval to cover remaining issues. PHOTOGRAPHIC LO MAP CATION RECEIVED C.U.P. 95-25 h02~C rrl 1504g Ci:y oT 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 RESTAURANT 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, and continued to the 11th day of March 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, and March 11, 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 March 11, 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 headng and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The 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 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. 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-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 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 March 11, 1997 Page 3 2) 3) 4) 5) of the Planning Commission or City Planner (as applicable) for all buildings within future remaining phases. 6) Temporary fencing with a green mesh or similar material shall be provided around Phase Two as shown on the proposed Phasing Plan, prior to occupancy of any buildings within Phase One. 7) 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, prior 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 Sheriff's 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.~ d_esign of this project; PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ March 11, 1997 Page 4 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 f) Chain link fencing on top to prevent trash from blowing out of the enclosure. The screen shall be designed to be hidden from view. 8) The following trees shall be at least 36-inch box size: 9) 10) 11) 12) 13) 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 March 11, 1997 Page 5 14) 15) 16) 17) 18) 19) 20) 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 propedy 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 podion of the amenities within the on-site pedestrian Activity Center area shall be completed with Phase One development, including the plaza between Buildings 1 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, prior 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. 21) The property owner and/or trustee shall be responsible to maintain the two art work focal elements for the life of this commercial center. 22) 23) 24) 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 March 11, 1997 Page 6 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 dB^ 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 March 11, 1997 Page 7 34) 35) 36) 37) 38) 39) 4o) 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 westerly 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 March 11, 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) 4) 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. 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 March 11, 1997 Page 9 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) Foothill Boulevard to provide a colonnade feeling, pursuant to the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. 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. 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 March 11, 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) 12) A cash contribution in lieu of construction towards one-fourth the cost of construction of special pavers within the Foothill Boulevard/Vineyard Avenue intersection shall be paid to the City, pdor 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. 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 Boulevard/Vineyard 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. 16) 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 March 11, 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 vertical 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, pdor 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 March 11, 1997 Page 12 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF MARCH 1997. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 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 1 lth day of March 1997, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CON DITIONS 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: 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 24 months from the date of approval. Completion 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. B. 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 - 10196 Project No. CUP 95-25 Coml~letion 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. I / 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. C. 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 - 10/96 Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans) Project No. CUP 95-25 Coml~letion Date All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet and shall contain a 12-inch walk adjacent to the parking stall (including curb). 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. Where 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 landscape 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. SC - 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 Project No. CUP 95-25 Coml~letion 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. 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. H. 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 ,PPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DivISION, (909) COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Project No. CUP 95-25 Completion Date 477-2710, FOR 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 developrnent, 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 Engineering 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 - 10/96 Project No. CUP 95-25 Completion Date 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 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 Street Name Gutter Pvmt walk Appr. Lights Trees Trail Island Trail Foothill Blvd. v' b ~' ,/ ,/ ,/ v' e Vineyard Ave. b ,/ ,/ v' ,/ e / / / / SC - i Ct9"5 Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan check. (c) tf 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: a. Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. 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. / / / / / / Oo Po f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. g. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards, except for single family residential lots. h. Street names shall be approved by the City Planner prior to submittal for first plan check. 3. Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in accordance with the City's street tree program. 4. A permit shall be obtained from Caltrans for any work within the following right-of-way: Foothill Boulevard. Public Maintenance Areas 1. 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). 2. 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. 3. All required public landscaping and irrigation systems shall be continuously maintained by the developer until accepted by the City. 4. Parkway landscaping on the following street(s) shall conform to the results of the respective Beautification Master Plan: Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue (Acitivitv Center). Drainage and Flood Control 1. A permit from the San Bernardino County Flood Control District is required for work within its right-of-way. 2.. 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 1. 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. 3. 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 Project No, CUP 95-25 Coml)letion Date / / / / / / / / / / SC - 10196 Project 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. O. 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 pdor 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 operations. 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 - 10196 Project No. CUP 95-25 Completion Date 9. A Knox rapid entry key vault shall be installed prior to final inspection. Proof of purchase shall be submitted prior to final building plan approval. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specific details and ordering information. 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 U BC, 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: - 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. V. Building Numbering 1. Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime visibility. W. 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. / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 95-25, A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A 2,900 SQUARE FOOT DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT 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 approval 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, and continued to the 1 l th day of March 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, and continued to March 11, 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 development of Phase One of a two-Phased shopping center. The major tenants for the center are not pad of the proposed Phase One development. Phase One includes a 2,900 square foot drive-thru restaurant and a 5,548 square foot restaurant on 3.7 acres of land. The total land area of Phase One and Two is 8.9 acres; and d. The Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan requires compliance with community design guidelines and that streetscape and architectural palettes be sensitive to and attempt to create a "heritage" statement along Foothill Boulevard. This application does not give any indication that this statement will occur since Master Plan Design Guidelines for the majority of the two-phased shopping center, including all potential major tenants, as well as the buildings flanking the proposed on-site pedestrian activity center, have not been provided with the application; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ March 11, 1997 Page 2 e. The Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan specifies that special landscape and architectural features should be provided at major intersection locations. Elements such as changes in paving materials, plant materials, lighting, and the siting of major structures within and around the pedestrian node area are recommended and encouraged to be used. While an area has been specified on the site plan to receive this type of treatment, this area has yet to be conceptually designed to the level that will give assurance that the specific proposal will comply with the goals and objectives of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan; and f. The Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan requires that a Conceptual Master Plan shall be submitted for Planning Commission approval, together with any development proposals and shall address all other parcels as they relate to the Master Plan. The "Conceptual Master Plan" submitted in conjunction with the "application" is, in fact, an illegible reproduced copy of the "Conceptual Landscape Plan" with only the title changed, and does not provide the comprehensive development scheme, in words and drawings, required by the Development Code. Specifically, the "Conceptual Master Plan" does not indicate, beyond Phase One, conceptual grading and drainage for future phases, areas to be used for landscaping and plazas, and does not include a statement of architectural intent and/or conceptual elevations indicating the architectural concepts including style, various product types, form, bulk, height, orientation, and materials. Further, the Uniform Application and Initial Study Part I, as submitted by the applicant, includes only those parcels affected by Phase One: APN 207-211-12 and 13; and does not include those four parcels in future phases: APN: 207-211-14, 15, 38, and 40; and g. The project would be contrary to the City's goals for Historic Preservation specifically as it relates the existing Klusman House. The KJusman House was designated as a local histodc landmark because of its architectural significance as one of the more outstanding examples of high style architecture in the City of Rancho Cucamonga and as the foremost example of a domestic interpretation of the Spanish/Mediterranean style which has stood as a significant element to the Route 66/Foothill Boulevard streetscape since 1928. The house is a potential State Landmark and is eligible for the National Register. The Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan requires that any buildings identified as architecturally significant should, where feasible and if necessary, be restored and integrated into the development. The project proposes to construct a row of parking spaces along the entire south elevation of the landmark structure; however, the area between the parking and the landmark has yet to be designed to assure a proper setting for the landmark, including, but not limited to, sufficient setback. 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 not in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and b. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and c. The proposed use does not comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby denies the application. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 95-25- RODRIGUEZ March 11, 1997 Page 3 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF MARCH 1997. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 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 1 lth day of March 1997, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: March 11, 1997 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Dan Coleman, Principal Planner DI::VELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 96-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMOGNA - A request to amend the satellite dish antenna regulations in all zones to be consistent with Federal Communications Commission recent regulations. (Continued from October 9, November 13, and December 11, 1996, and February 12, 1997). INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMFNT 96-04 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the satellite dish antenna regulations in all zones to be consistent with Federal Communications Commission recent regulations. (Continued from October 9, November 13, and December 11, 1996, and February 12, 1997). SUBAREA 18 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 96-01 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the satellite dish antenna regulations to be consistent with Federal Communications Commission recent regulations. (Continued from October 9, November 13, and December 11, 1996, and February 12, 1997). BACKGROUND: As a result of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, The Federal Communications Commission adopted new regulations affecting municipal regulation of satellite dishes and other antennas. Essentially, the Federal Communications Commission rules preempt local control of satellite dish antennas 2 meters or less in diameter in Commercial or Industrial Zones, and 1 meter or less in diameter in Residential and all other zones. Also, the Federal Communications Commission rules allow limited "reasonable" local control of larger antennas. A "reasonable" regulation is one which "has a clearly defined health, safety, or aesthetic objective without unnessarily burdening the Federal interests in ensuring access to satellite services and in promoting fair and effective competition among competing communications service providers." The Federal Communications Commission has indicated that aesthetic concerns alone, or fear of electric and magnetic fields "EMFs" does not constitute a reasonable basis for regulation. Local regulations may not favor one type of television reception over another. ANALYSIS: The City Attorney's office has drafted an Ordinance consistent with the Federal Communication Commission's recent rule making. The Ordinance is a comprehensive set of regulations for all radio, television, and satellite dish antennas, excepting amateur radio and citizen's band antennas. The Ordinance establishes the rear yard as the preferred location for such ITEMS B,C,& D PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DCA 96-01, SPA 96-04, SPA 96-01 - CITY OF RC March 11, 1997 Page 2 antennas, with the side yards as the secondary choice, and a permit process (Minor Development Review) where it becomes necessary for an antenna to be mounted in a front yard or on a roof. Screening requirements are imposed, excepting satellite dish antennas 2 meters or less in diameter in Commercial or Industrial zones, and 1 meter or less in diameter in residential and all other zones. The attached table summarizes our current and proposed regulations (Exhibit "A"). ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The amendments are exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3). CORRt=SPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution recommending approval of the Ordinance. Brad Buller City Planner BB:DC:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Table of Current and Proposed Regulations Resolution Recommending Approval Ordinance SUMMARY OF ANTENNA REGULATIONS Regulation Current Proposed Maximum Antenna Height Maximum Size Maximum Number 50 feet when in use (35 feet when not in use) I meter if roof mounted; Unlimited if ground mounted Unlimited Location Not allowed in any setback area (front, rear, or side) Screening Required? Yes if antenna is >1 meter dia. Permit * Required? Yes if antenna is >1 meter dia. Commercial I Indus~iaI,Zone~,, i~, ,,, ,,,, :, ,, Maximum Antenna Height Maximum Size Maximum Number Location 55 feet (40 feet within 100 feet of residential zone) / 75 feet in industrial unless approved with CUP Unlimited Unlimited No limitation Screening Required? Yes Permit * Required? Yes 10 feet above peak roof line 10 feet 6 inches in diameter Unlimited if antenna is < 20 s.f. in area; Two if antenna is > 20 s.f. in area 1. Not allowed in any setback area (front, rear, or side); and 2. Antennas <20 s.f. allowed in rear or side yard or on roof. Allowed in front yard with permit *; and 3. Antennas >20 s.f. allowed in rear yard. Allowed in front or side yard or on roof with permit * Yes if antenna is > 20 s.f. in area or in front yard Varies (see Location above) 10 feet above peak roof line 10 feet 6 inches in diameter Unlimited 1. Not allowed in any setback area (front, rear, or side); and 2. Antennas <20 s.f. allowed in rear or side yard or on roof. Allowed in front yard with permit *; and 3. Antennas >20 s.f. allowed in rear yard. Allowed in front or side yard or on roof with permit * Yes if antenna is > 20 s.f. in area or in front yard Varies (see Location above) * Permit means approval of a Minor Development Review application. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 96-01, INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 96-04, AND SUBAREA 18 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 96-01, PERTAINING TO THE REGULATION OF RADIO AND TELEVISION ANTENNAS, INCLUDING SATELLITE DISH ANTENNAS, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. 1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has filed an application for the amendments described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Code, Industrial Area Specific Plan, and Subarea 18 Specific Plan Amendments are referred to as "the application." 2. On the 9th day of October, and continuing to November 13, and December 11, 1996, and February 12, 1997, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga continued said headng. 3. On the 11th day of March 1997, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga concluded said hearing. 4. All legal prerequisites pdor to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on October 9, 1996, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located within the City; and b. The proposed amendments will not have a significant impact on the environment. 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. These amendments do 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 These amendments promote the goals and objectives of the Development Code; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DCA 96-01, ISPA 96-04, & SUBAREA 18 AMEND. 96-01 - CITY OF R.C. March 11, 1997 Page 2 c. The proposed amendments will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and and The subject application is consistent with the objectives the Development Code; e. The proposed amendments are in conformance with the General Plan. 4. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been prepared and reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, and further, specifically finds that based upon substantial evidence, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed amendments will have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed amendments are exempt pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15061(b)(3). 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby recommends approval of Development Code Amendment No. 96-01, Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 96-04, and Subarea 18 Specific Plan Amendment 96-01 as shown in the Ordinance attached hereto as Exhibit "A." 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF MARCH 1997. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 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 1 lth day of March 1997, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 17 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE; PART III, SECTION IV.A.5 OF THE INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN; AND SECTION 5.4 (PAGE 5-30) OF THE SUBAREA 18 SPECIFIC PLAN, PERTAINING TO THE REGULATION OF RADIO AND TELEVISION ANTENNAS, INCLUDING SATELLITE DISH ANTENNAS. A. Recitals. 1. On the 11th day of March 1997, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted and concluded a duly noticed public hearing, as required by law, and recommended the adoption of this Ordinance as set forth below. 2. On the ~ day of 1997, the City Council of the Rancho Cucamonga conducted and concluded a duly noticed public hearing, as required by law, with respect to the adoption of this Ordinance. 3. All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. B. Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1: In all respects as set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance. SECTION 2: The City Council hereby finds and determines that the adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Division 6 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. SECTION 3: Part III, Section IV.A.5 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan is hereby amended by deletion of the words "satellite dish antennas," wherever the same shall appear. SECTION 4: Section 5.4 (Pages 5-30) of the Subarea 18 Specific Plan is hereby amended by deletion of the words "satellite dish antennas," wherever the same shall appear. SECTION 5: Section 17.06.020.C.5. is hereby amended to read, in words and figures, as follows: "5. The construction and/or placement of silos, antennas not regulated by Chapter 17.26, water tanks, roof- or ground-mounted mechanical equipment visible from public view, or similar structures and equipment as determined by the City Planner;" SECTION 6: Section 17.08.060.1.4. of Chapter 17.08 of Title 17 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby repealed. CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. ANTENNA REGULATIONS - CITY OF R.C. ,1997 Page 2 SECTION 7: A new Chapter 17.26 is hereby added to Title 17 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to read, in words and figures, as follows: "Chapter 17.26 REGULATION OF TELEVISION. SATELLITE DISH. AND RADIO ANTENNAS IN ALL ZONES. Sections: 17.26.010 17.26.020 17.26.030 17.26.040 17.26.O5O 17.26. O6O Purpose. Definitions. Prohibited antenna placement. Antennas in residential zones. Antennas in commercial or industrial districts. Antenna permit application. 17.26.010 Purpose. Consistent with applicable federal regulations, including the limited preemption created by the Federal Communications Commission as to local regulation of satellite dish antennas, this Chapter is designed to provide local regulation of television, satellite dish, and radio antennas in order to promote and protect the health, safety, and welfare of the people of the City by minimizing significant visual impacts resulting from, and reducing safety hazards associated with, the size, height, and placement of such antennas. The standards set forth herein are designed to balance the City's concern for the public safety and aesthetic interests with each person's right to transmit or receive radio and/or television signals without imposing unreasonable limitations on antennas or preventing the transmission or reception of radio and/or television signals, or imposing unreasonable costs on applicants seeking to install such antennas. 17.26.020 Definitions. For purposes of this Chapter, and except where otherwise indicated, the following terms shall be defined as set forth in this subsection: A. 'Antenna' shall mean any antenna, together with any associated support structure or related equipment, used for purposes of transmitting or receiving radio, television, and/or satellite broadcast signals, and not otherwise subject to the sole regulatory authority of any federal agency or authority. 'Antenna' shall not include any antenna used solely for amateur radio or citizen's band radio purposes. B. 'Antenna Permit' shall mean an approval of a minor development review application as provided for in Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 17.06.020. For purposes of utilizing the minor development review process, the provisions of this Chapter shall prevail where inconsistent with any provision of said Section 17.06.020. C. 'Screening' shall mean, and be accomplished, if such antenna is to be mounted directly, or through a supporting structure, to the ground through the use of appropriate plants,~.trees~___.or shrubbery, or a combination CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. ANTENNA REGULATIONS - CITY OF R.C. ,1997 Page 3 of such plants, trees, shrubbery, and wood lattice or other material compatible with the residence or other adjacent structures. Plants, trees, or shrubs to be utilized for screening purposes shall have a minimum container volume of 10 gallons at the time of planting. All such screening shall be sufficiently high so as to screen at least 90 percent or more of the antenna from public view. Each antenna which is permitted by this Chapter to be roof mounted, shall be screened with materials compatible with the structure upon which such antenna is mounted and shall be screened to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Such screening shall be sufficiently high so as to screen at least 90 percent of the antenna from public view. D. 'Surface Area' shall mean the sum of that area existing between the outer dimensions of such antenna, as measured in three dimensions. Surface area shall not include the surface area of any antenna support structure. 17.26.030 Prohibited antenna placement. No antenna, regardless of size, location, or zone district, may be placed, erected, or maintained in violation of the standards as follows: A. Maximum Height. No antenna shall exceed 10 feet in height above the peak roof line of the building on the lot where the antenna is located. B. Maximum Size. No satellite dish antenna shall exceed 10 feet, 6 inches in diameter. C. Setbacks. No antenna shall be installed in any required setback, within 5 feet of any property line, or in any other location which would impede emergency access to any portion of the property. 17.26.040 Antennas in residential zones. A. Location. 1. Any antenna less than 20 square feet in area may be mounted in the rear yard, side yard, or roof or, subject to approval of a permit as provided herein, in the front yard. 2. Any antenna greater than 20 square feet shall be installed in the rear yard except with the approval of a permit. B. Screening. Every antenna greater than 20 square feet which is visible to the public from any public property, or any antenna of any size which is permitted by this Chapterto be mounted in the front yard, shall be screened to the satisfaction of the City Planner. CITYCOUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. ANTENNA REGULATIONS- CITY OF R.C. ,1997 Page 4 C. Permit Required. Any antenna less than 20 square feet proposed to be mounted in the front yard and any antenna greater than 20 square feet in any area other than the rear yard shall require a permit. D. Construction Material. Each satellite dish exceeding 5 feet in diameter shall be earth-tone or neutral in color and shall be constructed of a 'see-through' mesh or open gdd design. E. Exemption. Except for the absolute policy set forth in Section 17.26.030, any dish I meter in diameter or less shall not be subject to any of the requirements set forth in this Chapter. 17.26.050 Antennas in commercial or industrial districts. A. Location. Any antenna greater than 2 meters in diameter shall be installed in the rear yard except with the approval of a permit. B. Screening. Every antenna greater than 2 meters in diameter which is visible to the public from any public property or any antenna of any size which is mounted in the front yard, shall be screened to the satisfaction of the City Planner. C. Permit Required. Any antenna greater than 2 meters in diameter in any area other than the rear yard shall require a permit. D. Exemption. Except for screening standards and the absolute policy set forth in Section 17.26.030, any dish 2 meters in diameter or less shall not be subject to any of the requirements set forth in this Chapter. 17.26.060 Antenna permit application. A. VVhere a permit is required, or application therefore is authorized under any provision of this Chapter, each person desidng a permit shall apply to the Planning Division and shall submit a non-refundable processing fee in such amount as set by resolution of the City Council and a completed application on a form provided by the Division containing, at minimum, the following: 1. Name, address, and telephone number of the applicant; 2. The specific location where the applicant proposes to install the antenna, including a detailed description of the antenna design and any supporting structure proposed to be utilized, including size, weight, and such other information as the Division may require; 3. A description of the screening proposed to be utilized by the applicant or facts establishing that screening is not required; CITYCOUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. ANTENNA REGULATIONS- CITY OF R.C. ,1997 Page 5 showing: A sketch or other drawing, satisfactory to the City Planner, a. Location of physical features on the subject property; b. Approximate dimensions (plus or minus 1 foot) of the subject lot and physical features thereon; c. The specific location where the antenna and screening, if required, are proposed to be installed; d. Any other physical features in the area of the subject property which applicant feels would adversely affect reception in those areas set forth herein as 'preferred'; and The design of the antenna and proposed support structure. 5. If applying for a permit pursuant to subsection C, below, a statement setting forth what the applicant contends are exceptional circumstances justifying a waiver of any of the requirements of this Chapter. B. All applicants for an antenna permit shall be required to show, to the satisfaction of the City Planner, that circumstances preclude installation in a preferred area, or that reception quality in the preferred area or areas is insufficient, as herein prescribed. For purposes of this Chapter, the preferred order of placement of any antenna is rear yard first, then side yard, roof, and front yard. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the preferred location shall be that location which results in the greatest screening of the antenna from public view by existing landscaping, structural, and/or topographical features. C. Any person aggrieved by any provision of this Chapter due to exceptional circumstances may apply for an antenna permit in accordance with the provisions of this Section. D. The City Planner shall provide the applicant with a written decision approving, denying, or conditionally approving an antenna permit application within 21 calendar days following submission of a completed application pursuant to this Chapter. The City Planner's decision shall contain findings in support of the decision. The City Planner's written decision shall be final and shall become effective within ten days following the date of said decision unless, during such ten-day pedod, an aggrieved applicant files a written appeal with the City Planner. Upon receipt of a wdtten appeal, the City Planner shall cause the matter to be placed on the Planning Commission's agenda for public headng and consideration by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission shall decide the appeal, CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. ANTENNA REGULATIONS - CITY OF R.C. ,1997 Page 6 with written findings, within 60 days of submission. The Planning Commission may sustain, reverse, or modify the decision of the City Planner." SECTION 8: Preemption of inconsistent Municipal Code, specific plan, and community plan provisions. The provisions of this Ordinance shall preempt and supersede any and all provisions contained in Title 17 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, and in any specific plan or community plan in effect, as amended from time to time, which are inconsistent herewith, provided, however,. that the enactment of this Ordinance shall not be deemed to excuse any violation of any provision of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, including Title 17, or of any provision of any specific plan or community plan, occurring pdor to the effective date hereof. SECTION 9: Penalties for violation of Ordinance. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, partnership, or corporation to violate any provision or to fail to comply with any of the requirements of this Ordinance hereby adopted. Any person, firm, partnership, or corporation violating any provision of this Ordinance or failing to comply with any of its requirements shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall ~ punished by either a fine not exceeding $1,000.00 or by imprisonment not exceeding six mont;~o, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Each and every person, firm, partnership, or corporation shall be deemed guilty of a separate offense for each and every day or any portion thereof dudng which any violation of any of the provisions of this Ordinance is committed, continued, or permitted by such person, firm, partnership, or corporation, and shall be deemed punishable therefore as provided in this Ordinance. SECTION 10: Civil Remedies Available. The violation of any of the provisions of this Ordinance hereby adopted shall constitute a nuisance and may be abeted by the City through civil process by means of restraining order, preliminary or permanent injunction, or in any other manner provided by law for the abatement of such nuisances. SECTION !!: Severability. The City Council declares that, should any provision, section, paragraph, sentence, or word of this Ordinance be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction, or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences, and words of this Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 12. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published as required by law. CITY COMMERCIAL MANAGEMENT, INC. RECEIVED Thursday, March 6, 1997 Planning Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga Post Office Box 807~. Rancho Cucamonga CA 91729 0 6 ' 997 City ot Rancho cucamonga planning Division Re: Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 97-01 Miller Family and Associates, Inc. Please accept this letter in vehement opposition to the change in permitted uses in Subarea 8 to permit a mortuary and crematory services. The proposed location on Arrow Route is directly across the street from my business, and I believe that the operation of a mortuary and, in particular a crematory, ~vill be highly detrimental both to the value of my property' as well as the continued success of my business and the business of my nearby tenant. This area is properly zoned to permit light industrial and office uses, and should not have to tolerate a facility which will introduce into the local atmosphere the odor and other products of combustion associated with the cremation of human remains. Should the applicant wish to amend the request in order to establish a mortuary-only facility at this location, I could potentially reconsider my opposition, based upon review of that amended application. But a crematory? Out of the question! Wallace M. Schultz, President Property owner of Assessor's Parcel Numbers 0208-053-01, -02, and -07 10722 Arrow Route - Suite 500 · Post Office Box 548 · Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729-0548 Phone 909-948-1662 ·Tol[ Free ,>u,oo/o-C[ .5 [] Fax 909-948-[349 TO: Planing Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Subject: SubArea 8 Zoning Ammendment Dear Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission: RECEIVED 0 or Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division We the undersigned are o~oosed to the proposed zoning change for Subarea 8 to Allow Funeral & Crematory services. Company: Continental Flooring, Inc. Address: 10763 Bell Court Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Phone: (909) 941-8305 Signed: Signed: Date: ~/~-~ -~ Signed: ~'~/_.~/~ ~~,~-~._Date: ~--¢/~//~¢~" Signed:~. ~~~ ~~e: f/¢o/?7 Sign~~ Date:/F TO: Planing Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Subject: SubArea 8 Zoning Ammendment Dear Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission: We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed zoning change for Subarea 8 to Allow Funeral & Crematory Services. Signed: Date: Si ' ~ ',~,/~ Date:~,/~/~'/~ Signed: ~'~4 .~X..:~ Date: /~ -~ ~ . , TO: Planing Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Subject: SubArea 8 Zoning Ammendment Dear Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission: We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed zoning change for Subarea 8 to Allcw Funeral & Crematory Services. Company: CARBURETOR SHOP Address: 8460 RED OAK ST. RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CA 915~9 Phone: 909-481-5815 Signed:~,--¢--'~/'~ :- (~~ Date: S ig ned: ~,]~" ~%'~ ~,~,~ Date: Signed: ."/:vj.,t.~ ,~. -~ Date: Signed: ' Signed: ~-,~ Date: Date: 3-07-97 3-07-97 3~o7- 97 March 6, 1997 City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Attn.: Planning DMsion Dear Sirs, Re: Industrial area specific plan amendment 97-01- Miller Family & Association Inc., A request to add funeral and crematory service as a conditionally permitted use in Subarea 8 (general industrial) of the industrial area specific plan This letter serves as my NOTICE OF OBJECTION for the above project base on the following negative impacts:- (1) It will sharply reduce tile property value of the surrounding area immediately. (2) It will create a strong uncomfortable feeling to tile residents or owners in the vicinity area. (3) It will discourage new investors for any new potential investments to the surrounding area. (4) It may also make tile existing tenant in the surrounding area to move out after lease expired. (5) It will damage the tax income of the city in the long run. Thank you for your kind attention. Yours truly. I am looking forward to hearing tile cancellation of the above project soon. Chung, Kwok Biu: Owner 8580 Oakwood Place Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 RICHARD V. MCMILLAN ATTORNEY AT LAW 1205 NORTH BROADWAY SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701 (714) 542-5882 RECEIVED March i0, I997 MAR 1 1 1997 City of Rancho Cucamonga Chairman of the Planning Commission C/O Dan Coleman 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division FAXED AND MAII.ED Re: Objection to application for Conditional Use Permit in Subarea 8 by Miller Family & Associates Dear Chairperson: Mr. Katelaris is the property and business owner,of the property adjacent to east of the proposed site for the Miller Family & Associates proposed Mortuary site. My Client is opposed to Miller Family's proposed use of the site, on the following grounds: 1. The specific location of the crematoria on this property is unknown to my client, but it is his understanding that the crematoria will be within a hundred and fifty feet of his restaurant. My client is concerned that the crematoria's discharge into the air of the by-products of the process may at worst result in noxious odors or at best in visible smoke which would be objectionable to my client's customers. As this use is permitted in other subareas where these concerns would not be present, my client requests that this application be denied. 2. This proposed use will have a significant negative impact on the traffic in the area. We are unaware on any other type business which would by design draw twenty or more vehicles to · one site at a time, and then by design, place all of those vehicles on the street at one time, in a convoy, which by design stops all traffic in its path as it passes. Further, there is no limitation on the time of day these processions occur, nor is there any limitation on the number of processions per day. In addition, even the 30% of the Miller Family's customers who do not require a funeral procession will have some impact, for Rosary's and Funeral Services which do not require a "procession" will gather numbers of people to the site at a specific time and will discharge those vehicles at one time. Further, if this proposal includes facilities which are large enough, more than one funeral at a time could be held on the site which would cause significant traffic congestion, and business disruption to my client. Absent additional information concerning this proposed use, these are my client's concerns, and form the basis for his objection to the proposed use. Very truly yours, Richard V. McMillan CREMATORY EQUIPMENT CO. FULLY AUTOMATIC Fast Efficient Operation · Newest high temperature technology con,rolled air or starved air incinera6on. · Guaranteed smokeless and odorless. · Easy loading, simple cremains removal. · Automatic gas burners with controls in accordance with the latest safety requirements. · Top-fired burners that make it possible to handle all c~skets slike. · High temperature, heavy duty refractory materials throughout. · Automatic cycle time and temperature controls on main burner and afterburner. · Factory assembled and tested. · Two year written guarantee furnished with every unit. CREMATORY EQUIPMENT GO, DONALD L. RIDGEWAY 8130 ALLPORT AVE. ~ SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA 90670 (310) 693-5~39 FAX: (310) 693-5601 Advanced Coating Parylene Conformal Coating Specialists 10723 Edison Court · Rancho Cucamonga, California · 91730 Phone: (909)481-1400 · Fax: (909) 481-1427 TO: Planning Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Subject: SubArea 8 Zoning Amendment Dear Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission: As residents, property owners, and voters, we are stroncdv opposed to the proposed zoning change for Subarea 8 to Allow Funeral & Crematory Services. We have received a tremendous amount of support in our position from our business neighbors in the area. Enclosed are letters and petitions from 42 companies with over 150 signatures opposing the subject zoning change. Our reasons for opposition include the following: 1. The City zoning currently has provisions for Funeral & Crematory Services within sub areas 4, 6, and 16. There is no pressing reason to amend zoning for another area. 2..Subarea 8, especially the proposed site on Arrow Highway, is a light industrial area with a professional atmosphere which is conducive to all of the businesses currently located therein. A Funeral Home & Crematorium does not fit in with the neighboring businesses. 3. Amending the zoning could have a negative impact on property values in the immediate area. 4. We purchased our property on Edison Court in August 1996 after a lengthy search for the ideal location. Part of our selection process was based on the types of neighboring businesses in the area and the strict zoning parameters that we believed to be in place. Amending the zoning completely subverts our selection and purchasing process. 5. A Crematorium located in Rancho Cucamonga would possibly be providing cremation services for a wide area of Southern California based on the extremely limited number of Crematoriums within the area. This could mean a very large amount of business activity with regard to the delivery and cremation of bodies. 6. The proposed site location is in an area we feel is "The Heart of The City" (i.e. The Courthouse, City Hall, High Profile Office Buildings and Quakes Stadium etc.) and as such should be afforded extra scrutiny in the development and planning of future growth. 7. A funeral home at the proposed site would create traffic, parking and police enforcement problems. Arrow highway is a major artery for the area and would be adversely affected. 8. A funeral home & crematorium would have an undesirable environmental impact on the area due to odor, air emissions and waste water emissions generated from both cremations and embalming. In addition, there would be additional hazard of explosion and fire with the chemicals involved in embalming. We hereby urge the planning commission to disapprove the subject amendment and any future like proposals. Thank You, Steven J. Doltar Ja~oltar Rudy J. Doltar Universal Food Company 10646 Fulton Court Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 TEL: (909)98?-0470 FAX: (909)98?°0920 March 11, it~)7 Planning Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga P, O. Box g(Y7 Rancho Cueamonga. CA 91729 Subject: SubArea 8 Zoning Amendment Dear Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission: As citizens and concerned business members affected by the subject proposal, we would like to w)ice our strong opposition to the proposed amendment for and not limited to the following reasons: Cu~tomermre~tion~ and cultural barriers , Universal ~ood Coral?any is a manufacturer of processed meat products for the Asian populations. ()he of ~hc reasons for the estabhshment of our facility in ~e subject area is the actual and perceived conditio~ of the envi- in rovidin a sanitary and healthy condition for our products. We believe the addition of a funeral and ronment p g ........ ' - · ' r ) · s with crematory service so close to our faethty will dtsrupt the tendmen and affect the reputatmn of ou pr~ duct. our customers. As our clients are mostly Asian, there are strong customs and cultural believes in regards to funeral services. In turn, these associations will 'affect the reputation and perceptions regarding the quality and sanitation of our products because of our close vlelnky to the proposed addition. Employee Opposition We do have employees who come to the t)acility late in the evening and also early shit~s. Upon hearing this possible change, many employees have expressed concerns. There has been employees who has expressed wishes to change shifts if the funeral home should be built. Whether these fears are validated or nor, employee feelings and morale cannot be Ignored. As employers, we would like to offer a eomt'ortuble working environ- ment tbr our employees which would obviously be affected as already evident. Chm~ge in zoning When we chose tl~e location and purehacked the facility in which we now occupy, it was ~vith the understandin~ of the current zoningstatus.. By changing the zoning, we will fi~en hold a piece of property dift~rent we had purchased. Had th~s proposal been made prior to our purchase of our facility, we would nol have estab- lished our business at this location. Sincerely, Tony C. Kan Oeneral Manager Vice President 'l~lichael l.u ..... Owner and Prc.4denl I i ins' l Company, Incorporated 110 North Market Street, East Palestine, Ohio 44413-2095 · Phone: 216-426-4151 Planning Divison City Of Rancho Cucamonga P. 0. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729 February 26, 1997 Dear Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission: As a business person owning Wagner-Insul Company, Inc. in the area before the park was ever conceived, I strongly object to the use of land in the park for the use of funeral and or crematory service. It is an unhealthy and environmentally incorrect concern for all, not only physically but mentally. It is not the type of business that was intended for this great industrial business park. People have spent a great deal of money to come into what was intended and anticipated to be a superior business park. Much income has been spent on taxes to achieve this end. I am sure that there is land available that would better suit a business of this type in another area where it is not so congested. Again with great concern I object to the use of any land in this industrial business park being used for funeral and or crematory service. Sincerely yours, · - NEW MAILING ADDRESS: P. O. BOX 151, EAST PALESTINE, OHIO 44413-0151 - · K£NNE BELL HI TECH PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS March 6, 1997 Planning Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Subject: Subarea Zoning Amendment Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission: We are one of the many companies in this area opposed to a Funeral Home & Crematory in Subarea 8. Let's keep the Funeral Homes & Crematories in the areas that current zoning allows, i.e., Subareas 4, 6 and 16. Sincerely, President JB/ff Attachment 10743 BELL COURT · RANCHO CUCAMONGA,~A~_.91730-4834 · FAX: (909) 944-4883 I AuTol · ~, ESTORATORS, COL I~N REPAIR CENTER March 11, 1997 Planning Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Dear Sir, I have received information regarding the proposed site location for.adding funeral and crematory"services to sub area 8 which would allow a funeral home and crematorium to be built on the south side of Arrow Highway. As a resident, business owner, and multiple property owner in Rancho Cucamonga I strongly oppose this usage to be permitted at the proposed locatlon and wlll continue to solicit support agalnst any permitted use. 8605 Utica Avenue Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 · (909) 980-7421 TO: Planing Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Subject: SubArea 8 Zoning Ammendment Dear Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission: We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed zoning change for Subarea 8 to Allow Funeral & Crematory Services. Signed: ~ ~~ Date: 3-/6 TO: Planing Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Subject: SubArea 8 Zoning Ammendment Dear Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission: We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed zoning change for Subarea 8 to Allow Funeral & Crematory Services. Company: Address: Phone: Date: Date: 3- '7- ¢7 TO: Planing Commission City of= Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Subject: SubArea 8 Zoning Ammendment Dear Rancho Cucamonge Planning Commission: We the undersigned are oD~3oeed to the proposed zoning change for Subarea to Allow Funeral & Cremato~ Services. Company;_ Address: Phone: Signed: Signed: Signed: :',;.:EL'_~?,,ION ,"IFG & ~LIBgER TEL:7!4-941-1592 f,'lar 11,97 11:24 No.002 ?'.01 TO: Planing Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA g1729 Subject: SubArea 8 Zoning Ammendment Dear Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission; We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed zoning change for Subarea'8 to Allow Funeral & Crematory Services. Date: Date: _' _' _'¥ .---// Date: ,2) .-~{ TO: Planing Commission City of Ranc-'~o Cucamonga P.O, Box 80;' Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Subject: SubAre~ 8 Zoning Ammendment Dear Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission: We the undersigned are oDoosed to the proposed zoning change for Subarea to Allow Funeral & Crematory Services, Address: Signed~h Signed:% ~,~ TOTAL P.8~ OFFICE OF r'~ADHU KAL~A PHONE No. : 9899895~68 Mat-, 1! 1997 TO: Planlag Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cuoamonga, CA 917'29 Subject' SubArea 8 Zoning Ammendment B~.ar Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission: We the undersigned are oo~oosed to the proposed zoning change for Subarea 8 to Allow Funer~I & Crematory 8ervi(:~8. Phon~: Signed: Signed:. Date: Date: Signed: Date: Signed: Date: Signed: [)ate: r'IAR-- 1 !--97 ..TUE 10:02 AM hl~TALL IC OPTICS INC 1 909 9451965 F'. 01 TO: Planing Commission City of RAncho Cuc~monga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Subject: SubArea 0 Zoning Ammendment Dear Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission: We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed zoning change for Subarea 8 to Allow Funeral & Crematory Services. Signed: Date: Signed:_ Date: Signed: _ Date: 'Signed: _ Date: ~qA~--I 1--9~ TUE 1~ :~l AM AE~O--FAB~ INC. 909 9:BE)594:E: P. 0I TO: Pinning Commission City of Rnncho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Subject: SubArea 8 Zoning Ammendment Dear Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission: We the undersigned are or~t~osed to the proposed zoning change for Subarea 8 to Allow Funeral & Crematory Services. Company: Address: Phone: Signed: Signed: /~~~,*~---,.- / Date: '-¢ '"/0---~'~ Date: Signed: Signed: Date: ~ -//-~'7 TO: Planing Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Subject: SubArea 8 Zoning Ammendment Dear Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission: We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed zoning change for Subarea 8 to Allow Funeral & Crematory Services. Company: Address: Lowell S. Hill Enterprises 8555 Red Oak Street Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Phone: (909) 941-8785 Signed: Signed: Signed: Signed: TO: Planing Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Subject: SubArea 8 Zoning Ammendment Dear Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission: We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed zoning change for Subarea 8 to Allow Funeral & Crematory Services. Company: Address: --'"' LENZCO PI'tODUCT$ FOR INDUSTRY 10722 Arrow I..hvy *~ 4]2 Rancho Cucomor~o. CA 9173~ Signed: '~' ~ Date: Date: Date: Signed: Date: Signed: Date: TO: Planing Commission · City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga. CA 91729 Subject: SubArea 8 Zoning Ammendment Dear Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission: We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed zoning change for Subarea 8 to Allow Funeral & Crematory Services. Company: Address: Phone: Date: Date: Date: S~ncd: ~.~ Signed: ,/~J/~ ~'~. Signed: Date: ¢-//73o Signed: Date: TO: Planing Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Subject: SubArea 8 Zoning Ammendment Dear Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission: We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed zoning change for Subarea to Allow Funeral & Crematory Services. Company: Address: Phone: Signed: Date: --~- ~z'_ q~' Signed: Date: Signed: Date: Signed: Date: Signed: Date: TO: Planing Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Subject: SubArea 8 Zoning Ammendment Dear Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission: We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed zoning change for Subarea 8 to Allow Funeral 8, Crematory Services. Address: Phone: ~o'9- ~)~?-5~g(. Signed: F/~--.-- ~-,-,_ '~-4 j Date: Signed: ~~ Date: ~"- ~'~'7 Date: ~ ' '7---- ?"'7 Signed: /~,.<~~ Date: Signed: Date: TO: Planing Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Subject: SubArea 8 Zoning Ammendment Dear Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission: We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed zoning change for Subarea 8 to Allow Funeral 8, Crematory Services. Company: Address: Phone: 10~"~-J5 ~6-l_.u Couer qoq. qq~q.. q-O~ Date: ::~.(o.CI-7 Date: Date: ~-~- ? - Date:'~J 7~" ? ~ Date: TO: Planing Commission City of Rancho Cucam0nga" P,O. Box 807 ' Rancho cuca~onga, lCA 9172,9 Subject: SubArea 8 Zoning Aremerriment Dear Rancho Cucamonge Planni.ng Commission: We the undersigned are j;li;ll~l'to the proposed zonirtg'.~J'~ange..for Subarea '8 to Allow Funeral &:Ci~,...'~a~..,.t~ $1~'ices. ' .... . ~-:..-. ':~.:. ?,:'i:.-::i~-'? ·,. ~:.. ,:. Company: Address: [0 39~d SO00~ ~IZNB~BO [~S~685808 BO TO: Planing Commission. City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Subject: SubArea 8 Zoning Ammendment Dear Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission: We the undersigned are oDffosed to the proposed zoning change for Subarea 8 to Allow Funeral & Crematory Services. Company: Address: Phone: Signed: Signed: Date: Signed: Date: Signed: Date: Signed: ,-,,,. Date: ~3/8~/iBg7 12:53 909-B80-8622 TRI BEST PRODUCTS PAGE TO: Planing Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Subject: SubArea 8 Zoning Ammendment Dear Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission: We the undersigned are r,,~u;~oeed to the proposed zoning change for Subarea 8 to Allow Funeral & Cremetory Services. Company: TRI-BEST VISUAL DISPLAY PRODUCTS Address: 8620 RED OAK STREET. RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CAL. 91730 Phone: Signed: Signed: 980-9982 Date: 3/6/97 Signed: .. Date: Signed: Date: Signed: IT APPEARS T~AT CURRENTLY UNDER Date: T}[IS PRO$~CT WILL B~ LOCATED NEXT TO A RESTAURANT CONSTRUCTION. 'WHAT INPACT DOES THIS HAVE ON OWNER? TO: Planing Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Subject: SubArea 8 Zoning Ammendment Dear Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission: We the undersigned are o~3DOsed to the proposed zoning change for Subarea 8 to Allow. Funeral & Cremetory Services. Company: j & j Address: 1 0681 Interior$/DeFloodMaster Pullman Court Phone: Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909)944-7925 Signed: Signed: Date: '-z~..~ .~..~ Date: ~ '~---' ~ -7 Date: Date: '~ - ~- ?'7 Mar-O6-g? 02:0gP NUG£N INS. S~R. gog 941 g4~3 P.01 TO: Planing Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807" Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Subject: SubArea 8 Zoning Ammendment Dear Rancho..Cucamonga Planning Commission: We the undersigned are o~osed to the proposed zoning change for Subarea 8 to Atlow Funeral & Cremat0ry Services. S,gned. / /, ~ Date: '~"" Sigrt.~.d: Date: FOLdLER PROPERTIES 90'D 94? 07~,5 F'. ~1 TO: Ptaning Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Subject: SubArea 8 Zoning Ammendment Dear Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission: We the undersigned are .opposed to the proposed zoning change for Subarea 8 to Allow Funeral & Crematory Services. Company:..~ Address: /'0__/,,0,.~_ ,,~..Z~t~¢ Phone: ~77 Date: Signed: Date: Signed: Date: Signed: Date: Signed: . _ Date: FOWLE~ PROPERTIES 909 ~7 0765 P. 02 TO: Planing Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Subject: SubArea 8 Zoning Ammendmenl: Dear Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission: We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed zoning change for Subarea 8 to Allow Funeral & Crematory Services, S ig ned',~~~ D at e..~-,/O' ¢~'~ Signed: __ Date: Signed: Date: Signed:. Date: Signed: ._ Date: ,3'-_",. ,. [/[ '_=."_.37 ~ 1: 0~. c38cJg4872~a2 SCCR.,STES FTNANCT~,L Ph~GE ~3: TO: Planing Commission .City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Subject: SubArea 8 Zoning Amrnendment Dear Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission: We the undersigned are oooot~ed to the proposed zoning change for Subarea to Allow Funeral & Crematory Services. Company: Signed: _..-"~- ' ~ " Date: 03,10;97 08:43 FAX 909 944 7386 FLE)IING PTG ~091 ,/ TO: Planing Commission City, of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Subject: SubArea 8 Zoning Ammendment Dear Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission: We t.he undersigned are opposed to the proposed zoning change for Subarea 8 to AIIow Funeral & Crematory Services. Company: Address: 10722Arrow Route, Suite 808 Rancho ~mon~a. ~,~ q17~q Slgne .d...C~.~ · Date: ~ "' Signed: Date:' Signed: Date: Signed: Date: Signed: Date: TO: Planing Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Subject: SubArea 8 Zoning Ammendment Dear Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission: We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed zoning change for Subarea to Allow Funeral & Crematory Services. Address: /¢2? ~ .~ ,4~.~// ~_~,..,-7' ,~'"~4~ ~. ,,(,~ Phone: Signed: ~~~'~~ Signed: Signed: ~~ Date: Date: Date: Date: TO: Planing Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Subject: SubArea 8 Zoning Ammendment Dear Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission: We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed zoning change for Subarea 8 to Allow Funeral & Crematory Services. Company: Address: Phone: Signed: Signed: ,~/'.~ Signed: Date: Signed: Date: Signed: Date: Nar-10-97 04:48P P.01 TO: Planing Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Subject: SubArea 8 Zoning Ammendmenl Dear Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission: We the undersigned are oDj3osed to the proposed zoning change for Subarea to Allow Funeral & Crematory Services. Company: Address: Phone: Signed: TO: Ptaning Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Post-it" Fax Note To Pho-~e If F~tx ~ 7671 From Subject: SubArea 8 Zoning Ammendment Dear Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission; We the undersigned are O~l~Osed to the proposed zoning change for Subarea 8 to Allow Funeral & Cremetory Services. Company: Address: Phone: Signed: Signed: Signed: Signed: Signed: _ Date: TO: Planing Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Subject: SubArea 8 Zoning Ammendment Dear Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission: We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed zoning change for Subarea 8 to Allow Funeral & Crematory Services. Company: //2~/~,'¢~,,.) ,,~..'~,"?.d~')~/£'-,/'~/ Address: Phone: Co. ¢/2..:7,'2 Signed:(~'//'~- ~ Date: Signed: Date: Signed: Date: TO: Planing Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Subject: SubArea 8 Zoning Ammendment Dear Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission: We the undersigned are onnoled to the proposed zoning change for Subarea 8 to Allow Funeral & Cramatory Services. Company: Paramount Nadine Co., Inc. Address: 10824 Ed.iscm ~ _ Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Phone: (909) 484-3600 Date: ,.~/l 1//q 7 TO: Plm'~g'~'-c~n'mieeion CRy.. ilc~J~. Ri~n:.~_,.C.,Lic, a m o nga ' .'De~....R~, CUcamoi-lga Planning Commtssioil:..;...~.,: -, ! TO: Planing.Commi~ion City af Reno:fro Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 · .R~.C~a, CA g1729 Zoning Ammendment ·Dear. R .m3cho~ C~ga Planning Commission: TO: Plarlln~ 0o~mlssloH · Oily Ut ~lhcho CUcamb13ga P.o. ~ox 80i Rancho CUcamonga, CA 9i 729 Subject: SubArea 8 zoning Ammendmen{ Dear Rancho CucamoHga Planning Commisalot1: We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed zoning change for Subarea 8 to Allow Funeral & Crematory Services. Company: Address: PhoMe: ~ Stg~-ed: ~ bate: }-'"//- ~ TO: Planthg Commission Cily of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807. ,' Rancho ll;Licamonga, CA 9t 72g siJbjec--,{~ SubArea E! Zoning Ammendmenl Dear Rancho CUcarnonga Planning Commission: - tO Allow We the undersigned are p~313osed to the proposed zooming olm~ag~ I,~ Suburea FUtlier~ll & Cremalory SerVices. Cofhp.ny: TO: ~IaMIMI;tl Co~missloM Cily bf Ratlcho CUcamonga P.o. ~ox Bo? Ranchd Cucamonga, CA gt 729 Subject: SubArea B Zoning Ammendment Dear Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission: We the Undersigned are o~13osed to the proposed zdntng change for Subarea 8 to Allow FUMetal & Crerrtatory ServiceS. Address: Date: Signed: Date: signed: Date: Signed: Date: Signed: Date: o3/to/1997 ELITE SUPPLIES · , :~ ~: .. P~GE 01 ~ J I:}ei-I~,wrld~.OUbef,horlga I~lanhing ~ommlgslo~: ....:.. .,: : :.'.. ': Ha,~ i0 i~97 4: 14PM .illI FROM : INLP~,II) EPIPIK~IE IBLIiL!:~s PNONE I,~. : Ilar, ~0 1997 01: 16PM Pt To 9~?~t.~ I TO:Planihg C~hmlsslun ' Ci~ ~ Ra~u CU~monga · .. ~M'~ ~Ucamonga, CA g~72g ~.~ . ..:' ~.. ~ . Subje~'. GU.~a ~ Zoning Ammendmenl .. " Dea~.Ran~o OU~mohga Planning Commiesion' . ,~.. ::.. :. to AII~ F~tel & Cremato~ Se~l~s. ~. := l '"'.' O '~ .... ' ' .,'i, '. . . ....~ : ..... '~'; t2t24 · I~ubJed: 'SubArea 8 Zoning Ammendmant Dear Rnri.oho.cUc~l~mMga Planning Cornrots'sion: 0 AIIoW'~tll & Cmmatory 8africa.. . .. ~ for e P.e2 01 :t:~3H ; I~STER F'f:~I CORP 1,1~. t0. t997 2:4GPH NO. : cjID9 c:jG? 5657 Hn~ ~ ,~? ~&~3 HUrst nN~ ~O~TgNn ~ubje~:.gubArea 8 Zoning Ammendnmnt · :' ' ..' A ~d~u (:u ng ' ' Dear a o~o a Planning Ct~r,mls~ton~ ..,~..,.... ,.. .~ fwSubJre. e. '...,.;.,. . . ..,,.,:.. · .; .',, . ',.~ :. ,~.;. f . ~..;. ~., , . ~." ;-. . '' ~ ~ ....., I....: . . .. , . .~!.~ ..............~.u~p,.~,.. :./.. '~ .....,.....,. ,,,..., "~,~ I'- · ,. ,. '.- ,: , t . '. /", ~ ',':' ' '".''.F' · ; '~ .;.. . . , , . . - , · .. . . .' '~:.. .. '. , ~-'... . ....,.,'. . · ,,.'..~ , !. - . ..-.. .',':~'~...', '" .'.' ':'.' ":' ) .' H' ~'~_ tt ..... . ..: '. . ~ ' .'.' · ~. '1'. ' . · .., ~." :' F~::, '.' . ','.~". · ". ::-;.." , )': - '-~v ....... ;~'~'*~ .. ,,'.-. ) ~4~;,f, ~.,~"/;"'.'.:., ' I,'r;': ' . ' ". , .,.I.'. '. ..., .' : ',,.../ ., . ", '.; , · ':t, , · · .... .. ,..,:,..,,':.',,!. '- : .' , ,'It'" ~ , , ;'..~ : ..','G.~i."",~";:.,,' ",,-,,: '..~.~,r ', '. ,;," ' TO: Planing Commissioti City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box Rancho CUcamonga, CA 9'1729 Subject: SubArea 8 Zoning Ammendment Dear Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commisslon: We the undersigned are opposed {o {he proposed zoning change for Subarea 8 to Allow Funeral & Cremalory Services. Signed: Date: Signed: Date: Signed: : Date: .~ubjed: .~'ub,~-ea t~ Zoning Ammendmen[ bale: ': CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: March 11, 1997 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Brent Le Count, Associate Planner INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 97-01 - MILLER FAMILY AND ASSOCIATES - A request to add Funeral and Crematory Services as a conditionally permitted use in Subarea 8 (General Industrial) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. BACKGROUND: At it's December 1, 1996, meeting, the Planning Commission initiated an amendment to the Industrial Area Specific Plan to conditionally permit Funeral and Crematory Services in Subarea 8. Funeral and Crematory Services are already conditionally permitted in Subareas 4, 6, and 16 which lie along Archibald and Haven Avenues. The issue arose in response to a request by Miller Family and Associates to open a mortuary within Subarea 8 on the south side of Arrow Highway between Utica Avenue and Red Oak Street. Mortuaries are classified as "Funeral and Crematory Services" by the Industrial Area Specific Plan: Funeral and Crematory Services: Activities typically include, but are not limited to, services involving the care, preparation, and disposition of human dead other than in cemeteries. Uses typically include, but are not limited to: funeral homes, crematories, and mausoleums. ANALYSIS: The intent of land use categorization is to group together uses which are compatible because of similar intensities in order to reduce potential conflicts. Therefore, in a Subarea where more intense uses are permitted (such as Heavy Industrial) lighter uses (such as Administrative and Office or Assembly) are not permitted. Subarea 8 functions to provide for General Industrial activities and to assure for a transition area from the Heavy Industrial category south of the subarea. In general, Subarea 8 contains many of the same allowed uses as Subareas 4, 6, and 16 (where Funeral and Crematory Services is allowed) and it has a wider range of permitted and conditionally permitted uses than the other subareas. This is especially true for commercial uses within these subareas (see Exhibit "C"). ITEM E PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT IASPA 97-01 - MILLER FAMILY & ASSOCIATES March 11, 1997 Page 2 In general, Funeral and Crematory Services does not appear to conflict with the land uses already allowed in Subarea 8 and proliferation of the use is not likely. Funeral and Crematory Services within Subarea 8 would be conveniently located for serving the Rancho Cucamonga community as well as neighboring communities. As a conditionally permitted use, Funeral and Crematory Services would require approval of a Conditional Use Permit which involves a public hearing, the ability to attach conditions, and revocation authority. Through the Conditional Use Permit process, the Commission would consider the compatibility of the specific location desired by Miller Family & Associates and the Cowboy Burger restaurant under construction on the adjoining parcel to the east. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The proposed amendment is not defined as a project by the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15378 and is therefore exempt from environmental review per CEQA Section 15061 b.1 FACTS FOR FINDING: The proposal is consistent with the Industrial Area Specific Plan and the General Plan. The proposal will not be detrimental to adjacent properties or uses and will not cause adverse environmental impacts. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper and notices were mailed to all property owners in Subarea 8 and within 300 feet thereof. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of this amendment and issuance of a Negative Declaration by the City Council through adoption of the attached Resolution. City Planner BB: BLC/mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" Exhibit "B" Exhibit "C" Exhibit "D" Exhibit "E" Exhibit "F" - Subarea Map - Subarea 8 Map - Summary of Land Use Types - Letter from Applicant - Location Map (Applicant's Proposed Site) - Planning Commission Minutes dated December 11, 1996 Resolution Recommending Approval to City Council Figure III- 1 SUBAREAS C COMMERCIAL HAVEN OVERLAY DISTRICT INDUSTRIAL PARK GENERALINDUSTRIAL MINIMUM IMPACT HEAVYINDUSTRIAL CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONG~ IHDUSTRIAL AREA PLAH III- 6 Revised: 9/17/86 2/17/88 9/07/B8 10/03/90 10/17/~0 !.-iG. IV-10 Aeeooe ~ I~re mellm~1 d~ of · ohe ~ af~ ~atM o! · ~o~ted ~e ~ ~ My h ~t~ ovm t~ oe ~ Cl~y ~v~. Rovltod: 3/15/69 ./'ng':tscric[ .~.rez Sweci?'.'c P[cn Pc,.;/.;/. Sec. TABLE 111-1 USE TYPES SUMMARY OF LAND USE TYPE BY SUB.~EA SU~AR~SIHOI112 31-~15 5 7 .~ MANUFACTURING Custom Light Medium Heavy ,M;nimum ImDa~ Heavy JOFFIOE PROFESSIONAL. DESIGN & RES~RCH Azmin~s:radv~ & Medium Jc~!~e~c~ F~ :~ik;es Sc:~2 S:VIC ~u:[ic SMe:y & gdl~'/Sewices Re~igicus ~sembly ¢;OT5S: .'.%'H[ · ,',l~nLmum :,moa=: Hear./ MU,'OS . ,%I~xed Use/Open Icc c l jP I I P P P P P P P P t- cfc PIP I PIC PIc t 7 7171P I t I I I.=l.= I I I j P [ F7 I lcl I PIP IP c Ic Ic Iclct Jc Iclc IoJPIotc Ic171cIc 7 cl I 7 c Ic 71PI7 7 .= ¢1 I ~ 7 cl I P Icl 7II 7 Icl I c I I 7 '7 C C C C P 7 P C C clclc clcl clclc ,~1 I~lP ~1 1~17 71711 1711 71PI7 7 1717 7 I I 7 Ic Ic I? Ic CC C? CCCC PPP CCC CCC CCC CCC P P C j71717 Iclctc I I Ic Ic lc cJc C C cl PIP P P clclclc clctc c clclc c clclc c - 7e,.'m,.JT. ed Use - N=n-,.ma:ked Uses r,=,: 2er.m.i:ted . A"u:: En:e:~a~nmen: Z:nin~ 7er.--.,i: Re;uireJ J? t C ? P 7 c clc Iclc Iclcl P ~ P j T,hi.~ i$ an ez.-e~t from the /ncust~al Area Soecifc Plan (ISP). Please re:~.' :~ Te.~,'e III. 2 of t.'~e FSP/or a com¢,'ete description o! the ;and use I de,'Tnit;'on3. If you need neJ,o in dete,rm, ining the land use .~/~e o; a 3':.sirtess. ~;eese contact t,-.e P!antt. ing ~iv;$:'on at (ggg) 477.2750. Sec. ;, [CO~'IMERCIAL -' '. :. ~ · Adult Agricultural/Nursery Supplie~ & S~ice~ Animal Clr~ Automotive ~leet S:=rage Au:omo:ive Ren:a{ Au::motive&igh: Tm~ Repair - Miner A::a,ma:ive~ruck Repair - Major Au:ami:ive Sales and Leasing Su~l~in~ C~n:r~o~s ~ & Yards ~u~lding C=n:ra~o~s Storage Yard ~uiidin~ Maintenan~ Se~i~s Building & Light E=ui=men~ ~us[ness Supply Retail & Se~i~s Business Su:~om Semi~s C:,mmuni~don ~on~enlen~ Sa~es & Se~i~s Eztens;ve I,m~n~ Commer~nl lFin~n~aL Insv~an~ & Real ~s:~:e Ser~i~s Heavy ~:u~:me~: Sales & Rent, is Ha:e~Mc:el ',ndoor Wh=~s~{e/Re:~[I Ccmmer:~l LaunCh/ M_.,~ ..... ..,h Care Semites Pe:r:feum Produszs Re:tea:ion Fn :il~/es RectOr Services Res:aur~n:s wiZh ~ar or ~n:e~inmen: NOTES; - [~us:rial Park - Haven Avenue Over',~'/ Ois~ric: - General ,,,,/, J . Minire, urn [mp~c: Heavy HI - He~,~ Industrial MU,'OS- ' =~ &fix_. Use/Open TABLE Ili-1 (Continued) C C P P P PiP P PJ cct t Plclc 9' P P P' P P C P P P P c'lc Ic I.= P !p p C C C P P P P C P P JC :C P P P P C P P C P P C ? C' C C P P P C C C lc C C C P P P C C C P P C P P C ~ P C C C P P C clc C C C P P P P P P C C C C C C P P C C C P P P P P P C C P P C C Ic lip lal lal I~l lip tip t :.;u/os A A P C C P P P P P P P C P C P JA A P P P C P P P C P P C P P P C C Ic C C C " C P P P C Icc c t I .~ P cJc C Ic I C cJc C I P cJc P P PiP P P PiP P P PIP P c J c ccI c Ic Icc C C P C C P c Ic C C C P C C C P P P P P P C P P P PtC P Pe rmL-._*d Use Cmn,"i:!r'naUy Permir.e: Use N:n-,.mar'.,:ed Uses nc~ ~ermk:ed A~ul: Er,;.e~ainmen~' Zoning Per.mi: Re;uired Refer :o Haven Avenue Overlay Ofs::i~ f:r additional res:ri~i:ns , i._s. r .... o Tab,,~ //[-2 :me ,'SP for a ::m.;;ete des"~:t;bn cf t,~e ~= .... s. ] This is ~n exse.~t frcm the l~s'stn'al Area Spec/fi= P~an (ISP). ~ ~= ~ ~'=r · of '-~ , ~ ~erTn/:/c~s. If you need hel~ in ~e:e~ining the land use ~/2e :,' = 2s's~;nes~. -,~ = ~ · ~' '~ .~,'anning Di.zt'st~n at (90g) 477.2750. November 26, 1996 Chairman and Planning Commission City Of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Subject: Funeral and Crematory Use Within Subarea Eight Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission: Miller Family & Associates is interested in establishing the city's first mortuary. We propose a 10,000 square foot mortuary on a 1.6 acre site on Arrow Route east of Haven Avenue. This location is within Subarea Eight of the Industrial Specific Plan, which does not currently reference funeral and crematory services. The primary concern with mortuary activities is typically related to funeral processions and the potential impedance of traffic flow. Not all services are held at the mortuary, and less than 30% of the families served will actually require a funeral procession. Further, these services are normally held between 10:00 AM and 3:00 PM, thus avoiding peak comnluting areas. The use of traffic control escorts and secondary routes to access the freeways will sufficiently avoid any traffic conflicts. Any other concerns regarding the day to day operations of the mortuary can be addressed through the regulation by the Funeral Directors and Embalmers Law, found in the California Health and Safety Code. In the past year, there were 500 deaths in Rancho Cucamonga. As there are no mortuaries in the city, local citizens must drive to Upland or Ontario to obtain these basic services. The neighboring mortuaries, without exception, are all owned by large, out of state funeral conglomerates. We intend to be the only local, family owned and operated mortuary in the greater Rancho Cucamonga area. Mortuaries provide a basic service, integral to the daily function of any' community, and are traditionally centrally located. This site, just east of Haven Avenue, which is serviced by an off ramp of Interstate 10, is ideal for our purposes as it provides a visible, easily accessible location not only to the citizens of the community, but their relatives and other visitors unfamiliar with the area. We ask the Planning Commission's support in amending Subarea Eight of the Industrial Specific Plan by allowing funeral and crematory services within this area. We wish to emphasize that this action will not initiate a proliferation of funeral homes within the area, as the population of most cities is not large enough to sustain more than one mortuary. This is evidenced by the many neighboring communities that have only one mortuary, if at all. We look forward to making our professional services available to the community. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (909) 737-3244. Sincerely, Christopher B. Miller Miller Family & Associates JUL Y,~9,J LJ Par. $.W. I/4, Sec. 12, T. 18., R7W., S.B.B. ~ M. ..... ~,~, ....A.now .............................. Po~ I Rancho Cucumonc]a City 7bx /tale Area 15051 5 EC Parcel Mop No. IOO01t, P.M. IIG/q?-4~J Po~.pmcel Mop No. r2o,iu, I?M. 140/10-20 I~rcel Mop No. 9301, P.M. 104/42-4.] Po~ Pi.vcel Mop No. I10.,~., [)or: Potcel Mop No. 4594, P.M. 47/2-3 .~,,~ Par. 2 "~' I?M 38/64'5'5 Por. Purccl Mop No. '1256, P.M. 3~?/64-65 Pot. Potcol Mop No. 1993, P.M. 17/22 ) Ibr. Putcol Mop No. 1lSG.~, I.M. 135/57-5U /",or. I)drc¢l 61o1' too. 10237, I?l',f. I2B/IG -tO Puteel Mop No. 1054.7,, [.~I',1. 117/67-6tl PmcelMop Not Idd57, P.M. I}'8/86-88 Parcel Map No. 1360l, /? At. 17'l/22-23 Parcel Mop No. 11410, I.~ M. I50/30-.7,1 .;'/,"/",if' ,,? Mr. Denman responded red and white. Commissioner McNiel asked if this sign is being used at another location. Mr. Denman stated the Brea store uses the same sign. Commissioner McNiel asked the operating hours of the business. Mr. Denman responded the scuba instruction begins at 7:00 a.m. and the main store opens at 10:00 a.m. Commissioner Tolstoy stated his support of the proposed sign. Commissioner Macias concurred with Commissioner Bethel's contingency proposal. Chairman Barker invited public comment regarding Item I. Dennis Stout, Federal Sign, 871 North Maplewood Street, Orange, indicated Hollywood Video is a large corporation with plans to open 60 to 100 stores in Southern California and strives to maintain a cohesivehess throughout the chain. He pointed out the Uniform Sign Program allows intermediate tenants with established logo graphics to utilize their custom colors with approval of the landlord and the City. He asserted Hollywood Video's name is their logo, trademark, and identity. He pointed out other tenants in the center using white in their signage. Commissioner McNiel asked if Federal Sign plans neon signs inside the building and if so, what color. Mr. Stout answered in the affirmative, but did not know which treatment had been chosen. Mr. Hayes reported conditions have been placed on Hollywood Video tenant improvement plans regarding interior neon being placed a minimum of 10 feet from any outside window. Commissioner McNiel felt the white color might be a better choice to apply than the red. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the word "Hollywood" is to be in red, and the word "Video" in white. Mr. Stout answered in the affirmative. Commissioner Bethel commented that the building in Loma Linda looks nice. Commissioner Macias supported the use of white. Chairman Barker announced unanimous approval of Items H and I by minute action. M. MILLER FAMILY & ASSOCIATES - A request to cdnsider initiation of text changes to the Industrial Area Specific Plan to add Funeral and Crematory Services as a conditionally permitted use in Subarea 8. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, presented the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes -10- December 11, 1996 Commissioner Bethel questioned air quality issues with regard to cremation. Chairman Barker invited public comment. Chris Miller, Thomas Miller Mortuary, 1 11 8 East Sixth Street, Corona, reported the firm that installs the crematorium equipment handles all Air Quality Management District permits. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Macias, to direct staff to process-the amendment upon submittal. Motion passed by the following vote: AYES: BARKER, BETHEL, MACIAS, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE -carried PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no additional public comments. COMMISSION BUSINESS Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, suggested that the Commission may wish to move the Design Review Committee meeting from Tuesday, December 31, to Monday, December 30, because of the holiday conflict. The Commissioners agreed to schedule the meeting on Monday, December 30. Mr. Coleman then brought up subcommittee appointments in conjunction with the City Council. Chairman Barker indicated, per City Council direction, a task force will be set up to consider each of the following topics: Economic Development, Foothill Boulevard, Multi-Family Development, and Signage. He recommended the two newest Commissioners each serve with one of the two veteran Commissioners, allowing himself to act as alternate. The Commission concurred: Commissioners McNiel and Bethel will serve on the task forces for Foothill Boulevard and Economic Development, while Commissioners Tolstoy and Macias will serve on the task forces for Multi-Family Development and Signage. N. COMMERCIAL LAND USE STUDY DISCUSSION- (No report) The Commission agreed to discuss the issue at a later date. Planning Commission Minutes D~c_mb_r 11, 1996 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 97-01, TO ADD FUNERAL AND CREMATORY SERVICES AS A CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USE IN SUBAREA 8, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. 1. Miller Family and Associates has filed an application for Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment No. 97-01, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 11th day of December 1996, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga initiated this amendment through minute action. 3. On the 11th day of March 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. 4. 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 March 11, 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 within the City; and and The proposed amendment will not have a significant impact on the environment; Subarea 8. The proposed amendment will allow refinement of the list of allowed uses in 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the Industrial Area Specific Plan or the General Plan and will provide for development, within Subarea 8, in a manner consistent with the Industrial Area Specific Plan and the General Plan and with related development; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. ISPA 97-01 - MILLER FAMILY & ASSOCIATES March 11, 1997 Page 2 Do Plan; and This amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the Industrial Area Specific c. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and d. The subject application is consistent with the objectives of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, and the purposes of Subarea 8; and e. The proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan. 4. The Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that the amendment identified in this Resolution is not defined as a project and is therefore exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Sections 15061b.1 and 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby recommends approval of Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment No. 97-01, amending Table II1-1 and page IV-54 as attached. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF MARCH 1997. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Bullet, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 1 lth day of March 1997, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TABLE Ill-1 (Continued) USE 7'YPES Adult En:e~ain,,ment Agricultural/Nurser-/Supples & Seaices Au:omot~v~ FI~t St=rage Au:2,motive~ight TPJ~ Repair - ,Minor Au:ami:ive Sa(es and Leasing A:::mc:ive Se~?~ ~usiness Supsty Retmil & Se~i~s ~us~ness SuspoK Se~i~s Conve~ien~ Sales & Se~i~s IFas: F=cd Sa(es Heavy E=u(~,men: Sales & In,ocr Whe~s~lelRe:ail Ccmmer:~al Medici/Heath Care Se~(ces Pers=r, al Se~i~s Res:aur&n:s w~h ~ar ~r ~n:e~a~nmen: NOTES: · ~2~ustriai Park - H~ve~ Ave=ue Over~7 G[ - Gene:al Industrial MI/HI - Minimum Impact Heavy NI - He~/ industrial MU/OS . ,Mixed Use,'O~e~ SDa:e C C P P PIP PIC P I PIP ctclc P P P P P C P P C P C C P P C C P C P P f IP I Ic PI t Pt cl I P Pl.= lc P P P P P C C C C Ic C P p- P P cl c'l C' C C P P ? P ( (c c I I A A A P C C P P P C C C P C C C P P P P P P P P P P P P C C C C C C C C C P P P c C C P P P P P P P C C C C P P P P P tc 9 I10 I1 A IX A C P P C P C C Ic Ic I clc I clc Ic lclc Iclc I I~ I Ic I I lip lal tol I~I t,P lip ^IAIAIA t Ic cl I P P C C C C clclc I P PIP P tC C P PIP P PiP P PIP P P cl c )C 'C C C C P C C C C C C C P P C C C ? P P P P P P P C P P P P C C C P ? C P P P P P P P C P P P · Per.mi%ed Use - Condi:icna!P/Permiced Use - A'~u[: En:e~ainmen: Zoning Permi.' Required - Refer to Haven Avenue Oreday Ois:~ for additional restt::~cns This is .=n ex:erst fr=m the ln~,,'stn'al Area $,~eci5c Plan (IS.~). Please ~= de:Tn~:/cns. If you n_.. n_l~ in ~ete~ining the land use 2/2e ci a bus;'ness ¢,~ase contact the Planning Oi'Asion at (909) 4 77-2 750. Land Use Designation Primary Function Permitted Uses Conditional Uses SUBAREA 8 General Industrial This area functions to provide for General Industrial activities and to assure for a transition area from the Heavy Industrial category located north of this subarea. North of Arrow and west of Milliken, the industrial uses should be allowed to continue and expand with all service according to the development standards of the plan. Subarea 8 extends north of Arrow approximately 1000' east 'of Cleveland to the east Plan boundary including a portion south of Arrow along the eastern plan boundary. Custom Manufacturing Light Manufacturing Research Services Public Storage Light Wholesale, Storage, and Distribution Medium Whol esal e, Storage and Distribution Agricul rural/Nursery Supplies and Services Automoti re/Light Truck Repai r-Minor Automoti re/Truck Repai r-Maj or Building Contractor's Offices and Yards Building Maintenance Services Building Supplies and Light Equipment Sales Business Supply Retail Sales and Services usiness Support Services ommuni cati on Services Eating and Drinking Establishments Laundry Services Recreation Facilities Repair Services Admi ni strati ve Ci vi c Services F1 ood Control/Util i ty Corridor Medi~ Manufacturing Admi ni strati ve and Office Professional/Design Services Animal Care Automotive Fleet Storage Automotive Rental/Leasing Automotive Service Stati on Convenience Sales and Services Entertainment Fast Food Sales Financial, Insurance and Real Estate Services Food and Beverage Sales Heavy Equipment Sal es and Rental s Medical/Heal th Care Services Personal Services IV-54 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: March 11, 1997 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Bullet, City Planner Thomas Grahn, Associate Planner ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENTAND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTAMENDMENT 97-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to change the zoning from Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) to General Commercial to be consistent with the General Plan for approximately 4.34 acres of land on the east side of Archibald Avenue, south of Arrow Route - APN: 209-041-27, 41, and 47. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Commercial Center and Rancho Cucamonga Senior Center; General Commercial and Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) South - Elementary School; Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) East Rancho Cucamonga Senior Center and single family residential; Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) West Industrial Complex; General Industrial District, Subarea 3 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan General Plan Desianations: Project Site - Commercial North- Commercial South - Elementary School East - Civic Community West - General Industrial Co Site Characteristics: The project site is located on the west side of Archibald Avenue, south of Arrow Route. The east side of the project site wraps around the southwest corner of the intersection of Malvern Avenue and Salina Court. The project site consists of three parcels, two of which are currently developed. The third parcel is vacant and vegetation consists of grasses and weeds. ANALYSIS: General: The project site contains three separate parcels that total approximately 4.34 acres of land (see Exhibit "D"). Parcel "A" contains 0.97 acres of land, fronts onto Archibald Avenue, and contains an office building that was previously occupied by the Chino Basin ITEM F PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DCA 97-01 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA March 11, 1997 Page 2 Municipal Water District. Parcel "B" contains 1.23 acres of land, fronts onto Archibald Avenue, and contains an office building currently occupied by a dental clinic and The Assistance League of Upland. Parcel "C" contains 2.14 acres of land, fronts onto both Archibald Avenue and Malvern Avenue, and is currently vacant. So Consistency with the General Plan: The 1981 General Plan identified the land use designation for entire frontage along Archibald Avenue from Arrow Route south to the existing Cucamonga Elementary School site as "Commercial" (see Exhibit "B"). The Commercial Land Use designation has not changed in the General Plan. The current proposal to change the land use district from "Low Residential" to "General Commercial" will bdng the zoning into consistency with the General Plan as required by state law. Co Land Use Compatibility: The current office land uses are considered legal non-conforming uses existing within a Residential District. If this request is not approved, these uses would not be allowed to expand nor would they be allowed to continue if discontinued for more than 180 days. The change in the land use district from "Low Residential" to "General Commercial" (see Exhibit "C") will be consistent with existing land uses as various office uses are permitted within the General Commercial District. Office use on these parcels has existed since the City's incorporation without complaint or evidence of incompatibility with the surrounding uses. The office use serves as a transition of land use intensity from the fast food restaurant and shopping center to the elementary school. Environmental Assessment: Pads I and II of the Initial Study have been completed as required by the California Environmental Quality Act. Under the Environmental Impact Report for the 1981 General Plan, the site was planned for commercial development. The current proposal to change the zoning designation from Residential to Commercial would not appear to introduce any greater impact not previously analyzed. The Initial Study determination is that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration should be prepared. FACTS FOR FINDING: Based on the facts and conclusions listed above, staff believes the Planning Commission can make the following findings regarding this application: A° The property is suitable for the uses permitted in the land use and development district designation in terms of access, size, and surrounding land use. Bo The proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor the surrounding properties as evidenced by the conclusions and findings of the Initial Study, which indicates that no significant impacts would be expected as a result of this land use change. The proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan and Development Code due to the site's ability to promote the goals and objectives for the General Commercial District. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the project site. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DCA 97-01 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA March 11, 1997 Page 3 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution, thereby recommending that the City Council issue a Negative Declaration and approve Development District Amendment 97-01. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:TG/mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" Applicant's Letter dated January 31, 1997 Exhibit"B" - General Plan Land Use Map (Excerpt) Exhibit"C" - Development District Map (Excerpt) Exhibit"D" - Assessors Map Exhibit"E" - Initial Study Part 2 Resolution Recommending Approval Office Bo~ 927 · Uz:a~'c Ca::-'~'-t~a-a''35 · 309. January 31, 1997 i?. u ,~' & 2.' ! 996-1997 ~- r- 7'~ - ;'~ "' ' ' BOARD OF I)lRECTOIL'; F ['rt.~idcnt J~:,,~',vania Mr. Dave Barker %icel'rt.~idcut Chairman, Planning Commission l'h>llisShainbcrg City of Rancho Cucamonga Rcc.rdklgS~.~:retaQ' 10500 Civic Center Drive V;dcdc L:,:~da Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 C.I rr~.pouding 5or'rolm r)' R~hSc~ttz Re: 8555 & 8593 Archibald Avenue Trcasu£cr Mary Lynn Bro~n Dear Chairman Barker: $ACHDen{a]Ceater Assistance League of Upland requests that the Chairlu. an PatEiwcH Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga initiate an amendment to adjust the zoning maps of Opcratim~ $ch..I Chairman the above properties (currently showing as residential) N~acy~t,.'¥'u~ to correspond to the zoning of these properties (commercial) as called out in the City's General Plan. ~ I~.'t'ia] Prujccts hc~m:SuUi,~. It has been brought to our attention that when the ~.'u.aral, i,,e General Plan was adopted, the adjustment of zoning Chainua,, maps for this property was overlooked. Esther Nh)tt 'rh~rtShop Assistance League of Upland would like the ~roperties Chainuan to be in compliance with the General Plan as it was S:.'l'.iaR.ose originally set forth. Education Chinas, Sincere!v, ['at Ludovici Lou?, Rzm~e Pla:mi.ug Chairman' //7, ~C~.~ n e Wallin Public Relations . Chainumt ~ r' e S 1 d e n t Miki Fisher Chuinuatl :\nn¢ .-k~sis t t"ttkS C.ordh~at,r Barbara CC: Rancho Cucamonga City Council Brad Bu!ler, City Planner ~~ l,a:~ Ti:,s .4u,dli-D' l,iai.,un l'at[?' I)unki. luJm~¢l I'r,) fu, si(maI. k Aux~liac¥ l.iai. gam' t<act:.a u[ I:ucCtc Serving the comrnun/tze$ of A,'ta Lama, Etiwanda, ,Concana, A'lonccla/r, Ontarzo, Rancho Cucamonga, and U~nland Vineyard Archibald Project' 'D~A '~-'-01 Title: (~.,t',4~ ~ Exhibit: ~ ~ Date: CITY OF RA'N .CEI~3<.(~,EICAMONGA ~ ...........!;i....~..,'.' "L ..~.~ ........... Project: '[~2,N '~-~"'~) / t~~ Title: 't2~~'~P..~T Exhibit: "(--)' Date: Par. $.W.I/4,$ec. I I, T.I$.,R. 7W.,$.B.B.E~ M. Parcel Map No, 4875, RM, 46/91,92 /~oncho Cucomonga Oily Tax Code Area 15013 ~o~-04 tj Assessor's Mop Bool~ RO9 Page 04 Son Bernardino County Project' Title: ~~ Exhibit: I:\TOM~PC~DDA97-01.PT2 City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND Project File: Development District Amendment 97-01 Description of Project: A request to change the zoning from Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) to General Commercial to be consistent with the General Plan for approximately 4.36 acres of land. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Designation: Commercial Zoning: Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) o Surrounding North - South - East - West - Land Uses and Setting: Commercial center and Rancho Cucamonga Senior Center, General Commercial and Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) Elementary School, Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) Rancho Cucamonga Senior Center and single family residential, Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) Industrial Complex, General Industrial District, Subarea 3 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 o Contact Person and Phone Number: Thomas Grahn, Associate Planner (909) 477-2750 Other agencies whose approval is required: None. Initial Study for Development District Amendment 97-01 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ( ) Land Use and Planning ( ) Population and Housing ( ) Geological Problems ( ) Water ( ) Air Quality ( ) Transportation/Circulation ( ) Biological Resources ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources ( ) Hazards ( ) Noise ( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance ( ) Public Services ( ) Utilities and Service Systems ( ) Aesthetics ( ) Cultural Resources ( ) Recreation DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: (v') I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepay'ed. () 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. () Signed: 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 ana,yzed 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. Th'omas Grahn Associate Planner February 25, 1997 Initial Study for Development District Amendment 97-01 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. The proposed project is a zone change to bring the project site into conformance with the General Plan. Under the Environmental Impact Report for the 1981 General Plan the site was planned for commercial development. The subject property has been used for offices since before the City's incorporation in 1977. The current proposal to change the zoning designation from residential to commercial would not appear to introduce any greater impact not previously analyzed. As development occurs on the project site each related application will be subject to a separate environmental analysis to determine specific project related environmental impacts. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: LAND a) b) c) d) Potentially Significant Impact Less PotentiallyUnless Than SignificantMitigation SignificantNo Impact IncorporatedImpact Impact USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposah Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Issues and Supporting Information Sources: POPULATION AND HOUSING. a) b) c) Potentially S~gnific..ant Impact Less PotentiallyUnless Than SignificantMibgation SignificantNo Imoact {ncorooratedImDact Impact Would the proposal.' Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v~) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v~) Initial Study for Development District Amendment 97-01 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving.' a) b) c) d) e) f) 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 IreDact City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 4 Potentially Significant Impact Less Unless Than Mitigation Significant IncorooratedImpact No Irnl~aCt () () () () () () (~) () () () (v) () () () (~) () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () Issues and Supporting Information Sources: WATER. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? e) Changes in currents,-or the course or direction of water movements? 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Unless Than Mit~gatim~ S*gnificant IncorporatedI,'noact No IreDact () () () () () () (~) () () () () () () () () () (¢) () () () (~) Initial Study for Development District Amendment 97-01 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 5 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: g) h) i) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? Impacts to groundwater quality? Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? Potentially Signif"~.,ant Impact () () Potentially Significant Impact Less Unless Than Mitigation Significant IncorporatedImpact () () () () No Impact (v,) () () () (¢) o Issues and Supporting Information Sources: AIR QUALITY. a) b) c) d) Potentially Significant Impact Would the proposal.' Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ( ) Create objectionable odors? ( ) Potentially Significant Impact Less Unless Than M~bgation Sig~if~..ant IncorporatedImpact No Impact () () (~) () () (~) () () (~) () () (v) o Issues and SuppOrting Information Sources: TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. proposal result in: a) b) c) d) e) 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 S,gn~cant Impact Potentially S~gnif~.ant Impact Lass Unless That1 Mitigation Significant IncorooratedImpact No Impact () () (v) () () (~) () () (~) () () (~) () () (~) () () () () (,,,) (~,,) Initial Study for Development District Amendment 97-01 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 6 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees, eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Unless Than Mitigation Significant InCOrl:x~atedImpact No Imoact () () () (v) () () () (¢) () () () (v) () () () (¢) () () () (¢) Issues and Suppo~ng Information Sources: 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? Potentially Sign~cent Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Unless Than Mitigation Significant IncorporatedImpact No Impact ( ) ( ) ( ) () () () (~) () () () (~) Issues and Supporting 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? Potenhal~y Signif'~u'~t Impact Potentially Sign~cant Impact Less Unless Than Mitigation Significant Incor~:,ratedImpact No Impact () () () (~) () () () (~) Initial Study for Development District Amendment 97-01 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 7 d) e) Supl~rting Information Sources: The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? Potentially Significant ImDac~ Potentially Significant Impact Less Unless Than Mitigation Significant IncorporatedImpact No Impact ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') () () () 10. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: NOISE. Will the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant impact Less Unles~ Than Mitigat~ Significant IncorporatedIra oat1 No () () () () () () 11. Issues and $ut~po~ Information Sources: PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) b) c) d) e) Fire protection? ( ) Police protection? ( ) Schools? ( ) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) Other governmental services? ( ) Potentially Significant Imoact Potentially Significant Impact Less Unless Than Mitigation Significant Incoq3oretedImoact No Impact () () () (v) () () () () (v) () 12. Issues and Supporhng 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) Power and natural gas? b) Communication systems? Potentially Significant Impact () () Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorl:~orated () () Significant Impact () () No ImDact (v') Initial Study for Development District Amendment 97-01 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: c) d) e) f) g) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? Sewer or septic tanks? Storm water drainage? Solid waste disposal? Local or regional water supplies? Potentially Significant Impact City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 8 Potentially Significant Impact Lass Unless Than Mitigation Significant Incorporatedfrn~act No Impact () () () (¢) () () () (¢) () () () (~) () () () (~) () () () 13. issues an~ Supporting Informa:ion Sources: AESTHETICS. a) b) c) Would the proposal.' Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? Create light or glare? Potentially Impact Potentially S~gniticant Impact Less Unless Than Mit~gabon Significant IncorporatedtrnDact No IrnDact () () () (¢) () () () (~) () () () (~) 14. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: CULTURAL RESOURCES. a) b) c) d) e) Would the proposal.' Disturb paleontological resources? Disturb archaeological resources? Affect historical or cultural resources? Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? Potentially Significant Irnoact Pmentially S~gnificant Impact Less Unless Than Mitigation Significant IncocporatedIreDact No Impact () () () (~) () () () (v) () () () (~) () () () () () () (,,,) Initial Study for Development District Amendment 97-01 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 9 15. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: RECREATION. Would the proposal.' a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially S ign~fic. ant Impac~ lass Unless Than Mitigation Significant IncorporatedIreDact No Impact (; () () (~) () () () (~) 16. Issues and Supporting Infonmation Sources: Potentially Significant Impact b) c) d) MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ( ) 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.) ( ) 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.) ( ) Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ( ) Potentially Sign~cant Impact Less Unless Than Mitigation S~gn~ficant Incor~=oratedImpact No Impact () () (¢) () () (~) () () (~) () () (~) Initial Study for Development District Amendment 97-01 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 10 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): (v') General Plan EIR (Certified April 6, 1981 ) Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989) APPLICANT CERTIFICATION I certify that I am the applicant for the project described in this Initial Study. I acknowledge that I have read this Initial Study and the proposed mitigation measures. Further, I have revised the project plans or proposals and/or hereby agree to the proposed mitigation measures to avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant environmental effects would Occur. Signature: Date: /~' ~ Print Name and Title: Tnrn ~r~hn A.~.~nrt. i~fP. Pl~nn~.r RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 97-01, A REQUEST TO AMEND THE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS MAP FROM LOW RESIDENTIAL TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL FOR 4.34 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF ARCHIBALD AVENUE, SOUTH OF ARROW ROUTE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 209-041-27, 41, AND 47. A. Recitals. 1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has filed an application for Development Distdct Amendment No. 97-01, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development District Amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. On March 11, 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 substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on March 11, 1997, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to approximately 4.34 acres of land, basically a rectangular configuration, located on the east side of Archibald Avenue, south of Arrow Route and presently contains both developed and vacant land. Said property is currently designated as Low Residential; and b. The property has been in use as offices since before the City's incorporation; and c. The City's 1981 General Plan designated the property as General Commercial and said land use designation has not changed; and d. The property to the north of the subject site is designated General Commercial and is developed as a commercial center. The property to the west is designated General Industrial and is developed as an industrial complex. The property to the east is designated Low Residential and is developed as the Rancho Cucamonga Senior Center. The property to the south is designated Low Residential and is developed as Cucamonga Elementary School. Fig PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DCA 97-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA March 11, 1997 Page 2 and will provide and with related This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan development; and f. This amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and properties and properties. This amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent would not have a significant impact on the environment nor the surrounding 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. b. That the proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor the surrounding properties. 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 that the City Council adopt 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 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 Califomia 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 Development District Amendment No. 97-01. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DCA 97-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA March 11, 1997 Page 3 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF MARCH 1997. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 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 1 lth day of March 1997, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TAIT & ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS March 6, 199'7 Civil · Planning · Surveying ·Environmentai Ms. Nancy Fong Senior Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Dr. Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Re.' Sign Ordinance Amendment #97-01 Proposed Texaco Facilities RECEIVED t.4AR ! 0 1997 Cily of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division In regards to the proposed sign ordinance amendment, Texaco Refining and Marketing Inc. (Texaco), has two main concerns regarding your draft ordinance: Texaco requires two (2) signs per each subtenant. With the requirement established by the city to orient the building towards the property interior (with the rear of the building addressing the street), one sign is needed to identify the building as a subtenant use from the street, and a second sign is needed to identify the subtenant use from the property interior. The signs are needed to associate the subtenant with the Texaco station, since subtenants such as quick service restaurants have not traditionally been affiliated with service stations. The draft ordinance has defined a subtenant as one that "occupies a minimum of 33% of the ~oss floor area of a building." This is an unacceptable criteria for our projects as currently proposed. The two subtenants for the proposed facility at Foothill/Elm combined barely meet the 33% criteria. We implore you to revise the subtenant criteria to satisfy the condition of the approved floor plan per Conditional Use Permit #96-21. We greatly appreciate your time and consideration or~ this matter. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, T A IT ff :.A-,q S O C I ATE S.~A~S ..~// K~ RICHARD TAIT Vice President cc: Cliff Markins, TRMI 1100Towr~&Countn/ Road · Suite 1200 · Orange, CA92868 · (714)560-8200 · (714) 560-8211 FAX Other Locations: San Diego, CA · Concord, CA · Sacramento. CA ·Phoenix. AZ · Tucson. AZ Established 1964 MAR-li-1997 ~5:.5~ TAIT ~ ASSOCIATES P.Oi/O~ TAft &ASSOCIATES, INC, CONSULTING ENGINEERS CMI. Planning - Sun,eying · Envi~tal March ~l, 1997 Ms. Nancy Fong Senior Planner City of Rancho Cueaunonga 10500 Civic C~ntor D~. Ran~o Cucamonga, CA 91729 Proposed Texaco Facilities Sign Code Amendment Dc~r Nancy: In regards to the definition of %ubtenanr' in the pmposexi sign code amemdmcm (sac attache), Texaco is concerned that their carant projects may be excluded from the application of~he code. The dcfinitio~ appears to exclu& the "subtenant" use if the use is owned and operated by the ownor/oporator of the primary facility. For the record, Texaco will own and opa-ate the Quick Servic~ Restaurant (QSR) Ol:~mtions as a franchise owaer. Therefore, Texaco owns and operates the "subtenants." As you can imagine, the distinction is absolutely critical to ~ applicability of~he sign code amendment m Texaco. We request a clarification of the definition, or an allowanc~ for operations such as Tcxaco's. Perhaps in addition to "subtenant," you might include the cod~ amendment applicable to "secondary uses." Thank you for your consideration on this matter. Very Iruly yours, TAIT & ASSOCIATES, INC . CHARD TAIT Vice President cc: CliffMafidns, TRMI Jack Ayers, TRMI Bill Hicl~, TRMI 1100Town & Country Road , Suite 1200 · Orange, CA92868 · (714) 560-8200 · (714) 56043211 FAX O~her L_,'-x=ti_ 'ons: San Diego. CA - Gon~o~l. CA · $imramsnto, CA * Phoenix. AZ . Tucson. AZ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: March 11, 1997 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Nancy Fong, AICP, Senior Planner SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 97-01 - TEXACO - A request to amend the Sign Ordinance by adding regulations to allow the identification of subtenants within service stations. ANALYSIS: Background: On December 11, 1996, the Planning Commission reviewed a request from Texaco to allow the identification of subtenants within their new service stations that would be built in the future. At the meeting, the Commission determined that there is a need to respond to the new subtenant market trend and directed Texaco to submit an application for amending the Sign Ordinance. Attached for your review is a copy of the December 11, 1997, staff report and minutes. On February 4, 1997, staff received the Sign Ordinance amendment application from Texaco. Proposed Sign Regulations: Staff created a subtenant sign category under the service station classification. The new regulations define a subtenant and establish the maximum number of signs and the sign area for them. Another new regulation would require a Uniform Sign Program for a service station that has subtenants, which would apply to new stations that have received Commission approval and existing stations with subtenants or plan to have subtenants. The purpose is to ensure that the design and the placement of the different types of signs for the service stations and the subtenants relate to and are compatible with the building design and the site improvements. The proposed change is shown in the attached Exhibit "D" with new sign regulations in bold italics. Other Sign Issue: At the meeting on December 11, 1996, staff reported that the market trend of combining uses under one roof extends to banking services within supermarkets. Staff did not address this issue because the amendment was filed by Texaco. Staff anticipates that the issue of subtenant signs will surface again in other situations, such as supermarkets. ITEM G PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SOA 97-01 - TEXACO March 11, 1997 Page 2 Environmental Assessment: The proposed new sign regulations are categorically exempt per Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the proposed Ordinance. Respectfully submitted, City Planner BB:NF/mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Applicant's Letter of Request dated January 28, 1997 Exhibit "B" - Planning Commission Staff Report dated December 11, 1996 Exhibit "C" - Planning Commission Minutes dated December 11, 1996 Exhibit "D" - Existing and Proposed Sign Code for Service Stations Resolution Recommending Approval Proposed Ordinance TAIT &ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS Civil · Planning · Surveying · Environmental Janua.D.' 28, 1997 Ms. Nancy Fong Senior Planner City, of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Dr. Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Re: Letter of Justification Sign Code Amendment Proposed Texaco Facilities Rancho Cucamonga, CA Dear Ms. Fong: On behalf of Texaco Refining and Marketing Inc., we respectfully request an amendment to the City Sign Code (code section 14.20.100) to allow wall signs for quick service restaurants (QSRs) at service stations with food marts. The marketing of gasoline has become increasingly competitive over the past years. Additionally, the cost of land, construction and labor has been increasing, resulting in the profit margin on gasoline being very narrow. As a result, our client is required to find new revenue streams for their gasoline sales facilities. Texaco is proposing to construct a convenience-oriented food mart at both locations. In addition, they are proposing to install QSRs in the food marts. The QSRs are nationally recognized fast food operations, and will run in the same manner as a stand-alone fast food restaurant, except on a smaller scale and the emphasis will be on off-site consumption. We must stress that the QSRs, as well as the food mart, are distinct business operations within a single structure. As distinct business operations. they must retain their own individual external signage in order to attract customers and to survive as business entities. Texaco's QSR parmers require their corporate identities to be represented on the exterior faces of the building as well as on other signage which will identify their product to potential customers. With the advent of credit card and debit card readers at the fuel dispensers, a majority of those purchasing fuel never enter the building and remain unaware of any additional business inside the building. Unless these customers have 1100Town & Country Road · Suite 1200 · Orange, CA92868 · (714) 560-8200 · (714) 560-8211 FAX Other Locations: San Diego, CA - Concord, CA · Sacramento, CA · Phoenix, AZ - Tucson, AZ Established 1964 kno~vledge of the additional facilities within the building, these businesses will not be able to sustain sufficient sales to sustain operation. Currently, the code allo~vs for only one wall sign per frontage with a maximum of two wall signs, and does not allow for any wall signage for other distinct business operations within the building. As previously stated, wall signage is essential for the sustainability of the proposed QSRs. We recognize that the city is allowing QSR identification on the Texaco monument signs, for which we are greatly appreciative. However, monument signage alone does not accomplish the signage needs for the QSRs. The average customer does not normally identify fast food with gasoline service stations. Once the customer is attracted off the street by the QSR monument sign, he/she is likely to become confused by lack of wall signs to identify the location of the QSRs. The customer needs the wall sign to direct him/her to the desired services. If you have any questions or comments regarding this correspondence, please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, TAIT & ASSOCIATES, INC. K. RICHARD TAIT Vice President cc: D.C. Matkins, TRMI CITY OF RANCHO CUCAiMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: December 11, 1996 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Nancy Fong, AICP, Senior Planner DIRECTOR'S REPORT 96-03 - TEXACO - A request to determine if new sign regulations should be added to allow signs identifying sub tenants within a primary business. BACKGROUND: The applicant, Texaco, recently submitted two Conditional Use Permit applications for the construction of two service stations, located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Elm Avenue and at the southwest corner of Base Line Road and Milliken Avenue. In addition to a mini-market, Texaco intends to feature drive-thru quick service restaurants (QSRs) for the two facilities such as Taco Bell, A & W, Del Taco, or Baskin Robins, within the same structure that contains the mini-market. Attached is a copy of the letter from Texaco requesting additional signs for their sub tenants (Exhibit "A"). ANALYSIS: This section of the report examines whether there is a need to allow sign identifications for sub tenants that are within a primary business. Current Siqn Codes and Applicant's reeuests: The Sign Ordinance allows service stations to have one wall sign per building face or elevation and up to a maximum of three signs, which could consist of a combination of wall and monument signs. Texaco requests to have two sub tenant wall signs, one for each QSR, on the same building elevation as the primary wall sign. In addition to the wall signs, Texaco also requests QSR signs on the two monument signs, one on each street frontage. Exhibit "C" shows an example of the proposed primary wall sign and sub tenant wall signs. Past action of the Planninc~ Commission: The Commission has seen similar cases of independent uses combine under one roof and previously had similar discussions on the subject with Wal-Mart and McDonalds, Shell service station and Churchs Fried Chicken, Smiths Food, and El Pollo Loco and Fosters Freeze. The Commission has consistently required that those sub tenants must rely on the signage for the primary tenant or modify the name of the primary tenant to incorporate its sub tenant(s). Market Changes: Staff has observed an increase of combination of uses within a primary business or tenant to provide more services for customers. Examples are banking services within supermarkets such as Albertsons with Wells Fargo Bank and Luckys with Bank of America. Because of this business trend, staff senses that the pressure is building up from PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 96-03 - TEXACO December 11, 1996 Page 2 the sub tenants to have their signs. The question is whether the City should allow sub tenants' signs and, if so, what limits should be established. If each sub tenant such as a liquor store, a dell, a Kodak service, an ATM service, etc., is allowed a sign on the same building face as the primary business of a supermarket, then the building will be overcrowded with signs. Staff believes that this approach is inconsistent with the goals of the Sign Ordinance and General Plan. Options: StafFs opinion is that there are other approaches which could address this issue. One option, which is already in place, is to require the primary tenant to include the sub tenant's name within their sign. An example is El Pollo Loco and Fosters Freeze. This option would not necessitate an amendment to the Sign Ordinance. A second option is to develop criteria to allow sub tenant signs, such as requiring a separate entry, using a significant percentage of floor area, establishing maximum sign area, etc. This option would require amending the Sign Ordinance. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the above analysis, staff believes that there is merit in studying the sub tenants' sign issue and that new criteria could be established to address them. Therefore, staff recommends that the Commission direct the applicant to submit a Sign Ordinance amendment request. Respectfully submitted, City Planner BB:NF/mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Exhibit "B" - Exhibit "C" - Texaco's Letter of Request Excerpt of Sign Ordinance for Service Stations Example of Proposed Wall signs before during the Best Buy project and should remain. He stated if the applicant does no mapping prior to the building permit issuance, they will be required to complete all fr~ age improvements along that parcel; however, if the applicant completes a lot line ad or a parcel map, they will only be required to complete the frontage along the Texaco site. the bus bay issue will be addressed during a later phase if the applicant does a lot lin, djustment, but the Terra Vista Planned Community does need Church Street as a designate. route. Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. Commissioner McNiel remarked that a monument sign, with or without le, is needed to balance both corners. He concurred with staff~s opinion regarding the concrete condition to provide other architectural elements acceptable to the City Plato He stated his concern regarding the austere appearance of the cornice work around tht }erimeter of the top of the building. Mr. Buller clarified the scope of the uniform design theme to encompass the Texaco project only. this Conditional Use Permit Commissioner McNiel felt because the traffic signal issL was deferred once already, the condition should remain. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed. Commissioner McNiel concurred with staff the lot line adjustment. Mr Buller recommended adding a final to the condition requiring a monument sign to read, "Install the gateway prior to of occupancy or, if a new request has been submitted for processing of a new monument ram, the City Planner may approve the installation at a later date." Chairman Barker and Commi McNiel concurred. Mr. Buller suggested th, "Material subject to Cit' requiring precast concrete cornices be changed to read review and approval." Motion: Moved b resolution a carried by the seconded by Macias, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Use Permit 96-21 with modifications outlined above. Motion vote: AYES: NOES: BARKER, BETHEL, MACIAS, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NONE NONE -carried The Planning Commission recessed from 8:50 p.m. to 8:58 p.m. during which time Mr. Buller left the meeting. '_. ~,J. DIRECTOR'S REPORT 96-03 - TEXACO - A request to determine if new sign regulations should be added to allow signs identifying sub tenants within a primary business. Planning Commission Minutes EXHIBIT "C" December 11, 1996 Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner McNiel supported staff"s position and stated, if a sign ordinance amendment is presented, the Commission can proceed on that basis. Commissioner Tolstoy commented the building needs to provide reasonable architectural space to accommodate signage. Chairman Barker indicated the issue is one which the Commission has agreed to address and will appoint committee members later in the meeting. DIRECTOR'S REPORT 96-04 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO. - A request to determine architectural design guidelines should be developed for a proposed Mixed Use center 96-20) within the Terra Vista Community Plan, located on the north side of Foothill Bo~ card between Elm and Milliken Avenues. Nancy' Fong, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner McNiel felt the City needs basic design guide. lines on any develc if it's a complex. He concurred with staff. particularly Commissioner Tolstoy felt it is extremely important to have a plan. project specifically and its connection to the rest of the proposed and the subsequent traffic circulation. mentioned the Texaco the connecting driveway Chairman Barker suggested a workshop with Lewis Homes. Commissioner Bethel concurred. Commissioner Macias acknowledged the importa design guideline requirement waived. of an open dialogue but did not want the Greg Hoxworth, Lewis Homes, asked if the or the overall plan for the site. He building plan, layout, and uses, but will make sure their design guide development and will be reviewe~ Commission to advise staff of architectural guidelines for was discussing the architectural details Homes has no problem providing the physical detailed architectural guideline. He further stated they are compatible with the Texaco project during future the Planning Commission at that time. He then asked the willingness to allow the Texaco project to proceed without of the site. Ms. Fong stated the is to be developed using a master plan and staff has asked for architectural Jidelines for a typical anchor so that the architectural flavor can be established, site furniture and landscaping. She indicated if the Commission could grant the applicant s, e flexibility in the timing, staff could require both the Master Plan and the architectural guidelines with the first major anchor. She voiced her awareness of the residential ion of the project in the future and that it does need to be fully planned at this time, but rese for residential development. Principal Planner, pointed out that the approval of the shopping center, in no way the timing of the Texaco project. Planning Commission Minutes -7-~-- OC2 December 11, 1996 14.20.100 Permitted Signs - Commercial and Office Zones - The following signs may be permitted in the commercial and office zones subject to the provisions listed: CLASS SIGN TYPE MAXIMUM NUMBER MAXIMUM SIGN MAXIMUM HEIGHT AREA 4. a. Service Station Wall One per street frontage, 10% of building face not to Not above roof line or 20 Identification and maximum two. exceed 150 square feet. feet. Pricing and Monument One per street frontage, not 36 square feet. Up to 8 feet. to exceed a total of two per station. b. Special Service Wall or Ground One for each pump island, 2 square feet. Signs not to exceed a total of four ~ per station. c. Special Window or Two per station. 6 square feet. Advertisement Ground d. Subtenant Wall Signs Monument One per subtenant, not to exceed a total of two per station. One per subtenant per monument sign. 12 square feet, to be included as part of the 10% of the building face for the service station. If mounted on a wall or pole of the canopy, it shall be no higher than 8 feet. Ground signs shall not exceed 6 feet in height. A ground sign shall noi exceed 6 feet in height, a window sign shall not exceed 6 feet in height. Not above roof line or 20 feet. REMARKS a. A combination of monument and wall may be used, but not more than a total of 3 signs. b. The monument sign shall be designed to include the identification of the station and gasoline prices. No other price signs are allowed. c. Uniform Sign Program shall be required for service stations with a subtenant. Special service signs shall be limited to such items as self serve, full serve, air, water, cashier, and shall be nonilluminated. Special advertisement shall be limited to advertising special sales or services. A subtenant is defined as a business that is not owned or operated by the station and/or the franchisees of the station, or a subsidiary of the station; and, whose operation is separate from, unrelated to, and different from the station. A subtenant occupies a minimum of 33 percent of the gross floor area of a building. The identification of subtenants may be allowed on the monument sign. Products, services, price signs for the subtenants are not allowed. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 97-01, AMENDING TITLE 14 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING NEW REGULATIONS FOR SUB-TENANT SIGNS WITHIN THE SERVICE STATION CLASSIFICATION, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. 1. Texaco has filed an application for Sign Ordinance Amendment No. 97-01, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Sign Ordinance Amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 11th day of March 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 March 11, 1997, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds and concludes as follows: a. The Amendment will provide for development of a comprehensively planned urban community within the District that is superior to development otherwise allowable under alternate regulations. b. The Amendment will provide for development within the District in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development and growth management policies of the City. c. The Amendment will meet the purpose and intent of Title 14 of the Municipal Code. d. The amendment will not have a significant impact on the environment. 3. This Commission hereby finds and determines that the proposed amendment is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby recommends the City Council approve Sign Ordinance Amendment No. 97-01 to modify the Municipal Code per the attached Ordinance. The Secretary to this Commission shall cedify to the adoption of this Resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. SOA 97-01 - TEXACO March 11, 1997 Page 2 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF MARCH 1997. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 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 1 lth day of March 1997, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ORDINANCENO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 97-01, AMENDING TITLE 14 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING NEW REGULATIONS FOR SUBTENANT SIGNS WITHIN THE SERVICE STATION CLASSIFICATION. A. Recitals. 1. On the 11th day of March 1997, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing with respect to the above-referenced Sign Ordinance Amendment. Following the conclusion of said public headng, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 97- , thereby recommending that the City Council adopt Sign Ordinance Amendment No. 97-01. 2. On the __ day of April 1997, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing and concluded said hearing prior to its adoption of this ordinance. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1: Section 14.20.100 Permitted Signs - Commercial and Office Zones is hereby amended as shown in the Exhibit "A." SECTION 2: The Council hereby finds and determines that the proposed amendment is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines. SECTION 3: The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be published within fifteen (15) days after its passage at least once in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. 14.20.100 Permitted Signs - Commercial and Office Zones - The following signs may be permitted in the commercial and office zones subject to the provisions listed: CLASS SIGN TYPE MAXIMUM NUMBER MAXIMUM SIGN MAXIMUM HEIGHT AREA 4. a. Service Station Wall One per street frontage, 10% of building face not to Not above roof line or 20 Identification and maximum two. exceed 150 square feet. feet. Pricing and Monument One per street frontage, not 36 square feet. Up to 8 feet. to exceed a total of two per station. b. Special Service Wall or Ground One for each pump island, Signs not to exceed a total of four per station. 2 square feet. c. Special Window or Two per station. 6 square feet. Advedisement Ground Monument One per subtenant, not to exceed a total of two per station. One per subtenant per monument sign. d. Subtenant Wall Signs 12 square feet, to be included as part of the 10% of the building face for the service station. If mounted on a wall or pole of the canopy, it shall be no higher than 8 feet. Ground signs shall not exceed 6 feet in height. A ground sign shall not exceed 6 feet in height, a window sign shall not exceed 6 feet in height. Not above roof line or 20 feet. REMARKS a. A combination of monument and wall may be used, but not more than a total of 3 signs. b. The monument sign shall be designed to include the identification of the station and gasoline prices. No other price signs are allowed. c. Uniform Sign Program shall be required for service stations with a subtenant. Special service signs shall be limited to such items as self serve, full serve, air, water, cashier, and shall be nonilluminated. Special advertisement shall be limited to advertising special sales or services. A subtenant is defined as a business that is not owned or operated by the station and/or the franchisees of the station, or a subsidiary of the station; and, whose operation is separate from, unrelated to, and different from the station. A subtenant occupies a minimum of 33 percent of the gross floor area of a building. The identification of subtenants may be allowed on the monument sign. Products, services, price signs for the subtenants are not allowed. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: March 11, 1997 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Nancy Fong, AICP, Senior Planner CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-24 - MASI - A review of the car wash facility for the Mobil gas station within Masi Plaza, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Masi Drive - APN: 229-011-36. ABSTRACT: The purpose of this report is for the Commission to review the request from Mobil to reverse the direction of cars entering and exiting the car wash and determine whether this reversed direction is acceptable and whether it meets the intent of the Drive-Thru Design Policies. BACKGROUND: On January 8, 1997, staff met with John De Frenza, the applicant, and Oscar Etemadian, the owner.of the Mobil station, to review the proposed change of having the cars enter the car wash from the east and exit to the west. They requested the change because a representative from the manufacturer of the car wash equipment stated that the approved direction, which is to enter from the west, creates difficulties for some drivers to negotiate and maneuver the turns when entering the car wash. He claimed that it would lead to an increase in damage to the equipment, curbs, and walls of the facility as well as damage to the patrons' cars. Because the site is along a Special Boulevard and the proposal is a substantial change to the original approval, staff determined and informed the applicant that the proposed change would have to be reviewed by the Commission. On February 13, 1997, staff received a letter from the applicant requesting the Commission's review, as shown in the attached Exhibit "A." The station and the mini-market are in business now but the car wash is not because the equipment has not been installed. On January 23, 1997, the owner of the station was notified of the requirement to submit a separate plan check and an electrical permit for the car wash equipment. At the writing of this staff report, neither the plans nor the permit have been submitted to the Building and Safety Division. ANALYSIS: To consider this item, the Commission should review the background section of this report, analyze the pros and cons of the two options for entering and exiting the car wash, and review the requirements of the established Design Policies for Drive-Thru facilities. Approved Direction - Enter from the West and Exit to the East: A driver would make a right turn after getting gas from the pump island and enter the west drive-thru lane queuing for the wash unit. Once the wash is completed, the driver would exit the unit and exit the station from the second driveway as shown in Exhibit "C." The applicant claims that the cars exiting at the east side would be parallel to incoming cars from the first driveway which may create potential side impact accidents between these cars. He also states that this direction forces the cars to be on the outside radius of the drive-thru lanes which could create difficulties for ITEM H PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 91-24 - MASI March 11, 1997 Page 2 some drivers to negotiate the turns. As a result, they feel it would lead to an increase in damage to the equipment, curbs, and walls of the facility as well as damage to the patrons' cars. Comment: The first driveway off Masi Drive was not recommended by staff but accepted as an entry driveway only and is designed at an angle to discourage drivers from using it as an exit. The primary purpose of this driveway is to provide an easy access for a gas tanker truck to enter and unload the fuel to the undergrounded tanks. Because of its location, the first ddveway is a conflict point whether the cars enter or exit the car wash unit at the east drive- thru lane. When the applicant brought up the issue of the tight turns at the west drive-thru lane, staff suggested eliminating the 5-foot wide pedestrian walkway at the west property boundary and widening the drive-thru lane to allow more space for drivers to maneuver and negotiate the turns. The applicant did not accept this solution. However, he did construct the walkway at the same grade as the drive-thru lane, which in essence widened it from 12 feet to 17 feet (see Exhibit "D"). Staff believes that a 17-foot wide drive lane would have enough space for drivers to negotiate the turns. With regards to the pedestrian connection from Foothill Boulevard, it would then lead to the landscaped plaza area of Building I and that is acceptable to staff. Further this Mobil station is not the first one to have such a setup where cars enter the car wash from the west. The Mobil station at the southeast corner of Milliken and Highland Avenues has a similar setup and staff has not received negative comments regarding that facility. Proposed Direction - Enter from the East and Exit to the West: A driver would have to make a left turn after getting gas from the pump island, circle around the pump islands and move north to enter the east drive-thru lane queuing for the wash unit. Once the wash is completed, the driver would exit the unit, head south, and exit at the second driveway as shown in Exhibit "E." The applicant claims that having cars enter the car wash at the east drive-thru lane may remove the potential side-impact traffic conditions and put the cars on the inside radius which would make it easier for drivers to negotiate the turns. He stated that there will be at least a four-car stacking distance for the east drive-thru lane. Comment: As mentioned previously, the first driveway is a conflict point because of its location. By switching the car wash entrance to the east side, it creates other traffic conflict such as cars queuing for car washes which may block incoming cars and impact public streets. The applicant suggests using orange cones as a device to direct cars to enter at the second driveway when there is a temporary high volume of cars queuing for car washes. According to the City's Engineering staff, this mitigation may create rear-end traffic collisions off Masi Drive. Another problem created by this proposed change is the lack of screening for the east drive-thru lane. According to the Drive-Thru Design Policies, a drive-thru lane must be set back 45 feet from the curb and be screened from public view. The east drive-thru lane is set back only 25 feet from the curb because it is planned as an exit and not an entrance. The applicant proposes to add fifteen (15-gallon size) shrubs for screening, which in staff's opinion is inadequate in meeting the Drive-Thru Design Policies. Conclusion: Based on the above analysis, staff concluded that the proposed change in the direction of entering and exiting the car wash does not substantially improve the on-site flow of circulation, would create other problems that are inconsistent with the City's policies, and that there are options for the applicant to consider in improving the west drive-thru lane. Therefore staff recommends that the approved direction be maintained. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 91-24 - MASI March 11, 1997 Page 3 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Commission, through minute action, deny the applicant's request and uphold the previously approved site plan and direct the applicant to work with staff in modifying and improving the west drive-thru lane. Respe y~ /~~rt~y Planner BB:NF/jfs Attachments: Exhibit"A"- Exhibit "B" - Exhibit "C" - Exhibit "D" - Exhibit "E" - Exhibit "F" Applicant's letter of request Approved Master Plan for Masi Plaza Approved Site Plan for Buildings I and 2 Current flow of on-site circulation Proposed flow of on-site circulation Drive-Thru Design Policies IFax: (714) 261-8053 February 9, 1997 John A. De Frenz~t, Architect 20301 S. W. Birch Street, Suite 101, Newport Beach, Cal~.'fornia 92660 Voice: (714} 261-8805 City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division, Nancy Fong 10500 Civic Centcr Drivc Rancho Cueamonga, California 91729 RE: Mobil Gas Station, 8118 Masi Drive, Building Two of Masi Plaza Dear Nancy, Please schedule the car wash drive-thin issue for review by the planning commission. I am including with this letter a copy of the previous letter from January 10th, 1997 describing our meeting on this same issue held on January 8th, 1997. We have instructed Designscapes (the on-site landscape contractor) to proceed with installation of (15) 15gal. wax leaf privets along the back side of the existing mow strip. Our intend is to significantly screen the cars that would stack to enter the car wash. Please confirm with me the February 26th date and start time of the commission meeting. Architect Oscar Etemadian Michael Scandiffio Jack Masi WASH_MTG.WPD -RECEIVED- CiTY OF RANCHO CUCAMQNGA I ~ f% FL~,NNIIqG DIV.,.,I~,N FEB 1 3 1997 AM PM ~819~10~tEillg~St41St6 1Fax: (714) 261-8053 January 10, 1997 John/t. De Frenza, ,4rchitect 20.101 S. W. Birch Street, Suite 101, Newport Beach, California 92660. Voice: (714) 261-8805 City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division, Nancy Fong 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California. 91729 FEB i997 RE: Mobil Gas Station, 8118 Masi Drive, Building Two of Masi Plaza Dear Nancy, On Wednesday, January 8th, we met to discuss the on-site access to the car wash component of this gas station. Auending the meeting were yourself, Oscar Etemadian (owner of this parcel), Mike Martorano of Mark IIV Car Wash Equipment, Jack Masi and myself. We met to review any options available that would improve the current ill fated design. The following is a summary of the conditions now present and the proposed re-design. The existing access entering the car wash unit from the west was created by myself and the planning department during the conceptual approval stage. Based on our desire to minimize site traffic, a car would enter the pumping island from the east (Masi Drive), then if a wash was desired, turn right (north) to enter the stacking for the wash unit. Without having the benefit of the car wash equipment manufacturer's knowledge, this seemed like a very good chain of events to follow. What we did not consider at that time was that the washed vehicle exiting the drive thru lane is now positioned parallel to in-coming vehicles from Masi Drive without the benefit of clear right-of-way for either driver. The condition as designed may create potential side impact accidents between these cars. As currently designed, the driver of any vehicle entering and exiting the car wash will be on the outside radius (making a right hand turn). Mark IIV has informed us that this direction of approach is more difficult to negotiate for some drivers and results in an increase of damage to the equipment, curbs and walls of the facility, not to mention the damage to the patrons car. I propose that a revision be approved by planning staff as follows: The car wash ,nit should be entered from the east and exit to the west. This would remove the vehicle side impact traffic condition that currently may occur replacing it with head to head visibility of on-coming vehicles, it would also put the driver on the inside radius (making left hand tums) approaching and exiting the wash unit. This reversal of' access will establish that all vehicles (facing west) at the pump islands will be turning left after gassing up, then only the cars desiring a wash will rerum northward on the east side of the pump island to stage their approach to the car wash unit. The stacking distance for the car wash unit provides for certainly four vehicles, possibly five. The previous west access only provided three cars plus one interfering with the disabled access path.. The new issue this creates is one of potential off-site conflict; will the qued vehicles block drivers entering the facility from Mast Drive'?. The first entry point was created for gas truck access to the tanks and improved access to the pump islands orienting vehicles westward, setting the approach to the car wash unit on the west. If in fact on-site t~aff~e does block the north entry from Mast Drive, the drive is striped with two southbound lanes and two northbound lanes, providing ample space for southbound vehicles to proceed along Mast Drive and enter the gas,I station at the south curb cut or proceed unincumbered to other destinations. If temporary high volume conditions axe experienced, orange traffic cones directing vehicles to enter the gas station through the south entry drive would effectively re-route the traffic away from the first entry drive. This solution is very effective and is a device readily understood by drivers. Please advise me of your receipt of this letter and the departmental procedure required to resolve these design conflicts. I have instructed the owner and contractor to proceed with installation of the car wash equipment for access from the east, exiting to the west. I have also instructed the owner to modify the sidewalk along the west lane to match the drive lane finish grade, allowing a longer vehicle to negotiate the lane easier (in either direction). The owner understands that if the planning department determines this reversal of orientation is not permissible he will Mve to return the car wash unit to access from the west and exit to the east. I enclose some plans for your reference and request an expedient response. / Architect of recor/°°n'n '/"' t.,e_vrenz~ Oscar Etemadian Jack Masi Mike Martorano -RECEIVED. CITY Ole t=IANCHO OUCAM, ONC~ ~ Lt:'ix" ?'~ J N ~' DtVI$IQN WASH_CTY.WPD BOULEVARD AUIO C,~ $fA ?ON AUTO ROLLER RINK SEBASTIAN WAY -- IllIll I ICE SKA TING RINKS CiTY O= P, ANO.qO CUCA~,?ONGA FEB ? ,3 '.co ~'/18191101111121112181A1~i6 ~¢~5~T ,, ~ ,' // -RBOEIVED- CITY OF R.~N','.HO OUt.,'..:' "O,'", ~A t RESOLUTION NO. 88-96 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ESTABLISHING INTERIM DESIGN GOALS AND POLICIES FOR BUSINESSES WITH DRIVE-THRU FACILITIES WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has expressed numerous concerns with businesses that have drive-thru facilities including, but not limited to, fast food restaurants. The concerns are compatibility of use, circulation, and visual and aesthetic appearance. Previous projects have not adequately addressed these concerns, especially in the screening of the drive-thru lane; and WHEREAS, there is a need to establish a design goal for businesses with drive-thru facilities to guide future development; and WHEREAS, development standards and design guidelines are necessary to implement the design goal for businesses with drive-thru facilities; and WHEREAS, such development standards and design guidelines are needed to provide clear direction and guidance to developers and staff alike. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission does hereby establish interim policies for businesses with drive- thru facilities as follows: Section 1: Goal Statement The intent of the guidelines is to assist the designer in understanding and complying with the City standards for building and site design. The goal is to provide high quality design, compatibility of use, and mitigate environmental and aesthetic concerns that are created by this type of land use. The following design standards and guidelines shall apply to uses with drive-thru facilities typically including, but not limited to, fast food restaurants, banks, mini-markets, dairy, photo kiosks, or auto service. Section 2: Development Standards Ao Location Uses with drive-thru facilities shall be 300 feet away from any intersection and from another drive-thru facility on the same side of the street, except within a shopping center or Master Plan. Restaurants with drive-thru facilities shall be a minimum of 200 feet away from any residential use or district boundary. EXHIBIT "F" PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DRIVE-THRU INTERIM DESIGN GOALS/POLICIES May ll, 1988 Page 2 Bo Site Area - Uses with drive-thru facilities shall have a minimum 1 acre net land area. This minimum land area may be modified when the drive-thru facility is within a Master Plan or an integrated shopping center through the Design Review process. The minimum floor area for drive-thru facilities shall be 2,500 square feet. The minimum floor area for a drive-thru facility other than a fast food restaurant may be modified through the Design Review process. Do The maximum site coverage shall be 40 percent of the net lot area. The minimum on-site landscaping, which includes articulated plazas, courtyards, and patios, shall be 15 percent of the net lot area exclusive of public right-of-way. Eo Parking and the drive-thru lane shall be setback 45 feet from the ultimate curb face. Greater setbacks may be required as mentioned in the Specific Plan and as deemed necessary during the Design Review process. Section 3: Design Guidelines Site Planning/Building Orientation - Future drive-thru facilities in a Master Plan or shopping center shall be identified early in the review process to avoid retrofitting the uses at a later date. The site design shall minimize pedestrian/vehicle conflicts and avoid locating driveways and service areas which interfere with the flow of the on-site circulation. Building placement shall be done in a manner to create new pedestrian spaces and plaza area. Buildings shall orient the public entrances toward the street. Building layout should be oriented to screen the drive-thru lane. Drive-thru lanes shall be screened through building orientation, the use of a combination of low screen walls, heavy landscaping, and trellis work. Separate pay windows and pick-up windows should be provided. Stacking Distance/Parking - The drive-thru lane shall be a sufficient length to accommodate the necessary stacking of cars. The stacking distance shall be determined through a parking study as stated in Section 17.12.040C, Special Requirements of the Parking Ordinance. Each drive-thru lane shall be separate from the circulation route necessary for ingress and egress from the property or access to any parking spaces within the site. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DRIVE-THRU INTERIM DESIGN GOALS/POLICIES May 11, 1988 Page 3 Parking - The parking requirements for drive-thru facilities shall be according to Section 17.12 of the Parking Ordinance. The gross floor area for outdoor seating shall be subject to the same parking requirement. Do Pedestrian Orientation - The Site Plan shall create opportunities for courtyards and plazas and other landscape open space to promote safe and convenient pedestrian movement with continuous landscape pathway between buildings. The design should discourage a need for pedestrians to have to cross a drive-thru wherever possible. Eo Architecture - Standardized "corporate" architectural styles associated wit a chain is prohibited. Drive- thru facilities within an integrated shopping center or Master Plan must have architectural style consistent with the theme established in the center. Architecture must provide compatibility to surrounding uses in form, materials, colors, scale, etc. Building planes shall have variation in depth and angle to create variety and interest in its basic form and silhouette of the building. Articulation of building surface shall be encouraged through the use of openings and recesses which create texture and shadow patterns. Building entrances shall be well articulated and project a formal entrance through variation of architectural plane, pavement surface, treatment, and landscape plaza. Signing - All signs shall conform with the provisions of the Sign Ordinance. Drive-thru facilities within an integrated shopping center or Master Plan must comply with the Uniform Sign Program as established in the center. Section 4: Performance Standards Special performance standards for restaurants with drive-thru facilities: The use shall be operated in a manner which does not interfere with the normal use of adjoining properties. If, in the opinion of the City Planner, the provisions of this paragraph are being violated, the violations shall be grounds for reopening Conditional Use Permit hearings and adding conditions to control the violation. Performance standards include, but are not limited to the following considerations, which, where appropriate, shall be incorporated as conditions of approval in all use permits as determined by the Planning Commission or City Council: 2LANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DRIVE-THRU INTERIM DESIGN GOALS/POLICIES May 11, 1988 Page 4 /1) Noise levels measured at the property line shall not exceed the level of background noise normally found in the area. (2) The premises shall be kept clean, and the operator shall make all reasonable efforts to see that no trash or litter originating from the use is deposited on adjacent properties. For drive- thru restaurants or other uses which typically generate trash or litter, adequate trash containers, as determined by the City Planner, shall be required and employees shall be required daily to pick up trash or litter originating from the site upon the site and within 300 feet of the perimeter of the property. (3) All graffiti shall be removed within 72 hours. 14) No undesirable odors shall be generated on the site. (5) The on-site manager of the use shall take whatever steps are deemed necessary to assure the orderly conduct of employees, patrons, and visitors on the premises. A copy of these performance standards and all Conditional Use Permit conditions of approval shall be posted along side the necessary business licenses and be visible at all times to employees. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF MAY, 1988. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ATTEST: /f~~~~ ~/~d u~.~/-Oep~.~ecretary I, Brad~B~ el r, Deputy 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 11th day of May, 1988, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, BLAKESLEY, EMERICK, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF RF PORT March 11, 1997 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Larry Henderson, AICP, Principal Planner REQUEST TO INITIATE AN AMENDMENT TO THE SIGN ORDINANCE WITHIN THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD AUTO CENTERS AS A CLASS OF SIGNS WITHIN SECTIONS 14.20.100 SIGNS - COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE ZONES AND SECTION 14.20.110 SIGNS - INDUSTRIAL ZONES. BACKGROUND: There has been recent interest in developing auto centers in both commercially and industrially zoned areas of the City. In all cases, the interested parties have expressed a desire for a change in the Sign Ordinance to allow for sign programs that are more in keeping with regional marketing concepts, similar to those provisions currently allowed for regional shopping centers. A recent survey of communities having auto centers shows that these regional marketing and sign provisions are an established consideration. RECOMMENDATION: Direct staff, through minute action, to initate a Sign Ordinance Amendment in accordance with the subject of this report. City Planner BB:LJH/jfs ITEM I AWARDS for DESIGN EXCELLENCE RESIDENTIAL · · 1987 1987 1987 1988 1988 1989 1990 1990 The Deer Creek Community (Grigsby Development) Sycamore Springs Apartments (Elite Development) Sycamore Terrace Apartments (Lewis Homes) Lomita Court Apartments (P.B.S. Really Corporation) Villa Del Rey Retirement Home (American Retirement Villas) Calais (Lewis Homes) Hunters Chase Condominiums (Devcal Industries, Inc.) Victoria Ranch Estates (The William Lyon Company) COMMERCIAL · · 1987 1987 1988 1988 1989 1989 1989 1989 1990 1990 1990 1991 1991 1991 1992 1992 1993 INDUSTRIAL · · 1987 1988 1989 1989 1990 1991 1992 1994 Haven Car Wash (Larry Beck) Haven Village 1987 (DiversifiedShopping Centers) Deer Creek Car Wash 1987 (Ted and Dwight Bert, Jim Kelber & Jim Kolbold) 1987 Vineyard National Bank (Vineyard National Bank) 1987 Burger King Restaurant (Bob DelpiO 1988 Terra Vista Village (Dicker / Warmington) 1988 Victoria Self Storage (The William Lyon Company) 1989 Vir 'nia Dare Food Court (Tower Partners) 1989 Chaffey Plaza (Chaffey Plaza Partnership) 1990 FoothilI Village (Nu West Commercial Development Corp.) 1990 Mobil Mart (The Barmakian Co. and Mobil Oil Corp.) 1991 Victoria Village (Hughes Investments) 1991 Target (Western Land Properties) 1993 Ross (Westem Land Properties) 1993 Terra Vista Town Center Cinema / Food Court (Western Land Properties) Sculpture @ Terra Vista Town Center Cinema / FoodCourt (Arthur Silverman) Service Merchandise (Western Land Properties) Rancho Cucamonga Research and Development Center (The Kenslay Corporation) Rancho Pacific Business Center (Pacific Scene, Inc.) Sixth Street Distribution Center (The Nalbandian Group and The Barmakian Company) VineyardWest Mini-Storage (The Nalbandian Group arid The Barmakian Company) Rochester Center (Bermant Development Co.) Rancho Cucamonga Distribution Center II (O'Donnell Armstrong & Partners) Burke Trademark Business Center (Burke Development) Ryder Truck Rental (Ryder Truck Rental, Inc.) OFFICE · · Haven Commerce Center (A.H. Reiter Development Co.) Haven Court (Haven Court Ltd.) Havengate Center (F'WE Corporation) Virginia Dare Phase I (The Christeson Company) Banks & Ritchie LegalOffices (James and Marsha Banks) Forecast Office Building (Forecast Corporation)- Haven Professional Plaza (Haven Investors) Virginia Dare Winery Business Center (Tower Partners) Havengate Business Center (Delm,~r Enterprises) Independence Corporate Center Phase II (Arical Properties) Slotkin Protessional Building (Pilgrims Enterprises) Laurel Aspen (Reilley Development / Laurel Aspen Partners) 8316 Red Oak Office Building (Migh~ Development) Arrow Haven Corporate Park (Utica Haven Associates) CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA · PLANNING COMMISSION AWARDS for DESIGN EXCELLENCE INSTITUTIONAL · · 1988 1991 1992 1993 1994 Etiwanda Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Rancho Cucamonga Stake) Rancho Cucamong;a Civic Center (Rancho Cucamoffga Redevelopment Agency) Fire Station No. 5 (Rancho Cucamonga Redevelol~ment Agency) Coyote Canyon Elementary Scl~ool (Central School District) Rancho Cucamonga Stadium and Adult Sports Complex (Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency) MASTER PLAN · · 1987 1987 1987 1988 1989 The Gateway (A.H. Reiter Development Co.) Rancho Cucamonga Business Park Phase I (The Daon Corp. and Barton Development) Victoria Community Plan (The William Lyon Company) Victoria Groves Village (The William Lyon Company) Victoria Lakes South Village (The William Lyon Company) LANDSCAPING · · 1987 1987 1988 1990 1990 Rancho Cucamonga Business Park Phase I (Barton Development Company) Cucamonga Business Park Phase I (A.H. Reiter Development) Victoria Groves Village (The William Lyon Company) Havengate Business Center (Delmar Enterprises) Hunters Chase Condominiums (Devcal Industries, Inc.) REHABILITATION · · 1987 1987 1988 1991 1992 1993 The Willows School (The Willows School Professional Center) Christmas House (Jay and Janice Ilsley) Albert House (Carrie Johnson-Hall and Ronald Hall) Hippard Ranch (Rick Dirksen) Thomas Winery & Still Building (OAS Investors) Demens-Tolstoy House (Peter Tolstoy) COMMUNITY DESIGN AWARD · · 1987 Barton Plaza I & II (Barton Development Company) CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA · PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: March 11, 1997 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Dan Coleman, Principal Planner DESIGN AWARDS NOMINATIONS BACKGROUND: Presented annually, the Awards for Design Excellence program honors projects which exemplify supedor design and resourceful use of land. Awards may be given in the following categories: residential, commercial, office, institutional, and industrial. The program is intended to recognize a variety of projects such as new construction, histodc rehabilitation, master planning, remodeling, and landscaping. The Commission has established a policy that projects, such as a shopping center or subdivision, should be at least 75 percent complete to be eligible. The Commission also determined that only those projects which were subject to the City's review process were eligible; therefore, public schools are not eligible. ANALYSIS: Attached is a list of projects that were completed during the 1996 calendar year that may be considered for this year's program. The list is quite extensive and we encourage each Commissioner to visit these projects prior to tonight's meeting and bring your list of projects that you feel are worthy of further consideration. If the Commission decides to proceed with the program, staff will tally your lists and bring back a "short list" of those projects which received a majority vote. In previous years, the Commission has toured together these nominees to decide on award winners. RECOMMENDATION: The Commission should consider the nominations and direct staff whether to proceed with the program. City Planner BB:DC/mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - List of Projects Completed in 1996 ITEM J 1996 COMPLETED PROJECTS (Potential Nominations for Design A~vards) PLANNER Nancy PROJECT NAME Office Max Barnes & Noble Home Town Buffet Boston Market Macaroni Grill Pad P TVTC Skyline Estates Jack in the Box Steve .. Home Depot Villa Del Norte Stadium Self-Storage McDonalds Taco Bell FILE NO. CUP 93-41 Mod2 DR 94-19 DR 96-05 DR 94-22 DR 95-31 DR 95-31 TR 10210 CUP 91-24 CUP 95-11 DR 94-04 CUP 95-15 CUP 94-30 CUP 94-40 I:\DAN\PROJECTS.97 DEVELOPER Lewis Lewis Lewis Woodbridge Dev. Masi Lewis/Home Depot N.H.D.C. E&R Rancho Pacific McDonalds Taco Bell/Wattson LOCATION Town Center Square Town Center Square Town Center Square T.V. Town Center T.V. Town Center T.V. Town Center NWC Almond & Sapphire SEC Foothill & Masi Dr. NWC Foothill & Rochester S/s Feron, W/o Hermosa N/s Arrow, E/o Rochester SEC Baseline & Carnelian Foothill Marketplace Brent Tom California Box DR 94-21 TR 14139 California Box Centex Toronto Ave., N/o 7th Etiwanda Ave, N/o Wilson Alan Miki Scott Beverly Dan TR 12462 Lauren Development Ashton PI., S/o Summit Ave. Shell Gas Station CUP 93-46 Flores Frito Lay DR 95-09 and 25 Frito Lay St. Claire of Assisi CUP 94-07 St. Claire's Applebees CUP 95-06 Applebees Empire Lakes DR 95-01 General Dynamics Northtown Infill DR 95-03 N.H.D.C. SEC Foothill & Vineyard NEC 4th & Archibald :i:!:!:~:!:!:!:~:~: !:!:i: i:~:i:i :~:~:i:i:i :~: :i:i:i: i:~:i. i:!:~ ::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::: SEC Highland & East SEC Foothill & Aspen 6th and Milliken Northtown