Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997/05/14 - Agenda PacketCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA WEDNESDAY MAY 14, 1997 Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center Council Chamber 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 7:00 PM I. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call Chairman Barker Vice Chairman McNiel Commissioner Bethel m Commissioner Macias__ Commissioner Tolstoy II. ANNOUNCEMENTS III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 23, 1997 IV. CONSENT CALENDAR The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non- controversial. They will be acted on by the Commission at one time without discussion. If anyone has concern over any item, it should be removed for discussion. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-01 REITER - The proposed development of nine industrial buildings totaling 82,252 square feet on 7.55 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 17) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located north of Foothill Boulevard on the east side of Center Avenue - APN: 1077-401-34. Staff has prepared a mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Related file: Parcel Map 15029. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS The following items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice their opinion of the related project. P/ease 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. P/ease sign in after speaking. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 15029 - REITER -A subdivision of 7.55 acres of land into 10 parcels in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 17) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located north of Foothill Boulevard on the east side of Center Avenue - APN: 1077-401-34. Staff has prepared a mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Related file: Development Review 97-01. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-32 - AUTO NATION - A request to construct an automotive sales business consisting of a 32,092 square foot showroom, 23,884 square foot service building, and 2,190 square foot car wash with an outdoor display area on a 20 acre parcel located on the northeast corner of Fourth Street and Buffalo Avenue in the Industrial Park area (Subarea 12) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan - APN: 229-263-19, 20, 21, and a portion of 18. Staff has prepared a mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Related file: Parcel Map 15012. Do SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 97-02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend 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. FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 97-01 - CHAVIN DEVELOPMENT - A request to add Mixed Use Public Storage as a conditionally permitted use within the Community Commercial land use designation of Subarea 1 of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. Fo ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ - The proposed development of a shopping center totaling 74,478 square feet on 8.9 acres of land, with proposed Phase I consisting of 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 -APN: 207-211-12 through 15, 38 and 40. Staff has prepared a mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Related File: Pre-Application Review 95-04. Page 2 Go ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-02 - CARL KARCHER ENTERPRISES - A request to construct a 3,050 square foot quick service restaurant with drive-thru on a 1.14 acre parcel within the Terra Vista Promenade Shopping Center, located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard, west of the extension of Masi Drive - APN: 227-151-44. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 97-01B CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the General Plan to modify the Hiking and Riding Trails Master Plan, Figure 111-7A, by eliminating the segment of community trail from Youngs Canyon Road across the San Sevaine Basin and modifying all applicable exhibits therein. Staff has prepared a Notice of Categorical Exemption - APN: 226-112-02 and 03. ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 97-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the Etiwanda Specific Plan to modify the proposed Wardman Bullock Road/Youngs Canyon Road between Wilson Avenue and Cherry Avenue by eliminating the lar~dscaped median and across the San Sevaine Basin by reducing the pavement width and eliminating the equestrian trail and modifying all applicable exhibits therein. Staff has prepared a Notice of Categorical Exemption -APN: 226-102-17, 226-111-05, and 06, 226-112-02, and 03, 226-311-27, and 226-321-01. Vl. NEW BUSINESS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-09 - KAISER PERMANENTE - A request to develop a 50,103 square foot medical office building on 5.72 acres of land, and the vacation of non-vehicular access on Arrow Route, in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the northeast corner of Arrow Route and Red Oak Street - APN: 208-352-53 thru 56. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. VII. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS K. ANNEXATION - SPHERE OF INFLUENCE ACTIVITY (Oral report) VIII. 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. Page 3 IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS L. FOOTHILL BOULEVARD/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TASK FORCE UPDATE (Oral report) M. FOOTHILL BOULEVARD ACTIVITY CENTERS (Oral report) X. 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, Gail 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 May 8, 1997, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. Page 4 VICINITY MAP · ' ':':'X.;.: ....... ; ............. :.'.'.',..~:'2':'2"~,. ..... 2-2-2-1 ...... : ..... ~" · ;.;.l.:.l.;.;.'.'.'.'.'.';" 2'2'2'1':':' · ';';';.;.X.; .......'.'.'.'.'.';.;.:.l. · .2.2-2.;. · .2.2.2.2..2.2 ,..-.............-.....-.-............ ......... :.;..; .................. ....................., , ..... ;.;.; ......... ;.;.; ......................... ..... ........... ........................., ~ ..~' · '2 ............ 2 ............ ;-'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.' .....2.2.; .....· · .:.;.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.' .............. ;.; ...... '.'.'.'.'.'.'.' .....2.2 ....... _.......................................................; ................... ..-.-.-.....................,,, ~...1.:.;.2 ....... ;.;...........-................................ .............-.-......................., :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :: ......:: ......::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :.:.:.:.:.:.;:: xi:::::::::: ':" :' ':' :::::::::::::::::::::::: :.:.:.:.:.:::: ::::::: :::::x+ .:.;.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: ._1I .:.:.....:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: .......: :.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: .........: ........::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .....: :.:.:.:.:.:..:.....:.:.:.:.............:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:..:.:... ...... :.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:...:.:.:.:.:.:..:..:.:.: i I ::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ':':::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::: ¥5 :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .:- :;:::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::: _J *~ ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: I _ .:.;.;.:.:.,........... .....:.: .......:.:-:.:.:.:~..,x.:.......,-.................-..I:.:.:' '. ~'~* I..;.:...+;-x-;-:.;.;.:.:.; .......:,~ '-~-~ ~.,,~:.'.v;';':.:.:.:.:.:.;.:.;-;-:.:.:l...:.'- I ":':': ..........: ......"~'I:':': ....:': ..........:.l':':'-:. i I =====================================,I+:':':':':':::;:: :':':':':':+:''+ ':" ======================== :i:i: :'~...:.::I i--J o O O 0 0 ~lmll Fr~4way CITY HALL CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: May 14, 1997 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Steve Hayes, AICP, Associate Planner ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-01 - R!::!TER - The proposed development of nine industrial buildings totaling 82,252 square feet on 7.55 acres of land in the Industrial Park Distdct (Subarea 17) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located north of Foothill Boulevard, on the east side of Center Avenue -APN: 1077-401-34. Related File: Tentative Parcel Map 15029. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North South - East West Vacant land and an industrial building; Industrial Park (Subarea 17 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan) Full service car wash and gas station, vacant; Community Commercial (Subarea 3 of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan) and Industrial Park Deer Creek Flood Control Channel and Commercial shopping center; Flood Control and General Commercial Single Family residences and vacant land; Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and Community Commercial B. General Plan Designations: Project Site - Industrial Park North - Industrial Park South- Commercial East - Flood Control/Utility Corridor and Commercial West - Low Residential and Commercial Site Characteristics: The site is vacant and void of any significant vegetation or structures. No public improvements exist along the Center Avenue frontage. The land slopes from north to south at less than 2 percent. ITEM A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 97-01 - REITER May 14, 1997 Page 2 D. Parking Calculations: Number of Number of Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces of Use Footage Ratio Required Provided Office 12,136 1/250 49 50 Warehouse 70,116 1/1000 70 70 TOTAL: 82,252 119 120 ANALYSIS: General: This review is for consideration of environmental clearance only. The applicant is proposing to develop a nine building, multiple-tenant industrial park. All of the proposed speculative buildings have been designed to accommodate a wide variety of potential users. The area at the rear of the buildings can be used as "yard" area or, for the potentially more intensive parking user such as a tenant with a greater amount of office area, the portion of the parcels behind the buildings can be converted into additional parking area. All buildings have grade-level, roll-up doore at the rear of the buildings and enhanced pedestrian entrances at the front. Outdoor eating areas and bicycle racks have also been provided for every building. At the terminus of "A" Street, a new local industrial cul-de-sac street being proposed to access the project, a pedestrian connection to the future regional trail along Deer Creek is proposed. The southernmost 1.43 acres (approximate) of the parcel (i.e. the area around Buildings 10 and 11) is shown in concept only and will require separate review of a formal development application at a later date. This southern portion of the parcel is zoned Community Commercial, Subarea 3, of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan and will be required to be developed under the applicable standards of that plan. Design Review Committee: On April 1, 1997, the Design Review Committee, (Bethel, Macias, Coleman) recommended approval of the project with conditions per the attached Design Review Committee Action Comments (See Exhibit "F"). Technical & Grading Review Committees: On Apdl 2, 1997, the Technical Review Committee reviewed the project and determined that, together with the recommended Conditions of Approval, the project is consistent with all applicable standards and ordinances. The Grading Committee reviewed the Conceptual Grading Plan on three occasions, most recently on May 6, 1997, and recommended approval with conditions on that date. Environmental Assessment: Part I of the Initial Study has been completed by the applicant. Staff completed Part II of the Initial Study, the Environmental Checklist, and noted that there could be a significant impact on the environment in several areas unless proper mitigation measures are incorporated into the design of the project. Staff will be incorporating all recommended mitigation measures into the City Planner approval letter for development of the project as well as the related Tentative Parcel Map for the subdivision of this property. Please refer to Exhibit "G," the Environmental Checklist, for specific details regarding the environmental review. With the recommended mitigation measures as conditions of approval, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 97-01 - REITER May 14, 1997 Page 3 staff feels that no significant adverse environmental impacts would result with development of this project. If the Planning Commission concurs, then issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration would be in order. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission issue a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Development Review 97-01. City Planner BB:SH/jfs Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Exhibit "B" - Exhibit "C" - Exhibit "D" - Exhibit "E" - Exhibit "F" Exhibit "G" - Site Utilization Plan Site/Master Plan Conceptual Landscape Plan Conceptual Grading Plan Building Elevations Design Review Committee Action Comments dated April 1, 1997 Initial Study, Part II NORTH ,PARCEL SITE PLAN, RESIDENTIAL t ,-.~ .----.~ ./ COMMERCIAL 4 5 COI~ CEPT ONLY IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiilu I,-,r.,,I Ulll~11111111111111 COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL ~ alva, J MASTER SITE PLAN VICINITY MAP MASTER PLAN CALCULATION8 LEGENO TYPICAL ~TREET ~ECTION-CENTER AYE. TYPICAL 9TREET ~ECTION-'A' ~T. LEGEND 2 *-- 3 4 5 9 NORTH 10 II CONCEPT ONLY 6 LANDSCAPE PLAN COMBINED PLAZA LUNCi..I AREA PLAZA LUNCH AREA NORTH / / I / / / CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN BLDG 1-EAST BLDG 9-EAST pNNTED CONCRETE TILT4J~ PANEL BLDG I-~OUTH BLDG 9.NORTH BLDG I-NORTH BLDG 9-SOUTH BLDG 'I-WEST BLDG 9-WEST EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS-BLDGS 1 & 9 (REVERSED) TOP OF PARAPET FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION BLDG 2-WEST BLDG 8-WEST BLDG 2-SOUTH BLDG 8-NORTH BLDG 2-NORTH BLDG 8-SOUTH BLDG 2-EAST BLDG 8-EAST EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS-BLDG$ 2 & 8 (REVERSED) BLDG8 3,4 & 7-WEST BLDG 5-EAST BLDGS 3,4 & 5-SOUTH BLDG 7-NORTH BLDGS 3,4 &5-NORTH BLDG 7-SOUTH BLDGS 3,4 & 7-EAST BLDG 5-WEST EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS-BLDGS 3.4.5 & 7 (REVERSED) ~ REITER DEVELOPMENT NORTH lmllml / llltll / EAST SOUTH WEST EXTERIOR ELEVATION-BLDG 6 DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:10 p.m. Steve Hayes April 1. 1997 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-01 - RE!TER - The proposed development of 9 industrial buildings totaling 82,252 square feet on 7.55 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 17) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located north of Foothill Boulevard on the east side of Center Street - APN: 1077-401-34. Design Parameters: The site is bounded by land zoned Industrial Park to the north, the Deer Creek Car Wash facility to the south, the Deer Creek Flood Control Channel and Regional Trail to the east and single family residences to the west. The southernmost portion of the 7.55 acre site is not proposed to be developed at this time; this area is shown to have two future buildings totaling 21,692 square feet. This portion of the parcel also falls under the Community Commercial designation within the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan and has been designed to comply conceptually with the applicable development standards. The site slopes gently from north to south at less than 2 percent. No structures, mature trees or other forms of significant vegetation exist on the property. 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: Staff has no major concems with the basic Site Plan and architecture. The applicant has been working with staff for several months and has incorporated many of our suggestions into these plans. The proposed project has been designed to fit within the general design guidelines of the Industrial Park land use designation and has been designed to be sensitive to adjacent land uses. in particular the residential properties to the west where the highest degree of potential land use conflicts could occur. A significant building setback along Center Street, oftenting all activities internal to the site and providing screening of these activities from view are shown to minimize any potential conflicts between adjacent land uses (45-foot setback required by Industrial Specific Plan). Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary. design issues: An additional landscaped area should be provided on the east side of the parcel for Building 5, adjacent to the east property line (see attached sketch). Betming, low walls, shrub hedges, or any combination thereof should be used in the streetscape areas along Center Street and "A" Street to screen parking areas from public view and to create visual interest along the streets. 3. The roof parapets should screen all potential roof-mounted mechanical equipment for future users. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee recommend approval of the project subject to conditions that will be incorporated into the design of the project. Attachment DRC COMMENTS DR 97-01 - REITER April 1, t997 Page 2 Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Bill Bethel, Rich Macias, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Steve Hayes The applicant stated that windows were being added to the west elevations of both buildings facing Center Avenue. In addition, a wall will be constructed along the east property line. The Committee recommended approval of the project subject to the secondary and policy issues in the staff report being incorporated as Conditions of Approval for the project and the following: A wrou~t iron gate with a knox box device or another device acceptable to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire District should be provided for emergency access purposes between the project area and the vacant property to the south. The location of the gate should be along the southern limit of development line and east of Building 6. 2. Add planter or vine pockets along east property line for Building 5, directly east of driveway. "~*~ City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: Development Review 97-01 2. Related Files: N/A Description of Project: 9 industrial buildings totaling 82,252 square feet on 7.55 acres of land in the Industrial Park designation of the Industrial Area Specific Plan Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Henry Reiter 9650 Business Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 5. General Plan Designation: Industrial Park Zoning: Industrial Park (Subarea 17) Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Currently vacant to the north with the exception of an existing industrial building to the northeast, to the south is the Deer Creek Car Wash facility, to the east is the Deer Creek Flood Control Channel, and to the west is single family residential development. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Contact Person and Phone Number: Steve Hayes (909) 477-2750 Initial Study for DR 97-01 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 2 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: Cucamonga County Water District, San Bernardino County Flood Control District 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 (X) Water (X) Air Quality (X) Transportation/Circulation ( ) Biological Resources ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources ( ) Hazards (X) Noise ( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance ( ) Public Services (X) Utilities and Service Systems (X) Aesthetics ( ) 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. (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 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. () 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 Initial Study for DR 97-01 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 3 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Signed: EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Pursuant to Section 15063 of the Califomia 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. I~,ues and Supporting Information Sources: LAND a) b) c) d) Po{entially S~gnifmant Impact Less Po~entiatlyUnless Than SignificantMibgabon Signifg:antNo Impact IncorporatedImPact Impact 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) luu~ ~ Supporting Informarran Sources: POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? Significant Impact Less Pomntially Un~ss Than Signif=ant M'~gation Significant No ImPact Inc~3~¢xated Inloact Iml~ct ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for DR 97-01 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 4 m Issues and Suppoffing Information Sources: GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) b) c) d) e) 0 g) h) i) Fault rupture? Seismic ground shaking? Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? Seiche hazards? Landslides or mudflows? Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? Subsidence of the land? Expansive soils? Unique geologic or physical features? Potentially Signif'~.ant Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Unless Than Mit~ation Significant No Impact Incomorated Impact ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Issues and SuppoctKlg Infm'matmn Sources: WATER. a) b) c) d) e) IMII the proposal result in: Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff?. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? Discharge into surface water or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? Politely Sig~r~nt Impact Potentially S~gnificant Implc~ Less Unless Than Mit~atm~ S~gnificant Inco~oorated Impact ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) No Impact ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for DR 97-01 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 5 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: f) g) h) i) Potentially Significant Impact 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? ( ) 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 Significant Impact Less Unless Than Mitigation S~gnificanl Incomora/ed Impact No Impact () ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) () () (x) Comments: a&b) The absorption rate will be altered because of the paving and hardscape proposed. All runoff will be conveyed to approved drainage facilities. Because of the existence of a potentially impacted area near the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Center Street, increased flows shall be mitigated by installation of additional storm drain facilities. These facilities are shown on the conceptual Grading Plan and will be sufficient to mitigate any excess flows that could occur as a result of this project. Permits will be required by the City and the San Bernardino County Flood Control District for all work. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: AIR QUALITY. a) b) c) d) Pctentmlly Significan~ Iml~act Less PotentiallyUnless Than SmgnificantMitigation S~gnificantNo lml~K;t Inco~oOratedImPact impact Would the proposal.' Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) Comments: b-d) With the development of an Industrial Park in a transition area between residential, commercial, and industrial land uses, the impacts upon air quality from this Initial Study for DR 97-01 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 6 development to the residential development to the west is critical. The project will generate vehicle trips and potentially emit pollutants into the atmosphere and potentially alter air movements in the micro environment. The City's General Plan and Industrial Area Specific Plan EIRs address this issue in further detail. Permits will be required by the Air Quality Management District (AQMD) for any uses that would potentially create any pollutants or other objectionable odors. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Significant Impact Less PotentiallyUnless Than SignifimantMibgation Significan!No Impact IncorporatedImpact Impact TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: a) The project will generate additional vehicular movement in a localized area. The City's General Plan EIR and Industrial Area Specific Plan EIR address the short- term and long-term cumulative impacts of traffic upon these streets. 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)? Poterltially S~lnificant Impact Less Po{a'4ialtyUnless Than S~gnif~..antM'~igalionSignificantNo ImPact IncorporatedImpact Impact ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for DR 97-01 ISSUES and Suppo~ling Information Sources: b) c) d) e) Locally designated species (e.g., hedtage trees, eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? Locally designated natural communities (e.g., eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 7 Potentially Signrficant Impact Less PotentiallyUnless Than SignrficentMitigation SignificantNo Impact Inco~orated Impact Impact ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Issues and Supporting Info,marion Sources: Potentially Significant Impact Less PotentiallyUnless Than SignificantMitigation SignificantNo Impact IncorporatedImpact Impact 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? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) Issues end Supix. ling Info~'matio~ Sources: HAZARDS. a) b) c) d) Potentrally Slgn~ficent Impact Less ,PotentiallyUnless Than SignificantMitigation Signirmant No Impact Inco~oo~atedImpact Imoact Would the proposal involve: A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? ( ) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? ( ) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for DR 97-01 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 8 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially S~gnlflcenl Impact Less Unless Than Mitigation Sign~ficent IncorporatedImpact No Imoact ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) 10. ISSuss 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 Signifmant Impact Potentially Significent Impact Less Unless Than Mitigation Significent IncorporatedIml:)act No Imoact ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) Comments: a) The project will involve manufacturing and generate vehicle tdps which will increase existing noise levels, particularly for residents on the west side of Center Street. The project design includes an extra deep 45 foot setback from Center Street and an 8 foot high screen wall along Center Street to provide a buffer and effectively decrease noise levels to acceptable levels from the residential area. b) The City's General Plan does not require sound attenuation for exterior areas. However, the General Plan does require sound attenuation for interior areas. Typically, conventional construction with closed windows and fresh air supply systems and air conditioning will suffice. 11. Issuss and Suppoding Infocreation So~,ces: 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? ( ) Potentrally S~gnificent impact Less PotentrallyUnleSS Than SignirK:antMibgation Signirmant No Impact Incon:)o~ltedImpact Impact ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for DR 97-01 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 9 12. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) b) c) d) e) 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 S~gnif~,ant Impact Potenbally Significant Impact Less Unless Than Mitigation Signif merit Incerl)oratedImpact No Impact ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) 13. Issues and Sul3po~tmg Information Sources: AESTHETICS. a) c) Would the proposal: Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? Create light or glare? Potentially Signill..ant Impact () () () Potentially S~gnificent Impact Uniass IncorDo~'ated () () () Less Than Sign~.,a nl Impact () () (x) No Impact (x) (x) () Comments: 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 residential properties on the west side of Center Street. 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. Initial Study for DR 97-01 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 10 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 Iml~act Potentially Significent Impact Less Unless Than Mitigabon Significant IncorPorated Impact No Impact ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) () ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) () () () () () () (x) (x) 15. Issues and Supporting Inform~tio~ Sources: RECREATION. Would the proposal.' a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? Potentrally S~gnificant Impact () () Potentially S~nificant Impact Unleas Mitigabon () () Than S~n~cant Impact () () No Impact (x) (x) 16. IMs end Supporing Infon~nabon Sources: 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? Poterttially S~n~:ant Impact () Potentially Signific.~nt Impmot Unleas Mitigation () Signif'mant Impact () No Impact (x) Initial Study for DR 97-01 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 11 Issues and Supporting Information Sources b) c) d) Potentially Signffioant Impact 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 Mitigabon Significant IncorooratedImpac! No Impact ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: c) The project will generate traffic, vehicle emissions, noise, and additional light and glare. These effects were accounted for in the City's General Plan EIR and the Industrial Area Specific Plan EIR and were found to be not significant or were found to be significant but irreversible and a statement of overriding consideration was adopted. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The following earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply): (x) General Plan EIR (Certified April 6, 1981) (X) Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update Initial Study for DR 97-01 (SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989) (x) Industrial Area Specific Plan EIR (Certified September 19, 1981) City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 12 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 eP~f°eJ~t~ Polrar~ti%ratP re°tl~CeS ~r~ea~'~ Y~ ~l~tahrl~Pnr(~Psi°gSnei~lc~itgea~ivC;rno nm~l~ ra~f~c iwdotu~c~ occur. ~.~(/,~ ~ Signature7"__ ~.--'"~~"~/~[/ ~>,~/4'_~, ~ Date: /-//"' ~---.~ ,dT~ ' - Print Name-~na Tit'?~' ~'7~/~/X,~'~ :~.~~/~.--'"~/ '~'~/'~-~-A~ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: May 14, 1997 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer Betty A. Miller, Associate Engineer ENVIRONMENTAl, ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 15029 - REITER - A subdivision of 7.55 acres of land into 10 parcels in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 17) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located north of Foothill Boulevard on the east side of Center Avenue - APN: 1077-401-34. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Related file: DR 97-01 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: Action Requested: Parcel Size: C. Existing Zoning: Surrounding North South East West Surrounding North South East West Do Approval of the proposed Tentative Parcel Map as shown on Exhibit "B". Parcel 1 0.75 AC Parcel 6 0.66 AC Parcel 2 0.59 AC Parcel 7 0.44 AC Parcel 3 0.58 AC Parcel 8 0.45 AC Parcel 4 0.53 AC Parcel 9 0.58 AC Parcel 5 0.65 AC Parcel 10 1.44 AC TOTAL 6.67 AC, net Industrial Park, Subarea 17 of Industrial Area Specific Plan Community Commercial, Subarea 3 of Foothill Specific Plan l,and Use and Zoning: Partially developed Industrial Park Gas Station and Car Wash Flood Control Channel, Commercial Shopping Center Single-family residences and Vacant General Plan and Developments Code Designations: Industrial Park, Subarea 17, Industrial Area Specific Plan Community Commercial, Subarea 3, Foothill Specific Plan General Commercial Low Residential and Community Commercial, Subarea 3, Foothill Specific Plan ITEr,] B PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT PM 15029 May 14, 1997 Page 2 Fo Site Characteristics: The site is vacant and slopes to the south at about three percent. Center Avenue, the west project boundary, has a reduced width and temporary AC berm along the project frontage, but is improved full width north and south of the site. ANALYSIS: The purpose of this parcel map is to create 10 parcels consistent with Development Review 97-01, on the Consent Calendar of tonight's agenda. The developer will be installing frontage improvements along Center Avenue, a new public street, and a storm drain connection to Deer Creek Channel. Nine industrial buildings are proposed on parcels 1 through 9, surrounding the proposed cul-de-sac. Parcel 10 could either be developed as an expansion to the existing Deer Creek Car Wash or as additional industrial buildings with a driveway on Center Avenue. In the latter case, secondary emergency access between parcels 10 and 6 may be required by the Fire District. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The applicant completed Part I of the Initial Study. Staff conducted a field investigation and completed Part II of the Initial Study. Staff determined the proposed Tentative Parcel Map could have a significant adverse impact on the environment relative to drainage unless proper mitigations are incorporated into the design of the project. Staff has incorporated a Condition of Approval in the attached Resolution requiting the installation of a new public storm drain connection to Deer Creek Channel. If the Commission concurs with staff's recommendation, then issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Tentative Parcel Map would be in order. CORRESPONDENCE: Notices of Public Hearing have been sent to surrounding property owners and placed in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin. Posting at the site has also been completed. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider all input and elements of the Tentative Parcel Map 15029. If after such consideration, the Commission can recommend approval, then the adoption of the attached Resolution and issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration would be in order. Respectfully submitted, Senior Civil Engineer Attachments: Vicinity Map (Exhibit "A") Tentative Map (Exhibit "B") Initial Study, Pan II Resolution and Recommended Conditions of Approval ltlllttll I I CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ENGIN~k~NG DIVk~ON I I "= IOOO N N CITY OF ~: Tp/v/ /.5' RANCHO CUCAMONGA ENG~ERING DWISION City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: Tentative Parcel Map 15029 2. Related Files: Design Review 97-01 3. Description of Project: Ten lot industrial parcel map Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Reiter Development Company 9650 Business Center Ddve Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 5. General Plan Designation: Subarea 17, Industrial Area Specific Plan 6. Zoning: Industrial Park e Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Partially developed industrial park to the north, flood control channel and commercial shopping center to the east, car wash to the south, and vacant land to the west St Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Contact Person and Phone Number: Betty Miller, (909) 477-2740 ext 2312 Other agencies whose approval is required: San Bernardino County Flood Control District Initial Study for TPM 15029 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 (x) Water ( ) Air Quality (x) Transpodation/Circulation ( ) Biological Resources ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources ( ) Hazards ( ) Noise ( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance ( ) Public Services (x) Utilities and Service Systems ( ) Aesthetics ( ) 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. (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 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. () 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 eadier 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. Signed: Betty An~h Miller Associate Engineer March 31, 1997 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TPM 15029 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 end SuppoSing Information Sources: Potentially Significant Impact Less Potentially Unless Than S~gn~mant Millgallon Significant No IreDact Incorporated Impact Im~acl LAND a) b) c) d) USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal.' Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( ) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ( ) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) Issues end Suf~3dmg Interminton Sources: Potentally $igr~icent Potentally Signir~cent Impaot Less Un~ss Than Mitigation Signirmanl In~3motat~d Impaot No POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal.' a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ( ) ( ) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? ( ) ( ) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) (x) ( ) (x) Initial Study for TPM 15029 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 Sign~mant Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Unless Than Mitigation SignificantNo Impact IncorPoratedImDecl ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) () ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) () () (x) ( ) ( ) (x) Issues nnd SuK~x'tmg Informatx3fi Sources: WATER. a) b) c) d) e) g) h) Potefitially S,gnirm~nt Iml~ct Will the proposal result in: Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff?. ( ) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? ( ) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? ( ) 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? ( ) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) PolerKally Signirmant Impac~ Less Unless Than Miligetiofi Signif'K:ant Inc~3x)reted ImlNact No Impaq1 ( ) (x) ( ) (x) ( ) () ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for TPM 15029 ~Jity of Rancho Cucamonga Page 5 Issues end Suppo~l Infon~at~on Sources: Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significanl Impact Less Unless Than Mitigation Significant IncorporatedImpacl No Impact i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a) Development of a currently vacant site will alter the absorption rate because of the paving and hard scape proposed. All runoff will be conveyed to approved drainage facilities which have been designed to handle the flows. b) Since the master plan storm drain in Foothill Boulevard, downstream of the project site, has not been installed, commercial properties on the north side of Foothill could be exposed to flooding in a 100-year storm under existing conditions. Development of this site will increase runoff to an existing problem area. Mitigation Measure 1 Provide a public storm drain connection from Regis Court to Deer Creek Channel and drain parcels 2 through 8 to that storm drain, rather than to Center Avenue. Issues and Supporting Informatio~ Sou~s: AIR QUALITY. a) b) c) d) Potentally S~gnificant Impact Less ,Pote~tlel~Unless Than S~gni~mantMihgebon S~nificant No Im~aot Incenx~l~l Impact Iml:~ Would the proposal.' Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for TPM 15029 city of Rancho Cucamonga Page 6 Issues and Supporling 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? ( ) Polentially S~gnir~cant impact Polentially Significant Impact Less Unless Than Mitigalion S~gnificant IncorporatedImpact No Impact ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) () () () () (x) (x) Comments: a) Development of a vacant site will increase vehicle trips, but will not exceed the projected traffic for the street classifications in the General Plan, which are based on the currently permitted land use. The project will be required to install frontage street improvements in their ultimate configuration, per City ordinance, and to pay Transportation Development fees. Issues and Supporl~ng Informatari Sources: Polentially Signif.:Int Impat Less Po~e~liallyUnless Than S~gnificantMitigatio~ Signill.,antNo Impact IncorporatedImpact Impact 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.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) () (x) ( ) (x) Initial Study for TPM 15029 Issues and Supporting Ir,dom~ation Sou~cas: Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? Potenlially S~gnit-cant Impact City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 7 Potentially Signif-~..ant Impact Less Unless Than Mitigation Significant Incorporaled Impact No Impact ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Issues end Supporing Informet~x'~ Souroes: potentially Signifment ImD~ 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? ( ) Potenhally S~gnificant Impact Less Unless Than Mitigation Signifm~nl Incormxatad Impact No Impact ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) Issues and SupPod~g Ide'mat~'~ Sources: HAZARDS. a) b) c) d) e) p~e~ially Im~ac~ Would the proposal involve: A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? ( ) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) 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? ( ) Pmenliatly Signifr. ant Impact Less Unless Than Maigation S~gnir~cant Inc~roomled Immecl No ImPact ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for TPM 15029 city of Rancho Cucamonga Page 8 10. ISSUES and Suppot'ling Information Sources: NOISE. Will the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? Potentially Significanl Iml::.act Polentially Signihcant Impact Less Unless Than Mitigation Significant IncorporatedImpact No Impact ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) 11. Issues and SuppoSing Info~atmn 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 Signifmanl Imoac~ Polentially Significant Impac~ Less Unless Than Mitigation S ignif*~..ant Incomo~eted Im13act No Impact ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) 12. Issues and $ul:~oort~ng Info~'met~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) 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 $igr~cent () () () () () () () Polentially S~gn~cent Impact Unless MRigalio~ Incore.atari () () () () () () () S~gnificent Impact () () () () (x) () () No Impact (x) (x) (x) (x) () (x) (x) Comments: e) Refer to comment 4(b). This new local storm drain is not a substantial alteration to the storm drainage system. Initial Study for TPM 15029 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 9 13. 14. 15. Issues and Supporting Information 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? Issues and Suplx,~ng Infocmation Sources: CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal.' a) Disturb paleontological resources? b) Disturb archaeological resources? c) Affect historical or cultural resources? d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? Issues and Supp~mg Informatmfi Sources: RECREATION. Would the proposal.' a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? Potentially Signihcant Impact Potentially S~gnificanl Impact Less Unless Than Mit~galion Significanl IncorporatedImpact No Impacl () ( ) ( ) (x) () () () (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Potentially Sigmficant Impact Less Unless Than Mibgafion Signifyant lnc, o~x:~aledImpact Potentially Signir~am Impact No Impacl ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) () () () () Potentially Signir, cInf Impact Unless Mihgotion Inc~lx~'a~ld () () () () Than S~gnificanf Impacl () () () () (x) (x) No Impact (x) (x) Initial Study for TPM 15029 c;ity of Rancho Cucamonga Page 10 16. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Significant Impa~ Less Polentmlly Unless Than Signif cant Mitigation S~gnificant No lint)act Incorporated Impact Impact 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? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Short term: Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time. Long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 15029 Mitigation Measure 1 Provide a public storm drain connection from Regis Court to Deer Creek Channel and drain parcels 2 through 8 to that storm drain, rather than to Center Avenue. Initial Study for TPM 15029 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 11 EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The following earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply): (X) General Plan EIR (Certified April 6, 1981) (x) Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989) ( ) Industrial Area Specific Plan EIR (Certified September 19, 1981) () Industrial Area Specific Plan, Subarea 18, EIR (SCH #93102055, certified June 15, 1994) ( ) Victoria Planned Community EIR (Certified May 20, 1981) () Terra Vista Planned Community EIR (SCH #81082808, certified February 16, 1983) () Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan EIR (SCH #87021615, certified September 16, 1987) () Etiwanda Specific Plan EIR (SCH #82061801, certified July 6, 1983) () Etiwanda North Specific Plan EIR (SCH #89012314, certified April 1, 1992) ( ) Other: 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 effec~.J~to~oi~v~ clearly no significant environmental effects would S ignatu :~ _~~"..,~~ .~'~'..._.~-~ Date:' "~"~ -~~ PrintNam~Ti~'- ~~~'' ~f~' /// ' RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NUMBER 15029, LOCATED NORTH OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD ON THE EAST SIDE OF CENTER AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1077-401-34. WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 15029, submitted by Henry Reiter for Deer Creek Partnership, applicant, for the purpose of subdividing into 10 parcels, the real property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, identified as APN 1077-401-34, located north of Foothill Boulevard on the east side of Center Avenue; and WHEREAS, on May 14, 1997, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing for the above-described map. NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the following findings have been made: That the map is consistent with the General Plan, the Industrial Area Specific Plan and the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. That the improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan, the Industrial Area Specific Plan, and the Foothill Specific Plan. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed development. That the proposed subdivision and improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or public health problems or have adverse effects on abutting properties. SECTION 2: Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, together with all wdtten 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows: That the Mitigated 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 Mitigated 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration with regard to the application. That, based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 15029 May 14,1997 Page 2 o 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 Mitigated 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission during the public headng, 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. SECTION 3: Tentative Parcel Map Number 15029 is hereby approved subject to the attached Standard Conditions and the following Special Conditions: Environmental Mitigation Measures Provide a public storm drain connection from Regis Court to Deer Creek Channel and drain parcels 2 through 8 to that storm drain, rather than to Center Avenue. Fngineedng Division An in-lieu fee as contribution to the future undergrounding of the existing overhead utilities (telecommunications and electrical) on the opposite side of Center Avenue shall be paid to the City pdor to approval of the final parcel map. The fee shall be one-half the City adopted unit amount times the length of the project frontage. 2. Provide the following easements: a. A 12-foot wide public storm drain easement. A surface overflow easement which conforms to the parking lot grading, with a width to be determined by the final drainage study. A sidewalk easement for the public connection to the future regional trail along Deer Creek Channel. Structures, such as trash enclosures, shall not encroach into the public storm drain easement. Show private connections to the storm drain on the public improvement plans. Leave blocks out of the bottom course of the perimeter wall for parcel 6 within the surface overflow route. o Perpendicular parking stalls on each lot shall be at least 25 feet from the face of curb. Center Avenue and Regis Court shall be posted with R26 "No Parking Any Time" signs. Show the storm drain location on the on-site Landscape Plan. Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of a public storm drain. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 15029 May 14, 1997 Page 3 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF MAY 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 14th day of May 1997, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. c] Those items checked are Conditions of Approval. A. Dedications and Vehicular Access _~ 1. Rights-of-way and easements shall be dedicated to the City for all interior public streets, community trails, public paseos, public landscape areas, street trees, traffic signal encroachment and maintenance and public drainage facilities as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. Private easements for non-public facilities (cross-lot drainage, local feeder trails, etc.) shall be reserved as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way for the perimeter streets (measured from street centerline): ~ total feet on ~ total feet on total feet on total feet on An irrevocable offer of dedication for roadway purposes shall be made for the private streets. Comer property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards. 5. Vehicular access rights shall be dedicated to the City for the following streets, except for approved openings: 10. I1. Reciprocal access easements shall be provided ensuring~access ::. r.[[parcels byC C & R's or by deeds and shall be recorded prior to or concurrent with the final parcel map. o.a Reciprocal parking agreements for all parcels and maintenance agreements ensuring joint maintenance of all common roads, drives, or parking areas shall be provided by C C & R's or deeds and shall be recorded prior to or concurrent with the final parcel map. All existing easements lying within future right-of-way are to be quitclaimed or delineated on the final parcel map per the City Engineer's requirements. Easements for public sidewalks and/or street trees placed outside the public right-of-way shall be dedicated to the City. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be provided and shall be delineated or noted on the final parcel map. 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 easement shall be provided. 1 12. The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property interests necessary to construct the required public improvements and, if he/she should fail to do so, the developer shall at least 120 days prior to submittal of the final parcel map for approval, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Code Section 66462 at such time as the City acquires the properS' interests required for the improvements. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security for a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained by the developer, at developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal. This condition applies in particular, but not limited, to: go Street Improvements All public improvements, (interior streets, drainage facilities, community trails, paseos, iandscaped areas, etc. ) shown on the plans and/or tentative map shall be constructed to City Standards. Interior street improvements shall include, but are not limited to, curb and gutter, AC pavement, drive approaches, sidewalks, street lights, and street trees. 2. A minimum, of 26-foot wide pavement within a 40- foot wide dedicated right-of-way shall be constructed for all half-section streets. 3. Construct the following missing perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: Street Name Curb AC Side- Drive Slxeet & Pvmt walk Appr. Lights Gutter Street Comm. Median Bike Other Trees Trail Island Trail Notes: (a) Median Island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement reconstruction and overlays will bc determined during plan check. (c) If so marked, sidewalk will be curvilinear per STD. # 114. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu of construction fee shall be provided for this item. 2 Improvement Plans and Construction: a. Street improvement plans including street trees, street lights and intersection safety lights on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior to final parcel map approval. b. Prior to any work being performed in the public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's office in addition to any other permits required. c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR or any other locations approved by the City Engineer. Notes: (I) 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 pullrope or as specified. e. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all comers of intersections per City Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. g. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards, except for single family residential lots. h. Street names shall be approved by the City Planner prior to submittal for first plan check. 5. Street improvement plans per City Standards for all private streets shall be provided for review and approval by the City Engineer. Prior to any work being performed on the private streets, fees shall be paid and construction permits shall be obtained from the City Engineer's office in addition to any other permits required. 6. 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. 7. Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with adopted policy. On collector or larger street, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project intersections, including driveways. Local residential street intersections and commercial or industrial driveways may have lines of sight plotted as required. 8. A Permit shall be obtained from CALTRANS for any work within the following right-of-way: 9. All public improvements on the following streets shall be operationally complete prior to the issuance of building permits. 3 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 f'mal parcel map approval. The following landscaped parkways, medians, paseos, easements, trails, or other areas shall be annexed into the Landscape Maintenance District: 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 parcel map approval. 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: D. Drainage and Flood Control I. The project (or portions thereof) is located within a Flood Hazard Zone; therefore, flood protection measures shall be provided as certified by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer. 2. It shall be the developer's responsibility to have the current FIRM Zone designation removed from the project area. The developer's engineer shall prepare all necessary reports, plans, and hydrologic/hydraulic calculations. A Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) shall be obtained from FEMA, prior to final parcel map approval. A Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) shall be issued by FEMA prior to occupancy or improvement acceptance, whichever occurs first. 3. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final parcel map approval. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. 4. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. 5. A permit fi'om the San Bemardino County Flood Control District is required for work within it's right-of- way. 6. 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. 7. Public storm drain easements shall be ~m'aded to convey overflows in the event of blockage in a sump catch basin on a public street. 4 E. Improvement Completion 1. If the required public improvements are not completed prior to approval of the final parcel map, an improvement security accompanied by an agreement executed by the Developer and the City will be required for: 2. If the required public improvements are not completed prior to approval of the f'mal parcel map, an improvement certificate shall be placed upon the final parcel map, stating that they will be completed upon development for: Fo Utilities 1. Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas, electric power, telephone and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility Standards. Easements shall be provided as required. 2. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet requirements of the Ctlcamonga County Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from CCWD is required prior to final parcel map approval. 3. Approvals have not been secured from all utilities and other interested agencies involved. Approval of the final parcel map will be subject to any requirements that may be received from them. 4. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. G. General Requirements and Approvals ~b~ !. The tentative map approval is valid for the 24 month period following the approval date. Time extensions may be granted by the Planning Commission, if requested prior to the expiration date. ~ 2. Final grading plans for each parcel shall be as required by the Building and Safety Division prior to issuance of grading permits. 3. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (C C & R's) approved by the City Attorney is required prior to approval of the final parcel map. 4. An easement for a joint use driveway shall be provided prior to final parcel map approval for: 5. Prior to approval of the final parcel map a deposit shall be posted with the City covering the estimated cost of apportioning the assessments under Assessment District , among the newly created parcels. 6. A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated operating costs for all new street lights for the first 6 months of operation, prior to final parcel map approval. 5 7. Prior to fmalization of any development phase, sufficient improvement plans shall be completed beyond the phase boundaries to assure secondary access and drainage protection to the satisfaction of the City. Engineer. Phase boundaries shall correspond to lot lines shown on the approved tentative map. 8. Eftwanda/San Sevaine Area Regional Mainline, Secondary Regional, and Master Plan Drainage Fees shall be paid prior to final parcel map approval. 9. Permits shall be obtained from the following agencies for work within their right-of-way. I0. A signed consent and waiver form tojoin and/or form the Law Enforcement Community Facilities District shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final parcel map approval. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. 11. Prior to recordation of the final parcel map, the applicant shall consent to, or participate in, the establishment ofa Mello-Roos Community Facilities District for the construction and maintenance of necessary school facilities. However, if any school district has previously established such a Community Facilities District, the applicant shall, in the alternative, consent to the annexation of the project site into the territory of such existing disn'ict prior to the recordation of the final parcel map. Further, if the affected school district has not formed a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District within twelve months from the date of approval of the project and prior to the recordation of the final parcel map for said project, this condition shall be deemed null and void. This condition shall be waived if the City receives notice that the applicant and all affected school districts have entered into an agreement to privately accommodate any and all school impacts as a result of this project. 12. Mello Roos Community Facilities District requirements for the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District shall apply to this project. 13. Pursuant To provisions of California Resources Code Section 21089(b), this application shall not be operative, vested or final, nor will building permits be issued or a map recorded, until (1) the Notice of Determination (NOD) regarding the associated environmental action in filed and posted with Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Bernardino; and (2) any and all required handling charges, are paid to the County Clerk of the County of San Bernardino. The applicant shall provide the Engineering Department with a stamped and copy of the NOD together with a receipt showing that all fees have been paid. In the event this application is determined exempt from such filing fees pursuant to the provision of the California Code, or the guidelines promulgated thereunder, except for payment of any required handling charge for filing a Certificate of Fee Exemption, this condition shall be deemed null and void. Rev. 10/14/96 6 Charles osel h Associates PUBLIC/PRIVATE SECTOR MANAGEMENT SERVICES May 14, 1997 David Barker, Chairman Planning Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga P. O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729-0807 RE: Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 96-32 Auto Nation Dear Mr. Barker: Please be advised that we have been retained by the owner of APN 229-321-001, which is located north of the subject site under consideration, for the purpose of assisting with resolving their serious concerns with the vacation of Charles Smith Avenue as proposed by the project proponent. While we are very supportive of the City's desire to generate sales tax revenue for City operations, we wish to be on record as opposed to approval of the Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit before you tonight without benefit of a traffic study that addresses the circulation impacts that will result from the abandonment of Charles Smith Avenue. Our initial review of the facts of the matter under consideration indicates the following: There does not appear to be any recent traffic study documentation available which addresses the proposed Charles Smith Avenue deletion. Staff contact indicates that no such traffic studies were prepared in conjunction with this item. Traffic Impact Analysis Reports referenced in the Transportation/Circulation portion of the Environmental Checklist Initial Study for the Auto Nation site indicates the Circulation Element of the General Plan calls for closure of Charles Smith Avenue. This section also indicates a traffic study was completed for the Mission Land EIR, however, review of this EIR disclosed no discussion or consideration of traffic impacts to, or closure of, Charles Smith Avenue. Review of the Industrial Specific Plan Figure IV-14 clearly identifies the extension of Charles Smith Avenue cul-de-sacing slightly north of 4th Street and then traversing westerly to Buffalo. No cul-de-sacing in the vicinity of Assessor's Parcel Number 229-321-001 can be seen in this exhibit. Office 909.481 · 1822 800-240' 1822 Fax 909'481 · 1824 City Center- 10681 Foothill Blvd., Suite 205- Rancho Cucamonga, CA' 91730 A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION Review of available information for the. ISP DEIR, which was prepared in the early 1980's did not provide any traffic documentation addressing the cul-de-sacing of Charles Smith Avenue. The attached Exhibit VI-56 from the DEIR indicates the old Rochester Avenue alignment along the current Charles Smith Avenue alignment was included in the future roadway network. Review of available City records did not disclose the existence of any detailed traffic studies which document the cui-de-sacing of Charles Smith Avenue, Documents reviewed did indicate a roadway being constructed westerly, and is shown as being within the property currently under consideration for the Auto Nation project. Approval of the proposed deletion of Charles Smith Avenue will result in the following: 1. Our client will experience a loss of secondary acc~s to their property. Our client will lose approximately 200' to 300' of roadway frontage as a result of the placement of the cul-de-sac as proposed. This will cause a reduction of the use and value for a portion of their property. o Our client will likely experience a withdrawal of a standing offer to purchase their 5 acre site, with the proximate cause of this loss being due to the pending deletion and eul-de-sacing of Charles Smith Avenue. We are respectfully requesting that approval of the matter before you this evening be withheld until such time as an adequate traffic study of the deletion of Charles Smith Avenue can be completed. We do not want to stand in the way of the City's success with the proposed Auto Nation project, however, we maintain that such success should not be at the expense of those property owners who have had ownership of their property long before those now acting as project proponents. Thank you for your anticipated courtesy and consideration with this matter. If I can be of assistance or answer any questions you may have, please feel free to contact me at your earliest opportunity. Sincerely, Charles J. Buquet Charles Joseph Associates Planning Commission Members Jerry Laird IB, FIG. IV- 14 e~ ~eeaee ~ 0 40~ 84)0' Revised:. SISIN FIGURE V1-13: FUTURE ROADWAY NETWORK CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: May 14, 1997 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Miki Bratt, Associate Planner ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-32 - AUTO NATION - A request to construct an automotive sales business consisting of a 32,092 square foot showroom, a 23,884 square foot service building, and a 2,190 square foot car wash, with an outdoor display area on a 20-acre parcel, located on the northeast corner of Fourth Street and Buffalo Avenue in the Industrial Park area (Subarea 12) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan - APN: 229-263-19, 20, 21, and a portion of 18. Related file: Parcel Map 15012. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: Surrounding Land Use and 7oning: North - Vacant; Industrial Park (Subarea 12) South - Ontario Mills; Regional Commercial, City of Ontario East - Freeway; (I-15 Freeway) West - Vacant; Industrial Park (Subarea 12) General Plan Designations: Project Site - Industrial Park North - Industrial Park South - Regional Commercial, City of Ontado East - Freeway West - Industrial Park Site Characteristics: The site is vacant and slopes gently toward the south. It has been periodically disced for weed suppression. Drainage facilities to the north of the site along Chades Smith Ddve and to the south of the site along Fourth Street serve storm runoff. Chades Smith Ddve currently bisects the site but, consistent with the General Plan Circulation Policy, will be vacated as a condition of this development. Do Parking Calculations: Number of Number of Square Parking Spaces Spaces Type of Use Footage Ratio Required Provided Retail/Office 58,166 1:250 234 380 ITEH C PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 96-32 - AUTO NATION May 14, 1997 Page 2 ANALYSIS: General: The application is for an automotive sales business on a 20-acre parcel, located adjacent to the I -15 Freeway and opposite the Ontario Mills Regional Mall on Fourth Street. The project includes indoor and outdoor sales display as well as minor automotive servicing. The applicant, Auto Nation, is marketing a new concept of one-price, reconditioned, and guaranteed automobile resales. Outdoor display for about 1,000 vehicles will be provided, as well as 380 parking spaces for customers and employees. The overall design concept has been developed by Auto Nation for sites in California and throughout the United States. In general, the campus-like appearance of the facility fits well with the campus-like design policy of the Industrial Area. The plan includes building design elements which are incorporated into all four elevations, landscaping in excess of the minimum, decorative paving, and on-site enhanced pedestrian pathways. In general the proposed signs are well integrated into the overall design and appropriate for a regional auto sales center adjacent to a freeway. As initiated by the Planning Commission on March 11, 1997, an amendment to the City's Sign Program will be processed to add a regional auto sales center category to the Commercial section of the Sign Code. Design Review Committee: At the Planning Commission Workshop held on March 26, 1997, the consensus was for approval of the overall design concept, subject to minor changes necessary to conform to long established City design policies. The Commission agreed that the following items could be incorporated as conditions of approval of the project (see Exhibit "F".) Building design must incorporate changes consistent with design policies of the Planning Commission. Accordingly, the direction has been incorporated into the conditions of approval as follows: Two primary building materials shall be provided for all buildings subject to City Planner approval. Design elements used on the primary building shall be incorporated into all secondary buildings subject to City Planner approval. Landscape must be revised. Accordingly, several special conditions have been added to strengthen the landscaping, especially to reduce wind blown sand along the north property line and also to enhance the Fourth Street streetscape. 3, Although the conceptual sign program is generally consistent with the concept of a regional auto sales center adjacent to a freeway, minor changes must be made to conform to long established City sign design policies. (An amendment to the City's Sign Code to establish the category "Regional Automotive Sales" is being processed concurrently with this application.) The Commissioners directed the applicant's sign program be revised to incorporate the following changes: PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 96-32 - AUTO NATION May 14, 1997 Page 3 Monument signs shall incorporate native dver rock cobble in their support structures consistent with the rock cobble landscape feature along Fourth Street and rock cobble pilasters for security fence detail. Any pole sign shall present an aesthetic appearance to the satisfaction of the City Planner. On-site directional signs shall be consistent with the overall, campus-like appearance of the project to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Further, the Commissioners supported a City multi-user freeway oriented sign visible from the freeway, but discouraged single tenant pole freeway signs. Accordingly, a condition of approval states: One freeway-oriented sign shall be permitted which shall be participation in a multi- tenant sign provided by the City. If said City sign is not available, or if a participation agreement has not been offered by RDA, within six months after the opening of the business, the applicant may request an on-site freeway-visible sign a maximum of 50 feet in height, subject to the review and approval of the City Planner. Technical Review Committee: On Apdl 2, 1997, the Technical Review Committee addressed traffic, drainage, access, and other issues, and proposed conditions which have been incorporated into the conditions of approval for the project. In general the conditions which were previously placed on Parcel Map 15012, approved by the Planning Commission on April 9, 1997, have also been placed on this project. Conditions placed on the Parcel map and on this project include vacation of a portion of Charles Smith Avenue, a dght turn lane from Fourth Street to Buffalo Avenue, and storm drain facilities. In addition, existing overhead utilities must be placed underground except for the 66 KV electrical transmission lines along Fourth Street and the Fourth Street Median Islands adjacent to the project which shall be enhanced. Also, a City gateway monument shall be provided at the intersection of Fourth Street and the I-15 Freeway off-ramp. An additional condition placed on this project addresses the interception of drainage flows from vacant parcels north of the project site which must be addressed to the satisfaction of the Building Official and the City Planner. Environmental Assessment: The Environmental Impact Report for the Industrial Area Specific Plan is the umbrella review for the Industrial Area. More recently, traffic, air quality, and noise were evaluated in a Focused Environmental Impact Report for Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 95-05, for the area north of Fourth Street between Milliken Avenue and the I-15 Freeway, which included the subject site. The initial study for the latter EIR also addressed biological issues and found there would be no impacts as a result of development. The initial study for the subject application found that there could be impacts from flooding and also aesthetic impacts. However, these potential impacts can be mitigated to a level of non- significance. Mitigation measures include: PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 96-32 - AUTO NATION May 14, 1997 Page 4 The required construction of storm water facilities; The requirement that any freeway oriented sign, or signs, be consistent with adopted City sign design policies; and That the freeway right-of-way adjacent to the site be landscaped to Caltrans specifications and to the satisfaction of the City Planner and the City Engineer. Accordingly, a mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts has been prepared. FACTS FOR FINDING: Staff finds the subject application to be consistent with the General Plan and the requirements of Subarea 12 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. Further, the proposed use is compatible with surrounding land uses. CORRF:SPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the project site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with Conditions and issuance of a mitigated Negative Declaration. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:MB/taa Attachments: Exhibit "A" Exhibit "B" Exhibit "C" Exhibit "D" Exhibit "E" Exhibit "F" Exhibit "G" Site Plan and Location Map Site Utilization Plan Grading Plan Landscape Plans Elevations Planning Commission Workshop Minutes, Dated March 26, 1997 Environmental Assessment, Part I and Part II Resolution of Approval with Conditions 2/14~97($TR630) LSA , O' I.SO' 300' Auto Nation Site Utilization Map CUP m ill .... EIUL . .< m .-! '"u BECTJON 'A' BECTION 'A.I° TI',~ ;: ~ECTION 'D' / / / ; ~N~ ;~. BECTIOtl SECTION SECTION 'C' $ECTIOM 'C.1' 'FOUR'1'I-T---S'"FREEET -+ "I'~EE:/PARKING TABULATION (I TilE:i: P£R :~ STAU~) ,G SHOWROOM ELEVATION - SOUTH ~.,., ....~-. / I ' ® ' ~'.-"~l~ ' ~,~ .... ~- ~ . ' ,.~ ~ SHOWROOM ELEVATION - NORTH m --I '-o ,i(~)TYPICAL PANEL ELEVATION ...... .... · . ~: ~' '~ ~TYPIC~ REVE~ .i~TYP~C~ JOINT ~t~% ~ .... ' ¥ *'~ DETAIL DETAIL ' ,~ ..... .;~' ' .; .,,-,,~' :- ~TYP~C~ P~EL ELEVATION ~TYP~C[ CORNER ~ TYPIC~ COR.ER ,~ *c,*E, ,,,'-, -r ~, , "~ WINDOW REVE~ "~ DETAIL ,~TYPICAL CANOPY FRONT ELEVATION {I TYPICAL CANOPY ENTRY PLAN ,,~ TYPICAL CORNER DETAIL (~NOT USED [.~j--. l..__l~.~ ~~, * ..... II ,.~. :i~ ,I~',~ ~---'~'- TYPIC~ ENTRY C~OPY SIDE ELEVATION ,~G BUILDING SECTION III ~G BUILDING SECTION G BUILDING SECTION ® ® :O SERVICE BUILDING ELEVATION - SOUTH ,~OSERVICE BUILDING ELEVATION - WEST ,~OSERVICE BUILDING ELEVATION - WEST '-~, I~.[~'~l /~ II I I I I I'1 ~1 I II ~'~ ', ;I ~l~' I ~ / _.~ ',~ ~:~_ f ~ ~__~ !_! ~ I~ I/ll l/ ® :O SERVICE BUILDING ELEVATION - EAST [.: I i t i ~i !'l I, : I I, I I i. i I'1 ' i I I , ,. :- . f~SERVICE BUILDIN(~ELEVATION- NORTH CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting March 26, 1997 Vice Chairman McNiel called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:40 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains Room at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: William Bethel, Rich Macias, Larry McNiel, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: David Barker STAFF PRESENT: Miki Bratt, Associate Planner; Brad Bullet, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer NEW BUSINESS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-32 - AUTO NATION - A request to construct an automotive sales business consisting of a 32,092 square foot showroom, 23,884 square foot service building, and 2,190 square foot car wash with an outdoor display area on a 20-acre parcel located on the northeast comer of Fourth Street and Buffalo Avenue in the Industrial Park area (Subarea 12) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan -APN: 229-263-19, 20, 21, and a portion of 18. Related File: Parcel Map 15012. The Commission expressed strong support for the project design subject to minor changes with the consensus being as follows: In general, the proposed signs, including size and color, are appropriate for a regional auto sales center adjacent to a freeway. Building sign size is well integrated into the architecture of the building. Monument signs should incorporate native river rock cobble in the support structures. Pole signs should be modified to present a more aesthetic appearance. The on-site overhead direction signs should be modified to be consistent with the overall tasteful, campus- like appearance of the project. 2. The sales building design is excellent; however the two primary building materials policy should be maintained. 3. The design materials of all secondary buildings should incorporate the same design materials used for the primary building. 4. Landscaping along Fourth Street and in the display area should be strengthened. 5. The pedestrian element linking Fourth Street to the sales building should be strengthened. 6. The design concept of the canopies is appropriate. of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Oiv;~ion (909) 477-2750 ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM (Part I- Initial Study) The purpose of this form is to inform the City of the basic components of the proposed project so that.the City may review the project pursuant to City policies, ordinances, and guidelines; the California Environmental Quality Act; and the City's Rules and Procedures to Implement CEO. A. :It is important that the information requested in this application be provided. infulE:..~. ~..111-i~i~ ...... : .~'.' i. i . : :.~ ..... ............. GENERAL INFORMATION: INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS VVlLL NOT BE PROCESSED. Please note that it is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that the application is complete at the bYne of submittal; City staff will not be available to perform work required to provide missing information. Application Number for the project to which this form pertains.' Project Title: Auto Nation Name & Address of project owner(s): Contact Person & Address: Name&Addressof~veloperorprojectsponsoc Staubach Retail Serv±ces, 2010 Main Street, Suite 620 Irvine, CA 92714 LSA Associates, Inc., Attn: 3403 10th Street, Suite 520 Riverside, CA 92501 (Conditional Use Permit Application) Oltmans Investment Company 10005 Mission Mill Road/P.O. Box 985 Whittier, CA 90608-4242 Attn: N/A Telephone Number:. ( 9 0 9 ) 7 8 1 - 9 3 1 0 Name & Address of perso~ preparing this form (if different from above): Lloyd Zola Pat Donnelly Telephone Number:. ~a,',~= 1 of 10 PROJECT INFORMATION & DESCRIPTION: Information indicated by astedsk (') is not required o£ non-constmction CUP's unless otherwise requested by staff. Provide a furl scale (8-1/2 x 11) copy of the USGS Quadrant Sheet(s) which includes the project site, and indicate the site boundaries. Provide a set of color photographs which show representative views into the site from the north, south, east and west; views .into and from the site from the prfmary access points which serve the site; and representative views of significant features fr~m the site. Include a map showing location of each photograph. ProjectLocationWesc~e): The northeast quadrant of the 1-15/4th Street interchange, bounded to the east by Buffalo and to the north by a lot line falling 798.0 feet north of Fourth'Street. 4) Assessor's Parcel Number~ (attach additional sheet if necessary): 229-263-46 (portion); 47 and 48. '5) Gross Site Area (ac/sq. fl.): 70 _ 0 aCre=.~ '6) Net Site Area (total site size minus area of pubfic streets & proposed dedications): 2 0.0 acres Descn'be any proposed general plan amendment or zone change which would affect the project site (attach additional sheet necessary: None. 8) Include a descrfption.of aft permits which will be necessary from the City of Rancho Cucamonga and other governmental agencies in order to fully implement the project: Conditional Use Permit to allow auto sales (Auto Nation), grading permits and building permits. c/7 Describe He physical se#ing of He site as # exg~ beam He p~ject ~cluding ~ation on topog~phy, s6# stability, plants and an~a~ mature ~e~ ~ and roam, d~age coupes, and scen~ a~ect$. Desc~e any ex~t~g stmctums on ~c~ding age and conditio~ and He use of He s~ums. Afiach photog~phs of significant ~atums ~sc~ed. In addition, $~e a# souses of ~a~n ~e., ~o~g~al ancot hydrologic studies, biotic and amheo~gical su~eys, t~ffic studie~: The site was previously part of a larger vineyard. The grapevines have been removed from the site, and only ruderal vegetation remains. The site's topography falls'relatively evenly from the northeast to the southwest, With a drop of approximately 13 feet. The soils are predominately sandy silts which are suitable to support the type of development proposed. There are no~mature trees, structures, trails, drainage courses, scenic vistas, or known animals on the site. Charles Smith Avenue, which currently traverses the site in a north-south direction, .is proposed to be abandOned~.~ 10) Describe the known cultural and/or historical aspects of the site. Site aft sources of information (books, published reports and oral history): The site was previously a vineyard. There are no known cultural resources on the site. 11) Describe any noise sources and their levels that now affect the site (aircraft, roadway noise, etc.) and how they will affect proposed uses: Existing roadway and aircraft noise from surrounding areas are not at levels that would affect the proposed retail land use. Describe He proposed project ~ ~ta~ ~ shou~ provide an a~qua~ ~sc~n of ~e s#e ~ te~s of ultimate use wh~h will ras~ ~m He prosed project. Indica~ ff ~era ara p~posed phases ~r ~velopmen& He ex~nt of ~ve~pment to occur ~th ea~ phase, and He anticipated comp~n of ea~ ~crament. A~ch addit~nal sheet~ ff necessa~: An automotive retail center, to be operated by AutoNation, is proposed for the site, and a conditional use permit is requested (auto sales are conditionally allowed under the existing Specific Plan for the project site). Proposed site improvements include the development of an automotive showroom, service center and car wash facility, and paved and landscaped outdoor areas for auto- motive display and customer parking. The project is proposed to be developed in a single phase. A freeway-oriented sign is also requested by the project applicant, and a proposed amendment to the City's sign code is included with this submittal. 13) Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical, or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one-family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.)and scale of development (height, frontage, setback. rear yard, etc.): The surrounding properties include unimproved"industrial..park land uses to the north and east, the Ontario Mills regional mall to the south, and Interstate 15 to the west. 14) ~thepmp~sedp~ectchangethepa~em~sca~e~rcha~cter~fthesurr~und~ene~area~fthep~ect? No. The proposed use for this site is conditionally allowed under the current General Plan and Specific Plan. ~dicate~etypeofsho~and~n~te~no~etobegenera~cluding$ou~eandamounL How~ll'~eseno~e~ve~ a~ctadjacentpropertiesandon.siteuses. Whatme~o~of$oundpmo~ga~p~posed? Durinq construction, noise will be qenerated by earth movin~ and construction activities. Since adjacent properties are either vacant or industrial, no noise-related short or long term problems are anticipated. · 16) Ingcatepmposedremova~an~ormplacementsofmatumorscenictmes: There are no mature or scenic trees on the site. I7) Ingcateanybodiesofwater~cludingdomest~ waters~p#es)~towhghthesitedrams: The project site drains, via the existinq storm drain system, into Day Creek Channel. Indicate expected amount of water usage. (See Attachment A for usage estimates). For further clan'fication. please conlact the Cucamonga County Water Distn'ct at 987.2591. a. Residential (gab'day) N / A Peak use (gallDay) N / A b. Commercial/Ind. (gal/day/ac) 6 0,0 0 0 Peak use (gal/min/ac) 1 2 0,0 0 0 * for entire 20 acre site 19) Indicate proposed method of sewage disposal. Septic Tank x Sewer. If septic tanks are proposed. attach percolation tests. If discharge to a sanitary sewage system is proposed indicate expected daily sewage generation: (See Attachment A for usage estimates). For further clarification, please contact the Cucamonga County Water Distrfct at 987-2591. a. Residential (gallday) N/A b. CommerciaU!nd.(gal/day/ac) 40,000 gallons per day based on 20 acres of General Commercial RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS: 20) Number of residential units: Detached (indicate range of parcel sizes. minimum lot size and maximum lot size.' N/A eif- 4/96 Pa~e 5 of "T 0 Aftached (indicate whether units are rental or for sale units): N / A Anticipated range of sale prices and/or rents: Sale Price(s) $ N / A to $ N / A Rent (per month) $ N / A to $ N / A 22) Specify number of bedrooms by unit type: N / A 23) Indicate anticipated household size by unit h/pe: N / A 24) Indicate the expected number of school children who will be residing within the project: Districts as shown in Attachment B: a. Elementary: N / A b. Junior High: N / A c. Senior High N / A COMMERCIAL. INDUSTRIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL PROJECTS 25) Describe type of use(s) and major function(s) of commercial, industrial or institutional uses: Commercial use, retail auto sales Contact the appropriate School ~talfioora~a.ofcommerc~dustria~or~sfitu~naiusesbytype: ~i1 ~rea (24,060 square feet for auto f~t for service reception building). 27,470 square feet of sales showroom; 3,410 square, 27) Indicate hours of operation: 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., seven days a week. 28) Number of employees: Total.' 1 5 0 Maximum Shift: 5 0 Time of Maximum Shift: 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. 29) Provide breakdown .of anticipated job classifications, including wage and salary ranges. as well as an indication of the rate of hire for each classification (attach additional sheet if necessary): Unknown. 30) Estimation of the number of workers to be hired that currently reside in the City: Unknown. '31) For commercial and industrial uses only, indicate the source. type and amount of air pollution emissions. (Data should be verffied through the South Coast Air Quality Management District, at (818) 572-6283): V~hic]e traffic attracted to the site and temporary construction ~mi.~.~ion.~ will occur. ALL PROJECTS Have the water, sewer, fire, and flood control agencies serving the project been contacted to determine their ability to provide adequate service to the proposed project? ff so, please indicate their response. Rprvirp and ,~t~]ity providers have not been contacted regarding this CUP application. eif- "/9-3 ( ., ~ Page 7 of 10 33) In the known history of this property, has there been any use, storage, or discharge of hazardous and/or toxic materials? Examples of hazardous and/or toxic materials include, but are not limited to PCB's; radioactive substances; pesticides and herbicides; fuels, oils, solvents, and other flammable liquids and gases. Also nolo underground storage of any of the above. Please list the materials and descdbe lheir use, storage, and/or discharge on the property, as well as the dates of use. if known. A Phase I site assessment prepared for the project site found no evidence of hazardous waste or contamination. 3~ H/ill the proposed project involve the temporary or long-term use, storage or discharge of hazardous and/or toxic materials, including but not limited to those examples listed above? If yes, provide an inventory of all such materials to be used and proposed method of disposal. The location of such uses, along with the storage and shipment areas, shall be shown and labeled on the application plans. Automotive repair activities will occur as part of the proposed project. These uses will comply with all applicable state and federal regulations. I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for adequate evaluation of this project to the best of my ability, that the facts, statements. and information presented are true and correct tot he best of my knowledge and belief. I further under~tand that additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaluation can be made by the City of Rancho Cucamonga/~/'~ Title: '~ ATTACHMENT A Water Usacle Average use per day Residential Single Family Apt/Condo Commercialllndustrial General and Regional Commercial Neighborhood Commercial General Industrial Industrial Park Peak Usage For all uses Average use x 2.0 600 gal/day 400 gal/day 3000 gal/day/ac 1500 gal/day/ac 1500 gal/day/ac 3000 gal/day/ac Sewer Flows Residential Single Family Apt/Condos Source: Commercial/Industrial General Commercial Neighborhood Commercial General Industrial Heavy Industrial Cucamonga County Water District Master Plan, 9/86 270 gal/day 200 gat/day 2000 gal/daylac 100-1500 gal/day/ac 2000 9al/day/ac 3000 gal/day/ac elf - 4/96 Page 9 of 10 ATTACHMENT B Contact the school district for your area for amount and payment of school fees: Elementary School Districts Alta Loma 9350 Base Line Road, Suite F Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 987-0768 Central 9457 Foothill Boulevard Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 989-8541 Cucamonga 8776 Archibald Avenue Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 987-8942 Etiwanda 5959 East Avenue P.O. Box 248 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739 (909) 899-2451 High School Chaffey High School 211 West 5th Street Ontario, CA 91762 (909) 988-8511 HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE STATEMENT I have been informed by the City of Rancho Cucamonga of my responsibilities pursuant to California Government Code Section 65962.5 (copy attached) to notify the City as to whether ~he site for which a development application has been submitted is located within an area which has been designated as the location of a hazardous waste site by the Office of Planning and Research, State of California (OPR). I have also been informed by the City of Rancho Cucamonga that, as of the date of executing this Statement, OPR has not yet compiled and distributed a list of hazardous waste sites as required by said Section 65962.5. I am informed and believe that the proposed site for which a development application has been submitted is not within any area specified in said Section 65962.5 as a hazardous waste site. I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated: On behalf of Au/~on USA S%131~HAZDWAST% 1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: August 13, 1990 Applicants Dan Coleman, Prindpal Plarme~~ i-I. AZARDOUS WASTE AND SUBSTANCE SITES Effective July 1, 1987, Government Code Section 65962.5 requires each applicant for any development project to consult the State list of Hazardous Waste and Substance Sites. Based upon this list (available from the Planning Division) the applicant is required to submit a signed statement to the City of Rancho Cucamonga indicating whether the project is located on a site which is included on the list before the City accepts the application as complete. If the project site is listed by the State as a hazardous waste or substance site, the applicant must fully describe the nature of the hazard and the potential environmental hnpacts on the Initial Study, Part I. Attached is a standard statement for the applicant to sign. The State list of hazardous waste and substance sites may be reviewed at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division offices located at 10500 Civic Center Drive. Attachment: Statement Form City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: CUP 96-32 2. Related Files: PM 15012 3. Project Description: CUP 96-32 - AUTONATION - A request to construct an automotive sales business consisting of a 32,092 square foot showroom, 23,884 square foot service building, and 2,190 square foot car wash with an outdoor display area on a 20 acre parcel-located on the northeast corner of Fourth Street and Buffalo Avenue in the Industrial Park area (Subarea 12) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan - APN: 229-263-19, 20, 21, and a portion of 18. Related file: PM 15012. 4. Project Sponsor's Name: AutoNation Address: 2010 Main Street, Suite 620, Irvine, CA 92714 Telephone: (714) 756-6400 5. General Plan Designation: Industrial Park 6. Zoning: Industrial Park (Subarea 12) Industrial Area Specific Plan 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Zoning North: Industrial Park Subarea 12 South: Regional Commercial (City of Ontado) East: 1-15 Freeway West: Industrial Park (Subarea 12) Land Use Vacant Ontario Mills Retail Center Freeway Vacant Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Contact Person and Phone Number: Miki Bratt, AICP, Associate Planner (909) 477-2750 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: San Bernardino County Environmental Health Services; Caltrans. Initial Study for CUP 96-32 AUTONATION Page 2 City of Rancho Cucamonga 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 (x) Water ( ) Air Quality ( ) Transportation/Circulation ( ) Biological Resources ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources ( ) Hazards ( ) Noise ( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance ( ) Public Services ( ) Utilities and Service Systems (x) Aesthetics ( ) 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. (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 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 eadier 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. ( ) 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 mea/sjJres that are ?.)Dosed upon the proposed project. Signed: Mil[i/Bratt, AICP, Associate Plahner Ass/bciate Planner April 2, 1997 Initial Study for CUP 96-32 AUTONATION Page 3 City of Rancho Cucamonga 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 Infor/11ation Sources: LAND a) b) c) d) Potentially Significant Impact Less PotentiallyUnless Than SignificantM~bgation S,~nif~,antNo Impact IncorporatedImpact Imoact 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) Comments: The project is consistent with General Plan, zoning, and surrounding land uses. Issues and Supporting Inforotation Souroes: Potentially Significant Impact Less PotentiallyUnless Than S~gnificantMitigation Signifmant No Iml~ct tncoAooratedIml~act Impact 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) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for CUP 96-32 AUTONATION Page 4 City of Rancho Cucamonga Comments: The project will provide approximately 150 new jobs for persons currently residing within the region Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Significant Impact Less PotentallyUnless Than S~gnificantMitigat~3n Signifmant No Impact Inca's)ratedImpact Impact GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) d) Seiche hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) f) Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) h) Expansive soils? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: Unstable soil conditions resulting from construction have been anticipated in the Development Code and the Uniform Building Code and are addressed in the Standard Condition of Development. o Issues and Supporting Infocreation Sources: WATER. a) b) Pot',~tialh~ S~nificant Impact Less Potentially Unle~,s Trmn S'~nificard Md~gation Significant No ImPact IncorPorated Impact Impact W711 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) ( ) ( ) Initial Study for CUP 96-32 AUTONATION Page 5 City of Rancho Cucamonga Issues and SupDorting Information Sources: c) d) e) f) g) h) i) Potentially Significant Impact Discharge into surface water or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? ( ) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? ( ) 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? ( ) 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 Significant impact Less Unless Than Mitigation Signify. ant IncorDorateciIreDact No Impact ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) () () (x) Comments: a, b) The vacation of Chades Smith Avenue will eliminate an existing overflow route in the event 100 year storm runoff exceeds the capacity of the existing drainage facilities. Mitigation measures have been attached to Parcel Map 10512 and incorporated into this project which will mitigate this potential impact below a level of significance, as follows: A preliminary drainage study has been completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer which addresses the impacts of removing Chades Smith Avenue. Charles Smith Avenue will end at a point north of the the existing storm drain which joins the drainage facility under the freeway and a public storm drain easement shall be dedicated. Off site drainage facilities will collect surface drainage for a portion of vacant land north of the project and an overflow easement will be provided for the remainder of storm flows which originate upstream of the site and incorporated into the project design. Therefore, no impacts will occur. Drainage facilities shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Initial Study for CUP 96-32 AUTONATION Page 6 City of Rancho Cucamonga Issues and SuppoSing Information Sou~rcas: 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 S~gnifm...anl Impact Less Un~$s Than Mitigation Significant Inr. z~rporatedImpact No ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a, d) An auto service center is part of this application, but will perform only minor service: no body work and no engine overhaul work is permitted, therefore no odors or air quality issues will occur. o Issues and Suppon,ng Inkxmation Sources: Potentially S~gnif~ant Impact Less PolentiallyUnless 'Than SignificantMihget~o~'~S~gnif~.antNo Impact Incorporatedtmpact Impact d) e) 0 g) TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Rail or air traffic impacts? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for CUP 96-32 AUTONATION Page 7 City of Rancho Cucamonga Comments: The Circulation Element of the General Plan calls for the closure of Charles Smith Boulevard. The Parcel Map application which preceeds this subject application requires the closure of Charles Smith Boulevard. No unanticipated traffic impacts are expected. a) A traffic study was completed for the Mission Land EIR which included the subject site. The proposed use will not result in an intensification of permitted uses and planned improvements along Fourth Street including a right turn lane at Buffalo Avenue and improvements to the Fourth Street median island island are included as conditions of the parcel map and will be incorpoarted into the conditions of development for thie subject project. Therefore, no unanticipated traffic impacts will occur. c) Consistent with the City's fire code and the Standard Conditions of Development, two means of access to the site will be maintained along with a 26 foot fire lane through the property. d) Consistent with the Development Code, 234 parking spaces are required on site and 380 customer and employee parking spaces will be provided which exceeds the requirement. Consistent with City policy, Fourth Street and Buffalo Avenue, on the perimeter of the property will be posted "no parking." 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, alparian, and vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? Po{antiaily S~lnifmant Impact Less Potontilllly ~k11~s$ Than S~gnificant Mitigalio~ Significant No Impact I~ Impact Impact ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) () () () (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a) The site is vacant and covered with non-native grasses and weeds. It is periodically disced for weed control. Further, environmental review for the Mission land EIR Initial Study for CUP 96-32 AUTONATION Page 8 City of Rancho Cucamonga included an a field survey of the subject site and determined that no plant or animal life impacts could occur. Issues and Supports~g Inferruction Sources: Polentially Significant Impact Less PotentiallyUnless Than $ignif'~-.,antMitigationSignificantNo Impact Incoq~oratedImpact ImDact ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal.' a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) 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? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) o Issues ~d Support~'~g Infm'met~o~ Sources: HAZARDS. a) b) c) d) e) Potentially Sign~.an~ Impact Less Polentia/lyUnless Than S~gnificantMitigat~o~ SignificantNo Impact Ir~corDoraledImoact Impact Would the proposal involve: A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a) A limited amout of new and waste oil will be used on site as part of the automotive service use. Storage and disposal shall be in accord with the requirements of San Bernardino County Environmental Health Agency. Initial Study for CUP 96-32 AUTONATION Page 9 City of Rancho Cucamonga If gasoline storage occurs on site, it shall be in accordance with State requirements for underground tanks and requirements of San Bernardino County Evironmental Health Agency. 10. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: NOISE. I/trill the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? Potenbally Significant Impact Less Potentially Unless Than S~gnif~ent Mitigat~o~ Significant No Impact Iro3~xxated Impact Impact ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a) Temporary noise during construction is regulated by the Development Code and Standard Conditions of Development and therefore will have less than a significant impact. Automotive service and minor repairs will occur on-site, but within an enclosed building, therefore there could be no noise impacts. 11. Issues and Supporting 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: Potentially S~grtificant Impact Less Potentially Unless Than Significant M~tigatm~ S~gnificent No Impact Inc~3)orated IreDact Impact a) Fire protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) Schools? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) e) Other governmental services? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: Public Agencies are routinely notified of proposed development as part of a Development Review application. No impacts are anticipated. Initial Study for CUP 96-32 AUTONATION Page 10 City of Rancho Cucamonga a,b) The Fire District and the Police Department will review the project as part of the development reivew process and their comments will be incorporated into the Standard Conditions of Development and/or Conditions of Approval. c) As a standard condition of development, the appliant shall notify the school district of the subject project and certify that the required fees have been paid prior to the issuance of building permits. d) As a standard condition of development the adopted Transportation Fee must be paid at the time of issuance of building permits. 12. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS, Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) b) c) d) e) f) g) Power or 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 $~gnif~..ent Impact Less Potentially Unless Than Signifment Mibgat~on Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a) Public infrastructure has been installed in the area, including all the aforementioned utilities and service systems. Southern California Edision provides electricity. The Gas Company provides natural gas. b) Communication services are provided by private carriers: General Telephone Company is the primary local telephone carrier in the area. c,d) Cucamonga County Water District provides domestic water and sewer lines and Chino Basin Municipal Water Distdct provides sewage treatment. e) Storm water drainage will be consistent with the City's adopted drainage plan. f) Solid waste disposal is available under private contract. C? ,7 Initial Study for CUP 96-32 AUTONATION Page 11 City of Rancho Cucamonga g) Water usage will be consistent with usage planned for the Industrial area and subject to the adopted Xeriscape Ordinace. Cucamonga County Water District will offer reclaimed water for landscaping along Fourth Street soon after completion of Regional Treatment Number Four (located on Etiwanda Avenue at Sixth Street). 13. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) b) c) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? Create light or glare? Comments: a) Potentially Signif~_.ant Impact Less Potentially Unless Than Signifmanf Mitigation Significant No Irnoact Incomorated Impact Impact ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) () () () (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) b) c) Caltrans right-of-way adjacent to the subject site provides a significant view corridor to the mountains from Fourth Street and from the 1-15 on ramp from Fourth Street and provides a significant entry statement into the City. In order to avoid a waste land and condition of blight between the subject site and the Fourth Street on-off ramp, the applicant shall provide irrigated landscaping for the adjoining Caltrans right-of-way to the specifications of Caltrans. Irrigated landscaping shall be installed and an agreement for maintenance shall be obtained from Caltrans and approved by the City Planner and City Engineer pdor to occupancy. If, after due diligence by the applicant, an agreement cannot be reached with Caltrans, in lieu fees shall be paid to the City consistent with the City Freeway landscape policy. The appliant proposes to amend the sign ordinance and to include a freeway oriented sign in conjunction with this project. This action will require separate approval by the Planning Commission and must be consistent with the goals of the adopted Sign ordiance and with the design guidelines of the General Plan; therefore could not have a significant impact. To prevent visual blight, any freeway oriented sign must be consistent with adopted City design policies which establish aesthethic guidelines. The project shall comply with existing City standards for street lighting and on-site lighting as demonstrated by a site lighting plan including photometric contours, as well as a photometric survey upon completion of the project; therefore, lighting of the project site will have less than a significant impact. Initial Study for CUP 96-32 AUTONATION Page 12 City of Rancho Cucamonga 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 Significan! Impact Less Potentially Unless Than S~gnifman! Mitigation S~gnificant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a) The site is vacant and regularly disced for fire control; therefore, there could be no cultural resources on the site. 15. Issues and Supporting Irdorrnat~on Souroes: RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? Potentrally Significant Impact Less Potentially Unless Than S~gnificant Mitigation S~gnificant No ImPact IncoPPoreted Impact Impact ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a,b) Consistent with City policy and the standard conditions of development, park development fees must be paid at the time of the issuance of building permits. Initial Study for CUP 96-32 AUTONATION Page 13 City of Rancho Cucamonga 16. Issues and Supporting Infonmation Sources: Potenbally Significant Impact Lass Potentially Unless Than Significant M~t~lation S~gnificenl No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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 restdct the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Short term: Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time. Long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) 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.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiedng, 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 Initial Study for ~lty of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 96-32 AUTONATION Page 14 in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply): () (x) General Plan EIR (Certified April 6, 1981) Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989) (x) (x) Industrial Area Specific Plan EIR (Certified September 19, 1981) Other: Environmental Impact Report for Industrial Area Specific Plan 95-05: Mission Land (SCH # 96041054, Certified November 6, 1996) (x) Other: Environmental Assessment for PM 15012 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. Print Name an Date: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-32 FOR AN AUTOMOTIVE SALES USE LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF FOURTH STREET AND BUFFALO AVENUE WITHIN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK DESIGNATION (SUBAREA 12) OF THE INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 229 - 263 -19, 20, 21, AND A PORTION OF 18. A. Recitals. 1. Auto Nation has filed an application for the issuance of Conditional Use Permit No. 96-32, 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 14th day of May 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 May 14, 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 northeast comer of Fourth Street and Buffalo Avenue, with a width of approximately 1,080 feet of frontage along Fourth Street and a lot depth of approximately 820 feet of frontage along Buffalo Avenue, and is presently vacant; and b. The property to the north of the subject site is vacant and designated Industrial Park (Subarea 12) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, the property to the south is developed as a regional retail center in the City of Ontario, the property to the east is the 1-15 Freeway, and the property to the west is vacant and designated Industrial Park (Subarea 12) in the Industrial Area Specific Plan; and c. The application proposes development of a 32,092 square foot showroom, a 23,884 square foot service building, and a 2,190 square foot car wash, with an outdoor display area on a 20-acre parcel. 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: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 96-32-AUTO NATION May 14,1997 Page 2 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 Mitigated 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows: a. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated therounder; that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therofore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Mitigated 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© 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, thero 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 report and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission during the public headng, 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 heroby 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 shall be for automotive sales, rental/leasing, and automotive and light truck repair-minor. Body work and transmission/engine repair are not permitted. 2) Maximum shift size shall be 50 employees. 3) Two primary building materials shall be provided for all buildings, subject to City Planner approval. 4) Design elements used on the pdmary building shall be incorporated into all secondary buildings, subject to City Planner approval. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 96-32-AUTO NATION May14,199? Page 3 6) 7) 8) 5) All of the following items shall be incorporated into the detailed landscape plans and subject to City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits: a) Provide a strong landscape statement along Fourth Street and in the Display area. b) Use landscaping to provide a visual corridor linking Fourth Street to the sales building. c) Provide a solid landscape screen along the north property boundary to provide on-site protection from wind-blown sand. d) Provide landscaping at the northeast corner of the site consistent with the amount of material and type of the remainder of the site. e) Provide additional landscape material along the east property boundary to define the edge. If secudty fencing is required along the north property boundary, it shall be a minimum of 6-foot high decorative fencing; for example wrought iron with pilasters faced with native rock or decorative solid block. Provide detailed plans. g) Solid block security fencing must have decorative elements and cap (pilasters faced with native rock would be appropriate). Provide detailed plans. h) If solid fencing is used, vines, shrubs, and other landscape material shall be incorporated along the exterior side to discourage graffiti. i) Provide decorative fencing along the east property boundary. The applicant shall work with Caltrans to replace the existing chain link fence with a decorative fencing material such as wrought iron. Provide detailed plans. The off-site temporary drainage berm along the north property line required for drainage control must be landscaped for erosion control. If the slope is 2:1 or greater, provide trees, shrubs, ground cover, and automatic irrigation. If the slope is between 2:1 and 5:1, provide ground cover and automatic irrigation; if slope is less than 5:1, hydro seed with an all-year native flower mix using temporary surface irrigation. On the landscape plan, indicate by dash lines or other means the drainage swales along the east property line and landscape accordingly. Prior to issuance of building permits, an easement shall be recorded at the southeast comer of the site for installation of a City entry monument sign. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 96-32 - AUTO NATION May 14, 1997 Page 4 9) 10) 11) No signs are approved with this application; however, consistent with sign ordinance requirements for regional automobile sales as adopted, and consistent with the design direction given by the Planning Commission, a uniform sign program shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. One freeway-oriented sign shall be permitted which shall be participation in a multi-tenant sign provided by the City. If said City sign is not available, or if a participation agreement has not been offered by RDA, within six months after the opening of the business, the applicant may request an on-site freeway-visible sign a maximum of 50 feet in height, subject to the review and approval of the City Planner. The northerly drainage inlet and off-site grading shall be redesigned. Sandbags are not acceptable. A de-silting solution must be provided to the satisfaction of the City Planner and the Building Official. Engineering Division 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Tentative Parcel Map No. 15012 shall be processed concurrently with this application. The parcel map shall be recorded prior to the issuance of Building Permits. Street vacation (V-146) for that portion of Charles Smith Avenue across this site is being processed concurrently and it shall be approved and recorded prior to issuance of Building Permits. Meandering sidewalk along Fourth Street is not required. However, the parkway grading, as well as tree and shrub locations shall be designed and sloped in the normal 2 percent plane measured from the top of curb to the back of "designed" walk per City Standard Plan No. 114. If the required public improvements are not completed pdor to approval of the Final Parcel Map No. 15012, this Condition Use Permit 96-32 development is required to complete the Charles Smith Avenue cul-de- sac; including storm drain improvements and as noted on the improvement certificate on said parcel map. The existing overhead utilities (telecommunications and electrical, except for the 66 KV electrical) on the project side of Fourth Street shall be undergrounded along the entire project frontage extending to the first pole off-site (west and east) prior to improvement acceptance or occupancy, whichever occurs first. All services crossing Fourth Street shall be undergrounded at the same time. Dedicate an easement for and install a gateway entry monument sign at the site's southeast comer as required by the Industrial Area Specific Plan. The maintenance responsibilities are subject to a review by the City of the construction plans and specifications. A maintenance agreement may be required subject to said City review by the City Engineer and the City Planner. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 96-32 - AUTO NATION May 14, 1997 Page 5 o 7) Revise and rework the median island on Fourth Street between the 1-15 Freeway and Buffalo Avenue to provide landscape and hardscape as directed by the City Engineer, the City of Ontario, and as approved by Caltrans. However, if Caltrans does not approve the rework and landscaping, the developer will only be required to hardscape to the limits of the existing medians between said limits. This hardscape shall be consistent with the adjacent median islands. Police Department 1) Secudty fencing a minimum of 6 feet high shall be provided along the full length of the north property line. Environmental Mitigation Measures 1) Storm water flow facilities to prevent on-site flooding of structures shall be designed and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 2) To prevent visual blight, any freeway oriented sign must be consistent with adopted City design policies which establish aesthetic guidelines. 3) Caltrans right-of-way adjacent to the subject site provides a significant view corridor to the mountains from Fourth Street and from the 1-15 Freeway on-ramp from Fourth Street and provides a significant entry statement into the City. In order to avoid a waste land and condition of blight between the subject site and the Fourth Street on/off ramp, the applicant shall provide irrigated landscaping for the adjoining Caltrans right-of-way to the specifications of Caltrans. Irrigated landscaping shall be installed and an agreement for maintenance shall be obtained from Caltrans and approved by the City Planner and City Engineer prior to occupancy. If, after due diligence by the applicant, an agreement cannot be reached with Caltrans, in lieu fees shall be paid to the City consistent with the City Freeway Landscape Policy. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF MAY, 1997. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 96-32 - AUTO NATION May 14, 1997 Page 6 I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 14th day of May 1997, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT#: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: CUP 96-32 20-ACRE AUTOMOTIVE SALES FACILITY AUTO NATION NORTHEAST CORNER OF FOURTH STREET AND BUFFALO 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 Limits Completion Date Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, if building permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 24 months from the date of approval. / / Pdor to recordation of the final map or pdor to the issuance of building permits when no map is involved, written certification from the affected water distdct 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, extedor materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, Development Code regulations, and the Industrial Area Specific Plan. / / 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 Distdct and the Building and Safety Division to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. ! / SC - 5/97 Project No. 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 pdor to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the time of building permit issuance. A detailed on-site lighting plan, including a photometric diagram, shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and Police Department (477-2800) prior to the issuance of building permits. Such plan shall indicate style, illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties, and include photometric contours. 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. 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. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans) All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet and shall contain a 12-inch walk adjacent to the parking stall (including curb). Textured pedestrian pathways and textured pavement across circulation aisles shall be provided throughout the development to connect dwellings/units/buildings with open spaces/plazas/recreational uses. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, public entrances, and exits for customers and employees shall be striped per City standards (Display parking is exempt from this requirement). CUP 96-32 Completion Date / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / SC - 5/97 Project No, Plans for any secudty gates shall be submitted for the City Planner, City Engineer, and Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 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. Warehouse distribution uses shall provide bicycle storage spaces at a rate of 2.5 percent on the required automobile parking spaces with a minimum of a 3-bike rack. In no case shall the total number of bicycle parking spaces required exceed 100. Where this results in a fraction of 0.5 or greater, the number shall be rounded off to the higher whole number. Carpool and vanpool designated off-street parking close to the building shall be provided for commercial, office, and industrial facilities at the rate of 10 percent of the total parking area. If covered, the vertical clearance shall be no less than 9 feet. Landscaping A detailed landscape and irrigation plan shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. A minimum of 30 % of trees planted within the project shall be specimen size trees - 24-inch box or larger. 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 pdvate slopes of 5 feet or less in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope, but less than 2:1 slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for erosion control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. All pdvate 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. if. 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. CUP 96-32 Completion Date / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / SC - 5/97 3 Project No. The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to City Planner review and approval and coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the Engineering Division. Special landscape features such as mounding, alluvial rock, specimen size trees, and intensified landscaping, is required along Fourth Street. 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. 10. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division. 11. Tree maintenance cdteria shall be developed and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. These criteria shall encourage the natural growth characteristics of the selected tree species. 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. 13. Signs On projects which abut the 1-15 Freeway, the developer shall provide landscaping within the freeway right-of-way along the boundary of this project or pay an in-lieu-of-construction cash deposit. The landscape and irrigation plans shall be prepared in conformance with the Caltrans Master Planting Plan for the 1-15 Freeway through the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and City Engineer. Landscape and irrigation shall be installed prior to the release of occupancy of the project. If final approvals and/or installation is not complete at that time, the City will accept a cash deposit for future landscaping of the Caltrans right-of-way. 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 pdor 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. G. Environmental Mitigation measures are required for the project. The applicant is responsible for the cost of implementing said measures, including monitoring and reporting. Applicant shall pay $719 at the time of full submittal for staff costs. 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 the design of the overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. CUP 96-32 ComlHetion Date / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / SC - 5/97 Project No. PPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: I. Site Development The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of issuance of relative permits. Please contact the Building and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. Pdor to issuance of building permits for a new commercial or industrial development or addition to an existing development, the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: Transportation Development Fee, Drainage Fee, School Fees, Permit and Plan Checking Fees. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation and prior to issuance of building permits. J. Existing Structures 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. 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 Rights-of-way and easements shall be dedicated to the City for all interior public streets, community trails, public paseos, public landscape areas, street trees, traffic signal encroachment and maintenance, and public drainage facilities as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. Private easements for non-public facilities (cross-lot drainage, local feeder trails, etc.) shall be reserved as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets (measured from street centerline): 50 total feet on Buffalo Avenue 60-66 total feet on Fourth Street 3. Corner property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards. CUP 96-32 Completion Date / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / SC-5~7 5 Project No. 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. M. Street Improvements All public improvements (interior streets, drainage facilities, community trails, paseos, landscaped areas, etc.) shown on the plans and/or tentative map shall be constructed to City Standards. Interior street improvements shall include, but are not limited to, curb and gutter, AC pavement, drive approaches, sidewalks, street lights, and street trees. 2. 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 Buffalo Avenue / b c V' / V' Fourth Street / V' V' V' f e CUP 96-32 Com131etion Date / / / / / / / / SC - 5~97 Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement reconstruction and ovedays will be determined during plan check. (c) If so marked, sidewalk shall be curvilinear per STD. 114. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu of construction fee shall be provided for this item. (e) A 300-foot, right-turn lane for west-bound traffic at Buffalo Avenue. (f) See Special Conditions. Improvement Plans and Construction: Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any other permits required. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and interconnect widng. 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. 6 / / / / / / / / Project No. (2) Conduit shall be 3-inch (at intersections) or 2-inch (along streets) galvanized steel with pull rope or as specified. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards, except for single family residential lots. h. Street names shall be approved by the City Planner prior to submittal for first plan check. Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in accordance with the City's street tree program. 5. A permit shall be obtained from Caltrans for any work within the following right-of-way: I-15 Freeway, N. Public Maintenance Areas A separate set of landscape and irrigation plans per Engineering Public Works Standards shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. The following landscaped parkways, medians, paseos, easements, trails or other areas shall be annexed into the Landscape Maintenance District: Fourth Street median island; gateway entry monument sign. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. All required public landscaping and irrigation systems shall be continuously maintained by the developer until accepted by the City. Parkway landscaping on the following street(s) shall conform to the results of the respective Beautification Master Plan: Fourth Street. Drainage and Flood Control A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe measured from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk. Public storm drain easements shall be graded to convey overflows in the event of a blockage in a sump catch basin on the public street. CUP 96-32 Completion Date / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / ! / / / / / / / SC - 5/97 7 Project No. P. Utilities Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas, electric power, telephone, and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility Standards. Easements shall be provided as required. 2. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from the CCWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. Q. General Requirements and Approvals Permits shall be obtained from the following agencies for work within their right-of-way: Caltrans (I-15 Freeway) and the City of Ontario. 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 pdor 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 3.000 gallons per minute. A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department personnel prior to water plan approval. For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional fire flow test of the on-site hydrants shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by the fire department personnel after construction and prior to occupancy. Fire hydrants are required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed and operable prior to delivery of any combustible building materials on site (i.e., lumber, roofing materials, etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire department personnel. Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided pdor 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. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for all hydrants and installed prior to final inspection. 5. An automatic fire extinguishing system(s) will be required as noted below: Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15. 1994 Uniform Building Code. CUP 96-32 Completion Date / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / SC - 5/97 8 Project No. 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. 6. Sprinkler system monitoring shall be installed and operational immediately upon completion of sprinkler system. 7. A fire alarm system(s) shall be required as noted below: V' Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15. V' California Code Regulations Title 24. 8. Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District°s fire lane standards, as noted: V' All roadways per Fire Protection District Ordinance 22. 9. All trees and shrubs planted in any median shall be kept trimmed a minimum of 14'6" from ground up so as not to impede fire apparatus. 10. A building directory shall be required, as noted below: V' Lighted directory within 20 feet of main entrance(s). 11. ^ 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. 12. Gated/restdcted entry(s) require installation of a Knox rapid entry key system. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specific details and ordering information. 13. Plan check fees in the amount of S Q have been paid. An additional$ 645.00 shall be paid: V' 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. 14. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1994 UBC, UFC, UPC, UMC, NEC, and RCFD Standards 22 and 15. Special Permits 1. Special permits may be required, depending on intended use, as noted below: a. General Use Permit shall be required for any activity or operation not specifically described below, which in the judgement of the Fire Chief is likely to produce conditions hazardous to life or property. b. Garages. Motor vehicle repair (H-4). CUP 96-32 Completion Date / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / SC - 5~97 9 Project No. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: T. 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 secudty 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. All garage or rolling doors shall have slide bolts or some type of secondary locking devices. 2. All roof openings giving access to the building shall be secured with either iron bars, metal gates, or alarmed. V. Security Fencing 1. When utilizing security gates, a Knox box sub-master system secudty device shall be used since fire and law enforcement can access these devices. W. Windows 1. Store front windows shall be visible to passing pedestrians and traffic. X. Building Numbering 1. Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime visibility. Y. 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. CUP 96-32 Completion Date / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / sc-~7 10 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: May 14, 1997 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Larry Henderson, Principal Planner SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 97-02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the Sign Ordinance within the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to add Auto Centers as a class of signs within Section 14.20.100 Signs - Commercial and Office Zones and Section 14.20.110 Signs - Industrial Zones. BACKGROUND: The filing of an application for the City's first freeway-adjacent Automotive Center (Auto Nation - CUP 96-32) has brought to the forefront that the existing sign code does not provide for freeway-oriented signs for this particular use. A survey of other cities revealed that Automotive Centers commonly locate adjacent to freeways and typically have freeway-oriented signs. Therefore, on March 12, 1997, the Planning Commission initiated this amendment application. ANALYSIS: Although there are many ways to regulate the size, height, and number of freeway-oriented signs, staff has proposed two basic elements. The first element involves having the Redevelopment Agency develop several freeway-oriented electronic message signs that would be available to owners of freeway-oriented businesses. This element has several advantages including limiting the number of freeway signs and, therefore, reducing visual pollution and sign competition among users. The RDA is currently preparing plans in this area. The second element is modeled after the sign programs for Regionally Related Retail Centers. This measure allows greater flexibility for the owner and the City to design a unique sign program that is aesthetic while responding to the site and owner's requirements. This type of provision has worked well as evidenced by the Foothill Marketplace Shopping Center. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution Recommending the City Council adopt the proposed Ordinance. City Planner Attachments: Exhibit"A" - Sign Code Table VVith Changes Resolution Recommending Approval to the City Council ITEr4 D ""[ 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 4. d. SubtenantSigns Monument One per subtenant per (Continued) monument sign. MAXIMUM SIGN AREA 5. Pedestrian Traffic Signs Wall, Window, or One per business. 6 square feet. Canopy 6. Regional Shopping Center 7. Movie Theaters MAXIMUM HEIGHT Not to exceed 12 feet above finished grade. REMARKS The identification of subtenants may be allowed on the monument sign. Products, services, pdce signs for the subtenants are not allowed. Such sign shall contain only the identification of the business for pedestrian traffic. Upon development of a "regional shopping center," a conceptual sign program shall be developed and approved by the Planning Commission with the overall approval of the project. Final details of the signs shall be submitted to the City Planner in accordance with the sign permit procedures. The City Planner shall review for consistency with approved conceptual program. Upon development of a "movie theater," a conceptual sign program shall be developed and approved by the Planning Commission with the overall approval of the project. Final details of the signs shall be submitted to the City Planner in accordance with the sign permit procedures. The City Planner shall review for consistency with approved conceptual program. 8. Regional Automobile Center Upon development of a "regional automobile sales center," a conceptual sign program shall be developed and approved by the Planning Commission with the overall approval of the project. Final details of the signs shall be submitted to the City Planner in accordance with the sign permit procedures. The City Planner shall review for consistency with approved conceptual program. 23 14.20.110, ermitted Signs - Industrial Zones. The following signs n~ay be permitted for industrial zones subject to the provisions listed: CLASS SIGN TYPE 1. Business Identification Wall (Single parcel) MAXIMUM NUMBER One per building face, not to exceed 2 per business('). MAXIMUM SIGN AREA 10% of the building face, not to exceed 150 square feet. MAXIMUM HEIGHT Not to project above the roof line or parapet. and One per street frontage. 24 square feet. Up to 8 feet. Monument (*) A third wall sign may be allowed by the City Planner if all of the following criteria are met: 1. The minimum parcel size shall be 10 acres, and 2. The site shall have a minimum street frontage of 600 feet, and 3. The minimum building size shall be 200,000 square feet. (**) If the City Planner approves an additional wall sign (3 total), the combination of monument and wall signs shall not exceed 4 per business. REMARKS a. Wall signs shall be limited to identification of business and be placed on buildings only. No sign may be placed on other structures such as silos or towers. b. A combination of wall and monument signs may be used; however, such signs shall not exceed 3 per business (**). 2. Business identification Wall One per building face not to 10% of building face not to Not to project above the (multi-tenant sites) exceed 2 per business. exceed 150 square feet. roofiine or parapet of the roof. Regional Automobile Center And site directory One per vehicular entrance. 12 square feet. Up to 8 feet. (monument) or monument One per street frontage or 24 square feet Up to 8 feet parking area not to exceed 2 per development Wall signs shall identify the individual businesses and be located at the main pedestrian entrance or parking area and may be placed on the buildings only. No wall signs may be placed on other structures such as silos or towers. a. To direct visitors and emergency vehicles to buildings. b. Sign shall be conveniently located and shall not be located within the entry throat in a manner which could block access. c. Illuminated for legibility 24 hours a day. d. Sign shall locate buildings, driveways, and address of each building. Fire hydrant or knox box locations may also be shown as required by fire district. e. Copy shall be minimum 1 inch in height and legible from 20 feet. a. A monument identification sign may be permitted in lieu of the directory sign to identify the development. Upon development of a "regional automobile sales center," a conceptual sign program shall be developed and approved by the Planning Commission with the overall approval of the project. Final details of the signs shall be submitted to the City Planner in accordance with the sign permit procedures. The City Planner shall review for consistency with approved conceptual program. 24 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 97-02, A REQUEST TO AMEND THE SIGN ORDINANCE WITHIN THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD REGIONAL AUTOMOBILE SALES AS A CLASS OF SIGNS WITHIN SECTIONS 14.20.100 SIGNS - COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE ZONES AND SECTION 14.20.110 SIGNS o INDUSTRIAL ZONES, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. 1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has filed an application for Sign Ordinance Amendment No. 97-02, 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 14th day of May 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, Par1 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 May 14, 1997, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds 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. 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. 97-02 to modify the Municipal Code per the attached Ordinance. 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. SOA 97-02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA May 14, 1997 Page 2 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF MAY 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 14th, day of May 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 I::{ANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 97-02, AMENDING TITLE 14 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD REGIONAL AUTOMOBILE SALES AS A CLASS OF SIGNS WITHIN SECTIONS 14.20.100 SIGNS - COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE ZONES AND SECTION 14.20.110 SIGNS - INDUSTRIAL ZONES. A. Recitals. 1. On the 14th day of May 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 hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 97~, thereby recommending that the City Council adopt Sign Ordinance Amendment No. 97-02. 2. On the __ day of 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: Regional Automobile Sales is added as a class of signs with Sections 14.20.100 Signs - Commercial and Office Zones and Section 14.20.110 Signs - Industrial Zones hereby amended as shown in the attached 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 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 ~ermitted Signs - Commercial and Office Zones - The following signs may be permitted in the commercial and office zones subject to the provisions listed: CLASS 4. d. Subtenant Signs (Continued) 5. Pedestrian Traffic Signs 6. Regional Shopping Center 7. Movie Theaters SIGN TYPE MAXIMUM NUMBER Monument One per subtenant per monument sign. MAXIMUM SIGN AREA MAXIMUM HEIGHT Wall, Window, or One per business. 6square feet. Not to exceed 12 feet Canopy above finished grade. REMARKS The identification of subtenants may be allowed on the monument sign. Products, services, price signs for the subtenants are not allowed. Such sign shall contain only the identification of the business for pedestrian traffic. Upon development of a "regional shopping center," a conceptual sign program shall be developed and approved by the Planning Commission with the overall approval of the project. Final details of the signs shall be submitted to the City Planner in accordance with the sign permit procedures. The City Planner shall review for consistency with approved conceptual program. Upon development of a "movie theater," a conceptual sign program shall be developed and approved by the Planning Commission with the overall approval of the project. Final details of the signs shall be submitted to the City Planner in accordance with the sign permit procedures. The City Planner shall review for consistency with approved conceptual program. 8. Regional Automobile Center Upon development of a "regional automobile sales center," a conceptual sign program shall be developed and approved by the Planning Commission with the overall approval of the project. Final details of the signs shaft be submitted to the City Planner in accordance with the sign permit procedures. The City Planner shall review for consistency with approved conceptual program. 23 14.20.110 Permitted Signs - Industrial Zones. The following signs may be permitted for industrial zones subject to the provisions listed: CLASS SIGN TYPE Business Identification Wall (Single parcel) MAXIMUM NUMBER MAXIMUM SIGN AREA One per building face, not 10% of the building face, not to exceed 2 per to exceed 150 square feet. business(*). and One per street frontage. 24 square feet. Monument MAXIMUM HEIGHT Not to project above the roof line or parapet. Up to 8 feet. (*) A third wall sign may be allowed by the City Planner if all of the following criteria are met: 1. The minimum parcel size shall be 10 acres, and 2. The site shall have a minimum street frontage of 600 feet, and 3. The minimum building size shall be 200,000 square feet. (**) If the City Planner approves an additional wall sign (3 total), the combination of monument and wall signs shall not exceed 4 per business. REMARKS a. Wall signs shall be limited to identification of business and be placed on buildings only. No sign may be placed on other structures such as silos or towers. b. A combination of wall and monument signs may be used; however, such signs shall not exceed 3 per business (**). 2. Business identification Wall One per building face not to 10% of building face not to Not to project above the (multi-tenant sites) exceed 2 per business. exceed 150 square feet. roofiine or parapet of the roof. Regional Automobile Center And site directory One per vehicular entrance. 12 square feet. Up to 8 feet. (monument) or monument One per street frontage or 24 square feet Up to 8 feet parking area not to exceed 2 per development Wall signs shall identify the individual businesses and be located at the main pedestrian entrance or parking area and may be placed on the buildings only. No wall signs may be placed on other structures such as silos or towers. a. To direct visitors and emergency vehicles to buildings. b. Sign shall be conveniently located and shall not be located within the entry throat in a manner which could block access. c. Illuminated for legibility 24 hours a day. d. Sign shall locate buildings, driveways, and address of each building. Fire hydrant or knox box locations may also be shown as required by fire district. e. Copy shall be minimum 1 inch in height and legible from 20 feet. a. A monument identification sign may be permitted in lieu of the directory sign to identify the development. Upon development of a "regional automobile sales center," a conceptual sign program shall be developed and approved by the Planning Commission with the overall approval of the project. Final details of the signs shaft be submitted to the City Planner in accordance with the sign permit procedures. The City Planner shall review for consistency with approved conceptual program. 24 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: May 14, 1997 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Brent Le Count, Associate Planner FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 97-01 - CHAVIN DEVELOPMENT - A request to add Mixed Use Public Storage as a conditionally permitted use within the Community Commercial land use designation of Subarea 1 of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. BACKGROUND: Chavin Development desires to develop their property at 8363 Foothill Boulevard, which is on the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and San Bernardino Road. The facility is proposed to include public mini-storage behind office/retail, and a caretaker's quarters. On September 11, 1996, the Planning Commission conducted a Pre-Application Review workshop on the conceptual development plans and initiated an amendment to the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan to conditionally permit Mixed Use Public Storage in the Community Commercial designation of Subarea 1. VVhile office and retail uses are permitted in the Community Commercial designation, public storage is not permitted anywhere within the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan area. In addition to the Specific Plan Amendment, staff is currently processing a Conditional Use Permit for development of the proposed facilities. ANALYSIS: In order to reduce potential conflicts, the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan groups together land uses which are compatible because of similar intensities. The Subarea 1 Community Commercial district is a triangular area surrounded by Foothill Boulevard and San Bernardino Road to the north, rail road tracks/residential to the south and east, and residential to the west (see Exhibit "A"). The Community Commercial portion is intended to promote the establishment of neighborhood/district level commercial goods and services accommodating the needs of more than one neighborhood or subarea including centers with one or more major tenants accompanied by a variety of multi-tenant uses. Public storage is not an allowed use anywhere within the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan area but is allowed in commercial and industrial land use designations in other parts of the City, typically as a conditionally permitted use. Chavin Development's proposal for mixed use will allow the opportunity to group office and retail components towards the public street frontage with the storage component located internally/to the rear. Such a program would be consistent with the intent of the Community Commercial designation and with Specific Plan goals to promote high quality development along Foothill Boulevard which is complimentary to other uses. It would allow property within the distdct to be developed to its full potential given the angular rear property lines (adjacent to rail road tracks) and property depth which tends to preclude conventional retail development. Furthermore, requiring a master plan with a development proposal, such as is required for Mixed Use district, would ensure that the development would not prevent adjacent properties from being developed in a manner consistent with the intent of the Specific Plan. ITEM E PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT FBSPA 97-01 - CHAVIN DEVELOPMENT May 14, 1997 Page 2 The following definition of Mixed Use Public Storage is proposed by staff: "Mixed Use Public Storage - Activities include the rental or lease of small-scale enclosed storage units or parking spaces when in combination with retail or office uses. Uses typically include self-storage facilities with caretaker's residence and recreational vehicle storage. Storage shall be set back a minimum of 100 feet from Foothill Boulevard and screened from view. Does not include automotive fleet storage, rental car lots, or overnight storage of service vehicles." As a conditionally permitted use, Mixed Use Public Storage 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 hear public testimony and consider the compatibility of the specific project with surrounding land uses. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The proposed amendment is exempt from environmental review per California Environmental Quality Act Section 15061(b)(3). FACTS FOR FINDING: The proposal is consistent with the Foothill Boulevard 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 1 and within 300 feet of the project site. No comments have been received as of the writing of this report. 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. Brad Buller City Planner BB:BLC~ Attachments: Exhibit"A" - Subarea 1 Map Exhibit "B" - Summary of Allowed Land Uses Exhibit"C" - Letter from Applicant Exhibit "D" - Location Map (Applicant's Proposed Site) Exhibit "E" Planning Commission Minutes dated September 11, 1996 Resolution Recommending Approval to City Council Draft City Council Resolution rl"l LEGENd) RESIDENTIAl,.' ~"~ LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL L]--~ LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL ~'~ MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL ~-~ MEDIUM-HIGH RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL ~ SPECIAL COMMERCIAL ~ COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL ..B.~'~ REGIONAL'RELATED COMMERCIAL OFFICE ]'~'-[ MIXED USE ~ OFFICE .F-~ COMMERCIAL/OFFICE INDUSTRIAL ~I LIGHT INDUSTRIAL .PUBLI~ ~ UTILITY ~] PUBLIC .~'.~'! MASTER PLAN AREA LAND USE PLAN Foothill Boulevard Spec.ific Plan RETAIL COMMERCIAL USES Libraries and Museums, public and private Liquor Stores Messenger and Wire Services · ~' Mixed Use Public Storage SC C Subarea One CC O MR C P P C4 Mortuaries and Cemeteries Music, Dance, and Martial Arts Studios C P Newspaper and Magazine Stores P P P Nurseries and Garden Supply p Stores within enclosed area Office, Business Machine and P P Computer Component Stores Office Supply Stores P p Paint, Glass, and Wallpaper Stores P Parking Facilities (commercial where fees are charged) Parks and Recreation Facilities, public and private Pet Shops p p Photocopy (Xerox) p p Political or Philanthropic Headquarters Public and Private Clubs and Lodges, including YMCA, YWCA, and similar Youth Group Uses Record and Tape Stores P P Recreational Vehicle Storage Yards Restaurants (sit down): a) with entertainment and/or cocktail lounge, bar C C C b) incidental serving of beer and wine (without a cocktail P P P lounge, bar, entertainment or dancing) c) cafe, limited to 20 seats P P P (Including outdoor seating) d) Fast Food: with drive-thru C without drive- P P thru P SC Part IV, Section 9 Subarea Two Subarea Three Subarea Four CC O MR MHR SC CC CO LMR MR U MU CC RRC MR LI3 C C C C C p p p p p p2 C P C P p p p p p p p p p p p2 P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P p p p p p2 p p p p p p2 P P P P P P P C C C C C C C P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P C C C C P P P P P P C C C C C 2 Refer to RRC(2) Section 9.9.2 footnotes 3 All industrial uses and development standards shall be as provided in Subarea 7 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan (ISP) _~4 Subject to Master Plan requirements pursuant to Part IV, Section 9.1.3. ~ EXHIBIT "B- 1" IV-6 4/97 Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Part II~, Section 9 Land Use Mixed Use Public Storage (subject to Master Plan requirements pursuant to Part IV, Section 9.1.3) Music, Dance, and Martial Arts Studios Newspaper and Magazine Stores Nurseries and Garden Supply Stores within Enclosed Area Office, Business Machine, and Computer Component Stores Office Supply Stores Paint, Glass, and Wallpaper Stores Pet Shops Photocopy (Xerox) Record and Tape Stores Restaurants (sit down): a) With entertainment and/or cocktail lounge/bar b) Incidental serving of beer and wine (without a cocktail lounge, bar, entertainment, or dancing) c) Cafe, limited to 20 seats (including outdoor seating) d) Fast Food (with drive-thru) (without drive-thru) Shoe Stores and Shoe Repair Shops Specialty Retail Sporting Goods Stores: a) Specialty; backpacking, tennis, skiing, mountaineering, fishing, etc.) b) General; encompassing a variety of sports equipment Supermarkets Swimming Pool Services and Sales Tailor Shops Toy Stores SC P P CC C P P P 0 MR P P P P P P P P P P P C C C P P P P P P P P P P C P P P P P P P P P EXHIBIT "B-2" IV-19 4/97 Henry S. Chavin 8939 Vernon Ave. Suite A, Montclair, Ca. 91763 (909)920-3736 - Fax (909)920-0885 March 17, 1997 Mr. Brad Buller, City Planner Planning Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive PO Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 RE: Specific Plan Amendment for Proposed Retail/Office & Self Storage - San Bernardino Road & Foothill Blvd., Rancho Cucamonga, CA. Dear Mr. Buller and Planning Commission: This Letter of Justification for a Specific Plan Amendment will follow up our Pre-Application Review 96-04 of September 11, 1996 meeting with the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission, Brad Buller, City Planner, Nancy Fong, Senior Planner and Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer. This 3.8 acre site is situated in Subarea I of the Foothill Corridor Specific Plan and right now contains a small office located at the front area and a single residential house at the Southwest area of the property. I have learned that working within a Specific Plan provides conceptual direction to the ultimate plan, but that the size, depth and location of each owner's property, specifically this Bear Gulch area, imposes on each owner different needs and hardships and these issues should be addressed and dealt with separately. The current plan to develop the area known as "Bear Gulch Village" to Community Commercial would be difficult to achieve due to the present poor economic conditions and the extraordinary circumstances of the property; such as its irregular shape and deep depth and limited public access. An Amendment to The Specific Plan is a justifiable request for the following reasons: Brad Buller, City Planner Planning Commission March 17, 1997 Page 2 1. The Specific Plan limits the intended use of this property does not take into consideration the very special circumstances of this parcel such as its deep depth which does not apply generally to other property or uses in the same class or district. 2. Carrying out portions of the existing Specific Plan would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship in the development of this property not created by or attributable to the owner of the property and therefore the property would remain in a vacant and undesirable state. 3. The preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the subject property, which is possessed by other properties previously developed will be given to this parcel if the Amendment is granted. 4. Granting this Amendment to the Specific Plan will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or materially injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity because at the present time the neighborhood consists primarily of commercial uses; Therefore acceptance of this Specific Plan Amendment will not change the character of the neighborhood, the Amendment will improve the property, create jobs and services to the community and will be a positive development. 5. The granting of a Specific Plan Amendment will be compatible with the general purpose of and intent of the City in doing this zoning and will not adversely affect future development elsewhere. Therefore the Specific Plan should be amended to read as follows: Self-Storage is to be permitted on property situated in the Foothill Corridor Specific Plan Subarea I, where the property has a minimum of 350 FT. frontage, a minimum 325 FT. depth and a minimum set back of 100 FT. from Foothill Blvd. for the self-storage use. I believe the Planning Commission will appreciate the improvement in this and the merits of this project, and will adopt the proposed Amendment to Foothill Corridor Specific Plan Subarea I. ~ea the I hope ! have given you an adequate summary of our proposed project. Brad Buller, City Planner Planning Commission March 17, 1997 Page 3 I want to thank the Planning Commission, yourserf and your staff of your help and time in reviewing our proposed development. Again, thank you for your attention to this matter. Very Truly Yours, in advance for all CC: David Buxbaum John Chakmak Tom Francis Chuck Marvich, Architect DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT LEGEND RESIDENTIAL Low Density Residential Low-Medium Residential Medium Residential Low-Medium Residential COMMERCIAL ~ Special Commercial ~ Community Commercial R~'~I Regional Related Comerclal OFFICE ~ 'Mixed Use [~ Office ~ Commercial/Office INDUSTRIAL ~ Light Industrial PUBLIC ~ Public L -- J Master Plan CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting September 11, 1996 Chairman Barker called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:35 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains Room of the Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Ddve, Rancho Cucamonga, California. PRESENT: David Barker, William Bethel, Rich Macins, Larry McNiel, ABSENT: Peter Tolstoy STAFF PRESENT: Brad Bullet, City Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no announcements. NEW BUSINESS A. PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW 96-04 - CHAVIN - A review of mixed use development on 3.8 acres of land located on the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and San Bernardino Road. Mr. Chavin, applicant, introduced his team to the Commissioners. He described the constraints of the site, the proposed mixed use development, and the design of the project. Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. She described the physical and environmental setting for the site and identified the following issues: master planning, access, circulation and alignment of San Bernardino Road, orientation of parking up front versus building up front, and conformity of building design with the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. Chairman Barker opened the hearing for Commission discussion. Commissioner McNiel agreed that the building design is consistent with the Specific plan; however, he felt the east and west elevations have to be architectural treated because these two sides are subject to public view. He accepted having parking spaces up-front, using the front portion of building for retail, and having a mini-storage facility behind it. He stated that he could only support one driveway off Foothill Boulevard. He agreed with staff's recommendation to require master planning. He stated he is very concerned with the proposed metal material for the buildings in the back. Commissioner Bethel stated he is very concerned with the access off Foothill Boulevard because of traffic hazards. He preferred a longer stacking distance for the driveway. He commented he is not in favor of metal buildings. Commissioner Macias agreed with the comments made by Commissioners McNiel and Bethel. He recommended that the applicant focus on designing an access that is safe and address the current ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: traffic hazards. He agreed that additional architectural treatment should be provided to the east and west elevations. He suggested that the applicant use special landscaping design to complement the project and use colors that are compatible to the architectural style of the proposed building and the existing Sycamore Inn. Chairman Barker cautioned the applicant on the use of metal material for the mini-storage buildings. He stated that the designer has to prove that the material will work in meeting the City's design criteria. He reiterated the traffic hazards on this stretch of Foothill Boulevard and that the design of the access must improve the current condition. He agreed that the building design for the retail portion is consistent with the Specific Plan and reminded the applicant to use real river rock if rock veneer is used. Brad Buller, City Planner, summarized the comments and concerns raised by the Commission as follows: The orientation of the building and the parking spaces are acceptable, access and circulation should be designed to address the current traffic issues, the architecture for the retail building should follow craftsman style in design and material, the choice of colors for the buildings should follow the colors for that architectural style and provide compatibility to the existing Sycamore Inn, the use of metal materials for mini-storage buildings is a concern, and finally, the east and west edges of the project that face adjoining property should be aesthetically treated and upgraded. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, //~rad Bulle¢~~*"~~~~ Secretary Planning Commission Minutes September 11, 1996 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 97-01, TO ADD MIXED USE PUBLIC STORAGE AS A CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USE IN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION (SUBAREA 1) OF THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. 1. Chavin Development has filed an application for Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment No. 97-01 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. On May 14, 1997, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on May 14, 1997, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to properly located within the City; and and The proposed amendment will not have a significant impact on the environment; c. This amendment will allow for refinement of the list of allowed uses in Subarea 1 of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will provide for development within the distdct in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; and b. This amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element and the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan; and c. This amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. FBSPA 97-01 - CHAVIN DEVELOPMENT May 14, 1997 Page 2 d. This amendment is consistent with the objectives of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan and the purposes of the Community Commercial land use designation of Subarea 1; and e. This 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 Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set fodh in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby recommends approval of Foothill Boulevard Plan Amendment No. 97-01, amending Part IV, as shown in the attached City Council Resolution. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF MAY 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 14th day of May 1997, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 97-01, AMENDING THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN BY ADDING MIXED USE PUBLIC STORAGE AS A CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USE IN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (SUBAREA 1) OF THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN. A. Recitals. 1. Chavin Development has filed an application for Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment No. 97-01, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 14th day of May 1997, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and, following the conclusion thereof, adopted its Resolution No. , recommending that the City Council adopt this amendment. 3. On ,1997, the City Council 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 City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Council 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 Council during the above- referenced public hearing on , 1997, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: and This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan; b. This amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element and the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan; and c. This amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent properties and would not have a significant impact on the environment nor the surrounding properties. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. FBSPA 97-01 - CHAVIN DEVELOPMENT Page 2 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above- referenced pubic hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above, this Council hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. That the proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor the surrounding properties; and b. That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan. 4. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga 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 Resolution is 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 Council hereby approves Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment 97-01, to modify the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan as shown on the attached Exhibit "A" as well as any related text, tables, figures, and maps to maintain consistency. Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Part IV, Section 9 Industrial: · Light Industrial LI Mixed Use: · Mixed Use/Retail MUIR 9.1.2 Land Use Definitions "Specialty Retail" - This use is typified as small shops and boutiques which specialize in limited product lines of unique and novel designs and/or purposes. Specialty Retail is defined as follows: Any retail business not listed separately in Section 9.3.2, 9.5.2, 9.7.2, and 9.9.2 which limits its sales to product lines of singular purpose or of unique and special design (i.e., cutlery shops, small household or personal appliances, kitchenware, novelty gifts, etc.). Service businesses are not specialty retail use. Limited to a business area of 3,000 square feet totally within an enclosed building. · Office and administrative use is ancillary to the specialty retail uses and should not exceed 50 percent of the gross floor area in any integrated Specialty Commercial Center or a master planned development. Through the Conditional Use Permit process, the percentage of gross floor area for office and administrative use may exceed 50 percent subject to the Commission's findings that the development meets the intent of Specialty Retail, is a benefit to the community, and furthers the goals of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. Mixed Use Public Storage" - Activities include the rental or lease of small.scale enclosed'~ storage units or parking spaces when in combination with retail or office uses. Uses typically include self-storage facilities with caretaker's residence and recreational vehicle storage. Storage shall be set back a minimum of 100 feet from Foothill Boulevard and creened from view. Does not include automotive fleet storage, rental car lots, or vernight storage of service vehicles. "Restaurants with Entertainment and/or Serving of Alcoholic Beverages" - This use is typified as a full service dining facility with major portions of the floor area and business operations being devoted to the on-site preparation and consumption of food. Entertainment activities should be limited to ancillary support functions which shall form a minor part of the floor area and business operation. The serving of alcoholic beverages shall be in conjunction with restaurant usage and the availability of full listed menu items. The sale and serving of alcoholic beverages shall cease when such menu items are not available to customers. 9.1.3 Master Plans The intent of a master plan is to provide for integrated development. at the earliest possible time in the review process. Through the master plan, there is an opportunity to coordinate the efforts of single or multiple property owners and discourage piecemeal strip commercial development. EXHIBIT "A- 1" IV-2 4/97 Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Part IV, Section 9 RETAIL COMMERCIAL USES Subarea One Subarea Two Subarea Three SC CC O MR P SC CC O MR MHR $C CC CO LMR MR U MU Subarea Four CC RRC MR LI3 Libraries and Museums, public and private Liquor Stores C C C C C C C C Messenger and Wire Services p p p p p p p p2 .~,,~ Mixed Use Public Storage C4 Mortuaries and Cemeteries Music, Dance, and Martial Arts C P C P C P P P Studios Newspaper and Magazine Stores P P P p p p p p p p p p2 Nurseries and Garden Supply p p p p p Stores within enclosed area Office, Business Machine and P P P P P P P P P Computer Component Stores Office Supply Stores P P P P P P P P P Paint, Glass, and Wallpaper p p p p p Stores Parking Facilities (commercial where fees are charged) Parks and Recreation Facilities, public and private Pet Shops p p p p p p p p2 Photocopy (Xerox) p p p p p p p p2 Political or Philanthropic Headquarters Public and Private Clubs and Lodges, including YMCA, YWCA, and similar Youth Group Uses Record and Tape Stores P P P P P P P P P Recreational Vehicle Storage Yards Restaurants (sit down): a) with entertainment and/or C C C C C C C C C C cocktail lounge, bar b) incidental serving of beer and wine (without a cocktail P P P P P P P P P P P P lounge, bar, entertainment or dancing) c) cafe, limited to 20 seats P P P P P P P P P P P P (Including outdoor seating) d) Fast Food: with drive-thru C C C C C without drive- P P P P P P P P thru C C P C .C C C C C P P C P Refer to RRC(2) Section 9.9.2 footnotes All industrial uses and development standards shall be as provided in Subarea 7 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan (ISP) Subject to Master Plan requirements pursuant to Part IV, Section 9.1.3. ~ EXH~rBIT "A-2" IV-6 4~97 Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Part lid, Section 9 Land Use SC CC ,Mixed Use Public Storage (subiect to Master Plan requirements pursuant to Part IV, Section 9.1.3) C Music, Dance, and Martial Arts Studios C P Newspaper and Magazine Stores P p Nurseries and Garden Supply Stores within Enclosed Area P Office, Business Machine, and Computer Component Stores P P Office Supply Stores p p Paint, Glass, and Wallpaper Stores P Pet Shops p p Photocopy (Xerox) p p Record and Tape Stores P p Restaurants (sit down): a) With entertainment and/or cocktail lounge/bar C C C b) Incidental serving of beer and wine (without a cocktail lounge, bar, P P P entertainment, or dancing) c) Cafe, limited to 20 seats (including p p p outdoor seating) d) Fast Food (with drive-thru) C (without drive-thru) P p Shoe Stores and Shoe Repair Shops P P Specialty Retail p p Sporting Goods Stores: a) Specialty; backpacking, tennis, skiing, p mountaineering, fishing, etc.) b) General; encompassing a variety of sports equipment Supermarkets Swimming Pool Services and Sales Tailor Shops P Toy Stores P O MR P P P P P P P P EXHIBIT "A-3" IV-19 4/97 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: May 14,1997 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 - The proposed development of a shopping center totaling 74,478 square feet on 8.9 acres of land, with proposed Phase I consisting of 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 - APN: 207-211-12 through 15, 38 and 40. (Continued from February 26, March 11, March 26, and April 23, 1997). BACKGROUND: At the meeting on April 23, 1997, the applicant again requested, and received, a continuance. Since that date, the applicant has met with staff and it was agreed that a revised set of Design Guidelines and revised Uniform Sign Program would be submitted no later than May 12, 1997, in order to give staff and the Commission an opportunity to review the documents prior to the Planning Commission hearing. An oral update regarding these items will be presented by staff at the Planning Commission meeting. The Resolution of Approval has been modified from its original form. All conditions typically listed separately in the resolution as requirements for shopping centers have now been incorporated into the Standard Conditions. Other Special Conditions have been "condensed" by grouping related conditions together. Some conditions may not be necessary if answered by the Design Guidelines. RECOMMENDATION: At the direction of the Planning Commission, a Resolution of Denial has been prepared for your consideration as well as the modified Resolution of Approval. City Planner BB:SH/jfs Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Planning Commission Staff Report dated April 23, 1997 Resolution of Denial Resolution of Approval with Conditions ITEM F CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: April 23, 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 drive4hru 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 March 26, 1997). BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission again continued this project at its March 26, 1997, meeting at the request of the applicant. Since that date, the applicant has hired an architectural firm to help prepare a set of comprehensive Design Guidelines and a draft copy of a Uniform Sign Program. These items were received by staff on April 10, 1997. Staff informally reviewed the Uniform Sign Program and noted potential issues for the developer to address. The applicant was asked to revise the program in preparation for a later Planning Commission meeting. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE: On April 15, 1997, the Committee (Bethel, Macias, Coleman) reviewed the Design Guidelines and Uniform Sign Program. The Committee did not recommend approval and recommended that the Guidelines and Uniform Sign Program be revised and reviewed by the Committee again (Exhibit "C"). RECOMMENDATION: At the direction of the Planning Commission, a Resolution of Denial has been prepared for your consideration as well as the previously prepared Resolution of Approval. Based on the direction of the April 15 Design Review Committee action, staff recommends continuance to allow the applicant to present revised documents to DRC for review. Respectfully submitted, Brad e'~~rr City Planner BB:SH:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" Exhibit "B" Exhibit "C" - Exhibit "D" - Exhibit "E" Exhibit "F" Exhibit "G" - Resolution of Approval Resolution of Denial Design Guidelines Draft Uniform Sign Program Design Review Committee Action Comments dated April 15, 1997 Planning Commission Staff Report dated March 26, 1997 Planning Commission Staff Report dated March 11, 1997 Planning Commission Minutes dated February 26, 1997 Planning Commission Staff Report dated February 26, 1997 J "~I'E CE i V' E D DESIGN GUIDELINES ~APR'! 0 lgg? City ot ~an(;no ¢uoarnon(]m Plmnning Divim{on Southwest Corner of Foothill and Vineyard Ave,, Rancho Cucamonga Developed by Gil Rodriguez Jr. & Feola Carli & Archuleta Architects I ABI.E I! PROJECT DESIGN GOALS ARCHITECTURE THEME OF CONTENTS COLORS AND FINISHES H CENTER ACCESSORIES HARDSCAPE TRELLISES AND ARBORS BUS STOP AND TRASH ENCLOSURES CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN [I MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS PROJECT DESIGN GOALS The objective is to create a unique PLACE that the public will find original and exciting. The ultimate design wil capture and reuse the rich architectual heritage of the immediate vicinits, of where the project is located. The architecture ranges from adobe style construction with a winery. theme in the early 1800's ( Thomas Winery); fired burned brick and mortar style construction with a southern accent in the late 1800's ( Raines House ); Spanish revival with lath and plaster style construction set in the late 1920's ( Klusman House ); and field rock with corrugated metal used for various ranch related buildings. .qRCHITECI'L~RE '!'HEME !! MAJOR TENANT SEE SHEET 2A AND 2B FOR CONCEPTUAL DESIGN SKETCHES SHOPS SEE SHEET 2A AND 2B FOR CONCEPTUAL DESIGN SKETCHES FREE STANDING PADS SEE SHEET 2C AND 2D FOR EXAMPLE OF PAD BUILDING DESIGNS NOTE: The conceptual designs and pad building examples are a guide. All future buildings shall have the flexibility to vary from other buildings on the project while sta~ng within the basic project design goals ARCHITECTURAL THEME VIEW FROM FOOTHILL ARC, t tlTECTURAL THEME VIEW 01:" MA.IOR A RCt-tlTECTURAI. TI IF. ME !1 EAST ELEVATION BUR(]ER KIN(] EI.EVATI()NS .,\RCt !I'I~t-i("!'L ~l~,,\I. !'t ti NORTH ELEVATION II WEST ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION SOUTH EI.EVATION RESTAURANT ELEVATIONS £.'OLOR AND FINISHES il EXTERIOR WALLS A 1 I~tITE WASH STUCCO W,,kLLS ] TWO PIECE CLAY TILE B I WOOD STAIN' ROOFING CORRUGATED bFETAL C EXPOSED WOOD AREAS SIMULATED WOOD SHINGLE D E STONE FACING F G H ['.~E'N~ F E R ~. ¢7 ([i S S () R I E S WATER ELEMENTS COLORS WILL VARY BENCHES D ART PIECES INTERACTIVE WATER ELEI~fiENT B C USED IN ACTIVITY CENTER E The art piece for the center shall be one of the following: Project Theme - Historical - Abstract F TRASH RECEPTACLES G EXTERIOR TABLES AND CHAIRS H USED LN ACTIVITY CENTER POTTED PLANTS BICYCLE RACKS PARKING LOT LIGHT BOLLARDS L Parking lot area and pedestrian areas will have two different styles exact style and color to be decided. COLORS WILL VARY H A R I)SC'A PE PUBLIC SIDE WALK / BRICK OR COLORED CONCRETE ACTIVITY CENTER A B USED ruNSTEAD OF RED C INFRONT OF HOUSE WALKWAY AT PAD BUTLDINGS PARKING LOT WALKWAYS POSSIBLE COLORS TO BE USED 1N TRIM AREAS E F G CIRCULATION AISLE ENTRY TO CENTER J TRELLISES 1920'S WROUGHT IRON FOR SPANISH STYLE BUILDINGS ARCH TRELLIS Wtdl-Mount~d .Set REDWOOD FOR WINERY STYLE BUILDINGS ARBORS Arbors for pedestrians not planned at the moment1 BUg S'I'()i) AN:I) 'IRASH ENCI.OSt, RE._ B BUS STOP ,, f ' ,< -- ' .~ v CONCRETE BENCH TRASH CAN IN'SIDE TRASH ENCLOSURE Trash enclosures shall match the architectual style of the closest building or shall be built of rock in basic ranch style. CONCEIq'I/AI. SITE PLAN FOOTHILL BOULEVARD MATERIAI. SPECIFICATIONS 3 4 COLOR AND FINISHES WHITE WASH STUCCO WALLS LA HABRA STUCCO - X-73 EGGSHELL TWO PIECE CLAY TILE MCA "TWO PIECE STI~\IGHT BARREL NIlSSION TILE" F-40 NATURAL RED CORRUGATED METAl. G..\LVANIZED FINISH SIMULATED WOOD SIIINGLES LOUISIANA PACIFIC NATURE GUARD CEMENT FIBER ROOF SHAKES COLOR - DUSK WOOD STAIN DUNN ED~VARDS 1 ) SP56 - WEATItEREI) BROWN 2) SPI45 - BOXWOOD 3) SP74 - COCO,,\ NATURAL STONE - INDIGENOUS TO AREA PI~.I~CAST CONCRETE CAP "CAt. IFORNIA PRI-:CAS'I"' E-506 - #WC-14-24 MED CENTER ACCESSORIES FOUNTAIN - CERAMIC 'FILE CLAD DESIGN TO BE DETERMINED PRECAST CONCRETE FOUNTAIN "CALIFORNIA PRECAST" DESIGN TO BE DETERMINED CERAMIC 'rILE CLAD BENCH DESIGN TO BE DE'I'I:'RMINED PRECAST CONCRETE BENCH "SMITH HA\VKINS" - ESTATE BENCH - #D490698 E METAl.. BENCH '"FIMBI-71~,FOR*I" - it 2806-6 BENCH WITH AI~.MRESTS F. TRASIIRECEPTACLE- DURAARTSTONE-TR-I) ROUND ASII URN - DURA ART STONE - AU-D ROUND G TRAS[I RECEPTACLE DURA ART STONE - TR-V ROUND TRASH RECEPTACLE TIMBERFORM -"RENAISSANCE" #281 I -FT-P I. TABLES CHAIRS "SMITH HAWKINS" 31 I/2" BLACK it M4147 "SMITH HAWKINS" BLACI, U NATURAL ARMCItAIRS # M354613 PLANTERS QUICK CRETE - CLASSIC SERIES 1) QR-CLS-1815P 2) QR-CLS-2422P 3) QR-CLS-3031P BICYCLE RACKS TIMBERFORM - It2170-I I - ORIGINAL CYCLOPES (11 DENOTED MAXtMtJN! NUMBER OF BICYCLES) SITE LIGIITING FIXTURES "WESTERN I.IGI-I'FING STANDARDS" I ) PCVLC00 t/GNS 1/420 2) MAI2/39049-5/DI6 3) SNI3/:\39215 MOD- 3/FXCMI30 4) WZI01630 5 HARDSCAPE CONCRETE COLORS - "SCOFII-;LD" A. MUTED GREEN A-85 B. FEP, N GREEN CS-I I C. COPPER PATINA CS-13 D. NA'rURAI, GP, AY CONCRETE E. TERRA COTTA A-29 F. RUSSET A-24 G. LA CRESCENTA BROWN A-25 H. ANTIQtJE AMBER CS-I 5 1. EADED TERRA COTTA CS-16 J. WEATHERED BRONZE CS-12 6 TRELLISES AND ARBORS SOLID IRON TRELLIS - "SMITH 11AWKINS" BLACK - itD442731 SOLID IRON TI~,ELLIS - "SMITH I IAWKINS" BI.ACK - S[MII.AR TO #1)492041 REI)WOOD AI>,BOR BY "SMITII HAWKINS" VAR. IOUS STYLES - DUNN EDWARDS CWF (CLEAR) NOTE: ALL MATERIALS, COLORS, AND ACCESSORIES ARE SUBJECT TO SUBSTITUTION WITH AN ITEM OF EQUAL QUALITY. F SITE LIGHTING FIXTURES , MA ~2t39049-5/D16 "\VI.i.NTI.;R N I ,It ;I FI'INt J .~'1'.\ N I ).\R PCV1c0011GNs11 "WI.;N'I'I.:R,N 1.1¢111'I'IN(; 5'I'.\NI ).\RI I'(.'\'1 .L'(~o I (iNSI 421) "\VI.:,N'I'I-:I,~N I.It ;I I'I'IN(; S'I'.\NI ), \RI SN I~, \ ~,'~215 NI( )1 )-~ I,'X£'It113o ",t; \1~1X.:( ) 1.1~. il I'I'IN~ i" 1,31141 (.H ol)M 112771 lit. \ FOOTHILL VINEYARD PROJECT RECEIVED APR i 0 1997 City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division (SOUTHWEST CORNER) SIGN PROGRAM For: Gil Rodriguez Jr. of U.S. Properties DATE: April 10, 1997 PREPARED BY: FEOLA CARLI & ARCHULETA ARCHITECTS 116 E. Broadway Glendale, CA 91205 (818) 247-9020 h:~jobs\us\us701 sp.doc Page Name INDEX INTRODUCTION I. II. III. IV. Vo VII. VIII. IX TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE - IDENTIFICATION SIGNAGE ANCHOR TENANT SIGNAGE (Anchor Tenant 50,000 s.f. plus) MAJOR USER SIGNAGE (Major User 10,000 to 49,900 s.f.) PAD TENANT OR RESTAURANT SIGNAGE SHOP TENANTS TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNS GUIDELINES MISCELLANEOUS SIGNS EXHIBITS SIGN TYPE - A-1 SIGN TYPE - A-2 SIGN TYPE - B SIGN TYPE - C SIGN TYPE - D LOCATION PLAN Page Number 1 2 3 4 6 8 11 13 14 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Page I of 24 Foothill & Vineyard Project Sign Program INTRODUCTION This program has been developed for the purpose of assuring a coordinated Signage theme, and continuity for all types of Signage throughout the project for the mutual benefit for all tenants and the public. All Signage contained within the Foothill & Vineyard Project shall be consistent with this criteria and shall be submitted for review and approval to the landlord, and the City of Rancho Cucamonga. FZ:5 Page 2 of 24 I. SITE - PROIECT IDENTIFICATION SIGNAGE A. PROJECT I.D. SIGN. 1. The shopping center may be identified by street oriented signs at the main entrance from Foothill Blvd. and Vineyard Avenue. All Signs shall be in accordance with the criteria in this program unless in the opinion of the landlord and the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the design contributes to the overall benefit of the project. 2. Sign Type A. Project Entrance Monumentation sign will be located at the Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue entrances. This monument will display the shopping center name and may also be used to identify the major tenant. (SIGN TYPE "A-l" ) Page 3 of 24 II. ANCHOR TENANT SIGNAGE (50,000 sq. ft. plus) A. Tenant shall be allowed to install one (1) wall mounted identification sign for each street frontage. One (1) sign on the sign fascia in front of Tenants space facing Foothill Boulevard (primary customer entry). Tenants which have street frontage on more than one street shall be allowed to have one (1) additional wall mounted identification sign for each street frontage. The total number of wall mounted signs shall not exceed three (3). Anchors may also be identified on only entry monument signs. B. Anchor signs shall be of a size which is appropriate to the exterior elevations of the proposed Anchor tenant. These signs will be submitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga during the Design review process. The maximum sign area allowed shall be three hundred square feet (300 s.f.). C. Signs shall be in accordance with criteria contained within this program, unless in the opinion of the landlord and the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the design contributes to the unique benefit of the complex. D. Anchor signage shall be as follows: 1. Internally illuminated individual letters shall consist of (1) channel letters, (2 neon illumination, (3) plastic face and (4) trim cap. 2. Channel letters shall be made of .063 aluminum returns with .090 aluminum backs. 3. Letters shall be internally illuminated via neon lighting. Transformers shall be housed within the individual letters or in a raceway located behind the sign fascia. Exposed raceways are prohibited. 4. All metal surfaces shall be primed and painted to match colors specified in design drawings. 5. Individual letter styles of Tenants shall be allowed, provided however that design, color and spacing of letters are subject to written approval by Landlord. 6. Sand Blasted wood signs may be used as an alternative to internally illuminated channel letters subject to review and written approval of the Landlord. Page 4 of 24 E. In addition to the signs described above, each Tenant shall be permitted to place white vinyl lettering (Helvetica Medium letter style) to provide store name and hours information as specified on attached detail sheet. (SIGN TYPE "C"). The total area for this sign shall not exceed 280 square inches. F. Promotional or special event signs, banners or flags shah be in conformance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Sign Ordinance and must be approved by Landlord prior to submission to the City. Page 5 of 24 .... III. MAIOR USER SIGNAGE - (10,000 to 49,900 sq. ft.) A. Tenant shall be allowed one sign per building elevation up to a maximum of three (3) signs per business. However, if the building elevation that faces Foothill Blvd. or Vineyard Avenue and has more than one entry, the Tenant shall be allowed one (1) sign per entry facing Foothill Blvd. In no event shall the total number of signs allowed per building exceed three (3). The height of each sign shall be measured from top to bottom. Tenants (Major Users) that require a larger sign area, height or length, must submit sign specifications and drawings, composed on the building elevation, to the City of Rancho Cucamonga review and approval. 1. Two line signs shall not exceed 48" in total height including the space between the line and no line shall be more than 30". The space between lines shall not exceed one third of the letter height of smallest letter. 2. Upper and lower case signs shall not exceed 48" including downstrokes. 3. Single line signs in all upper case shall not exceed 48". 4. Length of sign shall not exceed 70 % of shop frontage, or thirty-five feet (35'), whichever is less. Shop frontage shall be defined as, storefront dimension or average lease bay width, whichever is greater. B. A trademark/logo may be combined with individual letters if said trademark/logo is "registered" or nationally recognized with at least six (6) open stores and is within the allowable area and size requirements. C. Each sign shah consist of internally illuminated letters. Internally illuminated individual letters shall consist of (1) channel letters, (2) neon illumination, (3) plastic face, and (4) trim cap. D. Channel letters shall be made of 22 gauge sheet metal, 5" deep (minimum), sides painted medium bronze. Channel letters shall be fastened to and be centered on the sign fascia. E. Letters shall be internally illuminated via neon lighting. Transformers shall be housed in a raceway located behind the sign fascia and exposed raceways are prohibited. F. Individual letter styles of Tenants shall be allowed. All major user Tenants shall be limited to the following Plexiglas colors: red # 2793 with a maximum choice of two (2) of the following colors not to exceed 10% of the total letter area; blue #2214, white #7328, green #2108 and yellow #2037 by Rohm and Haas Co. or approved equal. Tenants with a trademark/logo that is "registered" or a nationally recognized trademark may be allowed subject to review and written approval by Landlord. G. Plastic faces shall be trimmed with a 3/4" trim cap (medium bronze) to match letter returns. H. Sign copy shall contain Tenants trade name only. No other services or product advertising will be allowed unless it is part of the Tenants nationally registered trademark or logo name, subject to Landlord approval. I. In addition to the signs described above, each Tenant shall be permitted to place white vinyl lettering (Helvetica Medium letter style) to provide store name and hours information as specified on attached detail sheet (Sign Type "C"). The total area for this sign shall not exceed 280 square inches. J. Promotional or special event signs shah be in conformance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Sign Ordinance and must be approved by Landlord prior to submission the City. K. Sand Blasted wood signs may be used as an alternative to internally illuminated channel letters subject to review and written approval of the Landlord. Page 7 of 24 IV. PAD OR RESTAURANT SIGNAGE A. Single users/Tenant in a free standing building pad. Each tenant shall be allowed one (1) monument sign along Foothill Boulevard or Vineyard Avenue, and two (2) wall-mounted identification signs, one sign per elevation or building face. Or as an option, each tenant shall be allowed (3) wall-mounted identification signs, one (1) sign per elevation or building face. A combination of monument and wall signs may be used, however, only a maximum of three (3) signs may be used to identify any one business and only in the combinations described herein. 1. Wall Mounted Signs - Sign area shall be the entire area within a perimeter defined by a continuos line composed of right angles which enclose the extreme limits of lettering, logo, trademark or other graphic representation. The height of each sign shah be measured from top to bottom and shall not exceed the following guidelines: a. Two line signs shall not exceed 24" in total height, including space between lines, and no line shall be more than 18". The space between lines shall exceed one third of the letter height of smallest letter. b. Upper and lower case signs shall not exceed 24" including downstrokes. c. Single line signs in all upper case shall not exceed 24". d. Length of sign shall not exceed 70% of shop frontage, or twenty- five feet (25'), whichever is less. Shop frontage shall be defined as storefront dimension or average lease of bay width, whichever is greater. 2. Monument Signs - This sign type can be either internally or externally illuminated. The maximum monument size shall be eight foot (6') long by four foot (4') high. (SIGN TYPE "A-2") B. Signing shall be in accordance with the criteria contained within this program, unless in the opinion of the landlord and, the design contributes to the unique benefit of the complex. Page 8 of 24 C. Multi-Tenant Pad. In the event that there are multiple tenants in a free standing pad, signs shall be as shown in Shop Tenant Criteria (SIGN TYPE - D. Restaurant Pad. In the event that the pad tenant is a restaurant; It is recognized that restaurants have specific and unique graphic color and Signage needs. Restaurants may, if they wish, submit alternate monument designs through the Rancho Cucamonga design review process as long as colors and materials are consistent with the restaurant's architecture. Signs will be limited to the restaurant users name only. The use of brand names or logos, shields or crests will not be allowed on the sign unless specifically approved in writing by the Landlord. E. A registered trademark/logo, without adjacent individual letters, may be included within the calculated sign area provided the allowable sign area for the trademark/logo letters is reduced to thirty-three percent (33%) of the allowable area and that the logo may not exceed five feet in any dimension. Logo sign shall also be sized to be in proportion to the building face to which it is attached. This sign is also subject to approval by the Landlord. F. A trademark/logo may be combined with individual letters if said trademark/logo is a "registered" or nationally recognized trademark and is within the allowable area and size requirements. G. A sign shall consist of internally illuminated individual letters. Internally illuminated individual letters shall consist of (1) channel letters/logo, (2) neon illumination. (3) plastic face. and (4) trim cap. H. Channel letters/logo shall be made of 22 gauge sheet metal, 5" deep, sides painted medium bronze. Channel letters shall be fastened to and be centered on the sign fascia. I. Letters shall be internally illuminated via neon lighting. Transformers shall be housed in a raceway located behind the sign fascia and exposed raceways are prohibited. J. Individual letter styles of Tenants shall be allowed. In the case of a single user for a pad building Tenants with a trademark/logo that is registered or a nationally recognized trademark may use their national colors subject to written approval by Landlord. All other pad Tenants shall use the following colors: red #2793 with two of the following colors not to exceed 10% of the total letter area; blue #2214 white #7328 green #2108 and yellow #2037 by Rohm and Haas Co. or approved equal. Page 9 of 24 K. Plastic faces shall be trimmed with a 3/4 trim cap medium bronze to match letter returns. L. Sign copy shall contain legally registered name only. No other services or product advertising will be allowed. M. In addition to the signs described above each Tenant shall be permitted to place white vihyl letter (Helvetica Medium letter style) to provide store name and hours information as specified on attached detail sheet. ( SIGN TYPE "C" ) The total area for this sign shall not exceed 280 square inches. Each restaurant may also display one (1) menu provided it is contained within a display area incorporated within the overall architectural theme. N. Promotional or special event signs banners and flags shall be in conformance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga s Sign Ordinance and must be approved by Landlord prior to submission to the City. O. Sand Blasted wood signs may be used as an alternative to internally illuminated channel letters subject to review and written approval of the Landlord. Page 10 of 24 V. SHOP TENANTS A. Tenants shall be allowed one (1) sign per building elevation with a maximum of three (3) signs allowed. The height of each sign shah be measured from top to bottom and shah not exceed the following guidelines (SIGN TYPE - "13"): 1. Two line signs shah not exceed 24" including the space between the lines in total height and no line shall be more than 18". The space between lines shall not exceed one third of the letter height of the smallest letter. 2. Upper and lower case signs shall not exceed 24" including downstrokes. 3. Single line signs in all upper case shall not exceed 24". 4. The length of sign shah not exceed 70% of Shop frontage, or twenty- four feet (24') whichever is less. Shop frontage shall be defined as storefront dimension or average lease bay width, whichever is greater. B. A trademark/logo may be combined with individual letters if said trademark/logo is "registered" or nationally recognized with a least six (6) open stores and is within the allowable area and size requirements. C. Each sign shall consist of internally illuminated Internally illuminated individual letters shall of (1) channel letters, (2) neon illumination, (3) face, and (4) trim cap. D. Channel letters shall be made of 22 gauge sheet metal, 5" deep (minimum), sides painted medium bronze. channel letters shall be fastened to and be centered on the sign fascia. E. Letters shall he internally illuminate via neon lighting. Transformers shall be housed in a raceway located behind the sign fascia and exposed raceways are prohibited. F. Individual letter styles of Tenants shall be allowed. Tenants with a trademark/logo that is registered or a nationally recognized trademark may use their national colors subject to written approval by Landlord. All other Tenants shall use the following colors: red #2793 with two of the following colors not to exceed 10% of the total letter area; blue #2214 white #7328 green #2108 and yellow #2037 by Rohm and Haas Co. or approved equal. Page II of 24 G. Plastic faces shall be trimmed with a 3/4" trim cap (medium bronze) to match letter returns. H. Sign copy shall contain Tenant's trade name only. No other services or product advertising will be allowed unless it is part of the Tenants trade name without Landlords Prior written consent. I. In addition to the signs described above each Tenant shall be permitted to place white vinyl lettering (Helvetica Medium letter style ) to provide store name and hours Information as specified on attached detail sheet (Sign Type "C"). The total area for this sign shall not exceed 280 square inches. J. Promotional or special event signs, banners and flags shah be in conformance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Sign Ordinance and must be approved by the landlord prior to submission to the City. K. Sand Blasted wood signs may be used as an alternative to internally illuminated channel letters subject to review and written approval of the Landlord. Page 12 of 24 VI. TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNS A. Signage required to control and manage the movement of traffic and pedestrians shall be installed in accordance with the criteria of this program. Traffic signs shall be standard sizes, heights and colors and shall be in accordance with all requirements of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the State of California. Signs shall be mounted on fabricated metal sign backgrounds painted in colors complementary to the approved colors and materials or the center. (Sign Type "D") B. Traffic signs shall be installed in locations as needed by the landlord. Sign locations shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Rancho Cucamonga prior to installation and shall be reviewed again after one (1) year to determine if they are adequate in managing traffic with an acceptable degree of efficiency and safety. Page 13 of 24 VII. GUIDELINES ~ BUILDING SIGNAGE FOR TENANTS A. General Requirements: 1. Each Tenant shall submit to the Landlord for written approval before fabrication, not less than four (4) copies of detailed drawings of the Tenants proposed signs indicating the location, size, layout, design, materials and color graphics. Such drawings shall be submitted concurrently with architectural drawings, sufficient in Landlord's opinion, to show the exact relationship with the store design, Tenant's store location on site and the dimensions of the building frontage. 2. Prior to fabrication, detailed drawings of all signs shall be submitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division for review and approval. These drawings must be signed and stamped as approved by the Landlord prior to submittal to the City. 3. Tenant shall obtain and pay the entire cost of all permits, and approvals, construction, installation and maintenance of its respective sign. No sign shall be installed until all required approvals and permits have been obtained. 4. Tenant shall be responsible for fulfillment of all of these Sign Criteria to the extent applicable. 5. No Tenant shall affix or maintain upon any glass or other material on the storefront of within twenty-four inches (24") of any window, any signs unless such signs or materials have received the written approval of the Landlord, and comply with this Sign Criteria. B. General Specifications: 1. All primary identification of Tenant shall be illuminated. Secondary Signage may be non-illuminated if total allowable sign area is not exceeded in height and width. 2. Two lines of copy may be used as long as the total height of sign does not exceed maximum sign height for the applicable type of Signage and the design is approved by the Landlord. 3. The width of the tenant fascia sign (unless covered elsewhere in this program) shall not exceed 70% of the storefront dimension based on the Page 14 of 24 average lease bay width, whichever is less. Sign shall center on the storefront unless prior written approval is obtained from the Landlord. 4. Tenant shah be solely responsible for the installation and maintenance of its own signs. 5. Tenants sign contractor shall repair any damage to the premises or other property in the Shopping Center caused by the contractor s work. Should Tenant's contractor fail to adequately repair such damage, Landlord may, but shall not be required to, repair such damage at the tenant expense. 6. Tenant shall be fully responsible for the actions of Tenants sign contractor. 7. Electrical service to Tenants signs will be connected to Tenants meter and shall be connected to a time clock supplied by Tenant. Time clock hours shall be subject to Landlord approval. C. Construction Requirements: 1. Landlords representative shall be given adequate notice prior to installation of all signs. Failure to notify Landlord may result in removal of sign to inspect penetration in building face. 2. All signs shall be fabricated and installed per UL and city standards. 3. Letter fastening and clips are to be concealed and be of galvanized, stainless, aluminum, brass or bronze metals. 4. No labels will be permitted on the exposed surface of the signs, except those required by local ordinance, which shall be placed in an inconspicuous location. 5. Tenants shah have identification signs designed in a manner compatible with and complimentary to adjacent and facing storefronts and the overall design concept of the Shopping Center. 6. Design, layout and materials for Tenant signs shall conform in all respects with the sign design drawings included in this criteria. The maximum heights for letters in the body of the sign shall be as indicated in these criteria. a~o_e 15 of 24 7. All penetrations of the building structure required for sign installation shall be sealed in a watertight condition and shall be patched to match adjacent finish to Landlords satisfaction. 8. No wood backed letter material will be allowed on the internally illuminated channel letters. D. Sign Installation: 1. All work to fabricate, erect, or install signs (including connection to electrical junction box) shall be contracted and paid for by Tenant and subject to approval by Landlord. 2. All signs shah be designed, constructed and installed in accordance with local codes and ordinances. All permits shall be obtained by Tenant s sign contractor, at Tenant s sole expense. 3. Signs not installed in strict accordance with previously approved plans and specifications shall be immediately corrected by Tenant, at Tenant's cost and expense, upon demand by Landlord. If not corrected within fifteen (15) days, sign may be removed or corrected by Landlord at tenant's expense. 4. Erection of any sign shall be promptly and safely effected with as little disruption to business and traffic as possible and with minimum of inconvenience to the Landlord and to the other Tenants. 5. Upon removing any sign, Tenant shall, at its own expense, repair any damage created by such removal and shall return the area from which the sign was removed back to its original condition. All debris from removal shall be promptly removed from the site. E. Protection of Property: 1. Tenant's sign contractor shall design, install or erect Tenant's sign in such a manner that it will not over stress, deface, or damage any portion of the building or grounds. 2. Any sign, temporary or permanent, capable of exerting damaging pressures on the building due to its size, weight or design shall have its design examined by a structural engineer. Prior to installation of such sign, Tenant shall submit to Landlord such engineer' a written approval verifying that no unsafe condition will be imposed upon the building or other structure to which the sign will be attached. 3. All exposed parts of any sign or sign support subject to corrosion or other similar damage shah be protected in a manner acceptable to Landlord. 4. Any sign on which stains or rust appear, or which becomes damaged in any way, or which in any manner whatsoever is not maintained properly shall be promptly repaired by Tenant. Landlord may remove and store, at Tenant s expense, any signs not maintained properly or not in accordance with sign program. F. Insurance: 1. Tenant shah cause Tenant's sign contractor to submit to Landlord prior to such contractor entering upon the Shopping Center, a certificate of insurance, evidencing that such contractor has in effect commercial general liability insurance and worker's compensation coverage as required by the State of California in an amount and issued by a company acceptable to Landlord. 2. All Tenants are to carry liability insurance naming themselves and Landlord as additional insured in accordance with terms and conditions specified in the lease. Page 17 of 24 G. RESTRICTIONS: All tenants are subject to the following: 1. No animated, revolving, flashing, audible, or odor producing signs will be allowed. 2. No vehicle signs will be allowed. 3. No formed plastics or injection-molded plastic signs will be permitted. 4. No exposed raceways, cross-overs or conduits will be permitted to be visible. 5. No other types of signs except those specifically mentioned within this criteria will be allowed. 6. Tenant will be required to remove any sign considered to be in bad taste or that does not contribute positively to the overall design of the center. VIII. Miscellaneous Signs: A. It is understood that there may be the need for additional signs for information and directional purposes. These signs will be reviewed by Landlord for consistency of design with the shopping Center. B. City, State and Federally required signs shall be installed as required by the governing agency. Page 18 of_!4 SIGN TYPE - "A.I" QUANTITY MAXIMUM HEIGHT NO. SIDES MAXIMUM AREA PER SIDE MAXIMUM LETTER HEIGHT MAXIMUM LENGTH OF SIGN AREA TYPE OF ILLUMINATION PERMITTED USERS COLORS 2 6'-0" 2 60 s.f. 8" 10'-0" Ground-mounted flood lights or internally illuminated individual letters Porject name & Major tenants TO BE DETERMINED Note: Monument design to be determined PR01ECT ENTRANCE MONUMENT SCALE 3/8"= 1'-0" FOOTHILL & VINEYARD PROJECT (SOUTHWEST CORNER) SIGNAGE PROGRAM USSSPA1 SIGN TYPE - "A-2" QUANTITY MAXIMUM HEIGHT NO. SIDES MAXIMUM AREA PER SIDE MAXIMUM LETTER HEIGHT MAXIMUM LENGTH OF SIGN AREA TYPE OF ILLUMINATION PERMITTED USERS COLOR 1 per pad building 4'-0" 2 24 s,f. 8" 6,.0# Ground-mounted flood lights or internally illuminated individual letters. Pad Tenants TO BE DETERMINED Note: Monument design to be determined PAD TENANT MONUMENT SCALE 3/8"= 1'-0" FOOTHILL & VINEYARD PROJECT (SOUTHWEST CORNER) SIGNAGE PROGRAM USSSPA2 SIGN TYPE- "B" QUANTITY MAXIMUM HEIGHT NO. SIDES MAXIMUM AREA PER SIDE MAXIUM LEl-rER HEIGHT MAXIMUM LENGTH OF SIGN TYPE OF ILLUMINATION PERMITTED USERS varies per tenant type varies per tenant type 1 varies per tenant type varies per tenant type varies per tenant type Internal or External Typical tenant shop tenants SIGN TYPE /~--TYR. STOREFRONT & ENTRY  STORE INFO. SIGN TYPE C STORE ADDRESS FOOTHILL & VINEYARD PROJECT (SOUTHWEST CORNER) PA'G£ 21 SIGNAGE PROGRAM US$SPB SIGN TYPE. "C" QUANTITY MAXIMUM HEIGHT NO. SIDES MAXIMUM AREA PER SIDE NOMINAL LETTER HEIGHT (1) Per tenant entrance (Not applicable) 1 (Not applicable) 3/4" for hours, 2-1/2" for address and store name MAXIMUM LENGTH TYPE OF ILLUMINATION PERMll-I'ED USERS (Not applicable) None Major users, shops, pad tenants and restaurants TYP. STOREFORNT DOOR, DOOR FRAME & MULLIONS TYP. STORE NAME 2 1/2" MAX. LETTER HEIGHT -----._ TYP. STORE HOURS & INFO. SIGN 3/4" MAX. LETTER HEIGHT TYP. STORE ADDRESS 2 1/2" HIGH NUMBERS FINISHED FLOOR FOOTHILL & VINEYARD (SOUTHWEST CORNER) PROJECT PAGE 22 SIGNAGE PROGRAM US$SPC SIGN TYPE - "D" QUANTITY MAXIMUM HEIGHT NO. SIDES MAXIMUM AREA PEP, SIDE MAXIMUM LETTER HEIGHT MAXIMUM LENGTH TYPE OF ILLUMINATION PERMITrED USEP,S (As required) 9'-0" 1 (Not applicable) (Per local or state jurisdiction) (Not applicable) None (Not applicable) ~x""--..~.. T ypl C AL HANDICAP SIGN TYPICAL TRAFFIC STOP SiGN PAINTED STEEL TUBE FOOTHILL & VINEYARD (SOUTHWEST CORNER) PROJECT SIGNAGE PROGRAM US$SPD LOCATION PLAN \ /- FOOTHILL & VINEYARD PROJECT (SOUTHWEST CORNER) pA(~EL~ SIGNAGE USSSPLP PROGRAM DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:40 p.m. Steve Hayes April 15, 1997 DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ - Review of the Design Guidelines supplement for a proposed Master Planned Shopping Center with Phase One development consisting of 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: This project has been considered on three separate occasions by the Planning Commission. Most recently reviewed by the Commission on March 26, 1997, the applicant requested a continuance to April 23, 1997 to allow the newly hired consultants on the project to prepare a Design Guideline Supplement worthy of consideration by the Design Review Committee. The applicant's goal was to have the guidelines prepared in a timely manner to that a review could be completed by the Design Review Committee prior to the April 23rd Planning Commission meeting. Staff Comments: At the time of comment preparation, the updated Design Guidelines Supplement had not yet been received by staff. Once the guidelines are received by staff, they will be forwarded to the Planning Commissioners and an oral presentation will be given by staff at the meeting. However, if the guidelines are not received in time for staff to provide a comprehensive review or the Design Review Committee ample opportunity to review the supplement prior to the meeting, this item will be held over to the next Design Review Committee meeting. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Bill Bethel, Rich Macias, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Steve Hayes The Design Review Committee did not recommend approval of the Design Guidelines and the draft Uniform Sign Program as presented. The Committee noted that the revised Design Guidelines appeared identical to those presented to the Commission on March 26, 1997, except for two renderings, which were not based upon the proposed Master Site Plan. The Committee did offer the following comments relative to the two documents: 1. Design Guidelines: The Design Guidelines should be more comprehensive, particularly to include a greater amount of text, explaining how the four proposed architectural styles and amenities related to each other in the "big picture" (i.e., Thomas Winery, Klusman House and internally viewing the project as a whole). DRC COMMENTS CUP 95-25 RODRIGUEZ April 15, 1997 Page 2 A stronger sense of unity and a greater explanation should be provided to explain how the accent elements will provide a sense of unity and cohesiveness to the project, yet provide variation within the total overall theme. The Committee expressed concern with the lack of a unifying theme in the proposed street furniture and lighting fixtures. Photographs and text on the Klusman House should be included to establish an important third example of potential architectural styles for pad buildings. The renderings are not based on the current Master Site Plan; do not accurately depict possible views of the future development. Current renderings of the project based on the current Master Plan should be included in the Design Guidelines. The Committee noted that the Design Guidelines would be critical to assuring the Commission that this project will be a high quality project suitable for this important intersection. 2. Uniform Sign Program: The Committee was concerned with the "boiler plate" approach to the program and noted that elements within the program would not "fit" with the specific architectural style shown for the Major Tenants and In-Line Shops by the renderings in the Design Guidelines supplement. Specifically, the Committee felt that the diagram for In-Line Shops could not work the with proposed architectural style because of the long, overhanging sloped roof element, which does not give any exposed wall area above shops entrances, and the Sign Program indicates wall areas above shops buildings where wall sign could be provided. b. The Committee asked staff to provide the applicant with written comments. The Committee recommended that the Design Guidelines and Uniform Sign Program be revised and be rescheduled for Design Review Committee. DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- STAFF REPORT March 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. (Continued from February 26, and March 11, 1997). BACKGROUND: At the request of the applicant, the Planning Commission further continued this project at their meeting of March 11, 1997. Since then, staff has been in contact with the applicant to discuss the Preliminary Design Guidelines prepared by the applicant. The applicant was notified about potential issues and it was recommended that the guidelines be expanded to include more information regarding the architecture for future buildings within the Master Plan area. Because the direction of the Commission to staff was only to prepare a Resolution of Denial, staff has not performed a detailed analysis of the Preliminary Design Guidelines. StafFs cursory review indicates that the guidelines are incomplete. The most critical component, "Architectural Theme," is blank and does not provide the required text and graphics indicating architectural concepts including style, vadous product types (major anchor, inline retail shops, freestanding pads), form, bulk, height, etc. RECOMMENDATION: At the direction of the Planning Commission, a Resolution of Denial has been prepared for your consideration. In addition, the previously prepared Resolution of Approval is attached. City Planner BB:SH/jfs Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Preliminary Design Guidelines Exhibit "B" - March 11 & February 26, 1997, Planning Commission Staff Reports Exhibit "C" - February 26, 1997, Planning Commission Minutes Resolution of Denial Resolution of Approval Ear rr'z)" 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 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 ~."~missioner McNiel stated the application is a straightforward zone change to reduce th~ ~l~ity for ma~;.%*~ing purposes. He felt the proposed development fits well in the n~iohuurhood and supported thu ,..r'?lication. Motion: Moved by McNiel, s~,~n .~d by Tolstoy, to adOl tions recommending approval of Victoria Community Plan Amer Tentative Tract 15796, recommending approval of Victoria Community Plan and approving Tentative Tract 15797 and issue negative declarations for Te and 15797. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES' BA,~E,,~, BETHEL, MACIAS, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NONE NONE - carried eo 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 Review95-04. Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and distributed copies of a revised roof plan and equipment specifications for roof-mounted equipment which had been provided by the applicant earlier in the week. He indicated staff had determined the proposed parapet height and well depth should be sufficient to screen the roof equipment from view. He reported the applicant had also submitted revised grading plans the previous week and staff had determined that, with the conditions as written, the drainage should be handled satisfactorily. Chairman McNiel asked for further clarification of the drainage issues. Mr. Hayes replied that the issues had to do with the nature of the queuing of flows and the directing of overflows into the spillway. He noted that temporary measures will be taken with Phase One and the issues would be permanently addressed with Phase Two. He commented that Engineering staff felt the issues could be resolved pending approval of the Flood Control District. Commissioner McNiel remarked that temporary measures are included with Phase One with permanent solutions waiting until Phase Two. He asked the soundness of the temporary system, noting that Phase Two may not occur for possibly 6 to 12 years. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, replied that with Phase One, there will be water flowing over raw land. He noted that staff felt the overflow concerns were addressed by the latest grading plans which had been recently submitted. Commissioner McNiel asked if staff felt it is a safe system. Mr. James responded affirmatively. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if everything had been worked out or if it was still to be worked out. Mr. James replied that confirmation of acceptance had not yet been received from the Flood Control District. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if concrete drainage swales will be used. Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 1997 Mr. James replied they will be earthen swales with the overflows to be of gunite. He noted the grade of the spillway is lower than the natural property line. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Gil Rodriguez, Jr., U. S. Properties, P.O. Box 281, Upland, thanked staff and the Planning Commissioners for working with him during the past year and a half. He agreed to all of the conditions with the exception of Engineering Condition No. 14, requiring the construction of the local storm drain in Foothill Boulevard to Cucamonga Creek. He felt the storm drain would only service the vacant property on the north side of Foothill Boulevard and did not think he should be responsible. Ray Allard, Allard Engineering, 6101 Cherry Avenue, Fontana, stated that when the Thomas Winery project was built, a storm drain was constructed to drain to the south side of Foothill Boulevard where it bubbles out of the catch Basin and proceeds down the street. He said the pipe was stubbed out on the south side of Foothill Boulevard so that it could be connected to a drain pipe in Foothill Boulevard to drain over to Cucamonga Creek. He noted that the catch basin on the south side of Foothill is to be abandoned when the drain pipe connects to Cucamonga Creek. He proposed that the City consider placing the east-west pipe in Foothill Boulevard on the north side of Foothill Boulevard and have it placed in Foothill Boulevard when the property on the north side develops because the Rodriguez property cannot drain to the pipe. He said they will be participating in the master storm drain program by paying fees. Chairman Barker asked if staff had been approached regarding the proposal to move the pipe to the north side of Foothill Boulevard. Mr. James replied that the applicant had made the request a year ago but the idea had not been pursued. He noted the storm drain in Foothill Boulevard is a local facility, and would not be eligible for master plan funding. He stated the City has always required that local facilities be completed as frontage improvements by the first developer. He said the property to the north had also been required to put in the storm drain when a project was approved; however, that project had not developed. Mr. Allard apologized for his misunderstanding that their drainage fees would pay for installation. He stated that if they could drain their property to the line, they would not question the requirement to install the pipe; however, he did not feel they should have to install the line since they will not be able to benefit as their drainage will be to the south. Mr. James said the local drainage systems are considered as part of normal frontage improvements. He observed the applicant's property has the right to drain to Vineyard, but does not because of grading. He indicated that typically, properties drain to the street and properties to the south have to build drainage systems to accommodate flow from properties to the north. He was not sure if there would be any complications with having the drain pipe along the nodh side of Foothill Boulevard to connect to Cucamonga Creek. Mr. Allard said they would like to have flexibility. He stated that Cucamonga Creek is very deep and swift moving at the site. He felt that if they drained their site to Vineyard Boulevard, it might cause problems on Vineyard. He indicated they therefore met with the Flood Control District and the District did not object to having the property drain directly to the creek. Commissioner McNiel asked how much of the drainage system is currently in Foothill Boulevard. Mr. James replied that the Thomas Winery site drains to a catch basin on the southwest corner where it bubbles out. He said the catch basin will be removed when the storm drain is extended westerly to the channel. Planning Commission Minutes -4- February 26, 1997 Commissioner McNiel asked if Phase Two areas will be hydro seeded. Mr. Hayes responded affirmatively. Commissioner Macias asked if the current policy is to require the first developer to bear the cost for local drainage systems. Mr. James confirmed that is the policy. Commissioner Macias asked if there is a precedent for this applicant to contest that exaction. Mr. James did not recall anything having gone up to the City Council for a decision. Mr. Allard thought that if Thomas Winery wasn't constructed, it would be simple to drain on the north side of Foothill Boulevard. He thought it had been an arbitrary decision to have Thomas Winery drain to the south side of the street. Commissioner McNiel felt that the City selected the lower side of the street because typically most properties drain to the street. Mr. Allard conceded that generally systems are placed on the lower ends of streets. Mary Byer, 8167 Vineyard Avenue, #112, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that she lives in the Villa Poloma condominium project across the street from the project. She expressed concern about the traffic flow and stated it is already difficult to get into the condominiums because the area is so congested, possibly from the gas station on the east side of Vineyard. She feared those vehicles trying to enter or exit the condominium project will be caught between different traffic patterns. She asked what an activity center is and whether a grocery store is planned for the site. She questioned if there is a law requiring fast food restaurants to have self-circulating air systems installed in order to prevent fumes from exhausting into the air and commented that the odors from In-N-Out Burger are powerful at times. Mr. Rodriguez, Sr., 1797 Melajo Way, Upland, stated they had filed the application for a fast food restaurant about two years ago. He said they originally sited Burger King on Foothill Boulevard but after spending thousands of dollars, the Commission suddenly indicated Burger King would have to be located on Vineyard Avenue. He thought the introduction of two new Commissioners had brought about the request to move Burger King and said he did not think it was fair. He said he had to renegotiate with Burger King because of the move to Vineyard Avenue. Brad Bullet, City Planner, stated that staff had included a chronology of the project with the staff report and said that the location of Burger King had been a matter of discussion when the project was first submitted and the location was not changed as the result of the addition of new Planning Commissioners. Chairman Barker asked if the applicant wished to have the Commission delay action until resubmission of the plans with Burger King located on Foothill Boulevard. Mr. Rodriguez urged the Commission to approve the application as presently submitted with Burger King located on Vineyard Avenue. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. Mr. Buller explained that an activity center refers to a hardscape plaza at the corner of the property; a people place, not a recreational facility. He said that Phase One will include Burger King and potentially a sit-down restaurant on Vineyard Avenue. He indicated no other buildings are planned Planning Commission Minutes -5- FSZ. February 26, 1997 with the first phase. He stated that future phases are yet to be determined and were not being considered tonight. Mr. James stated that the project is conditioned to widen Vineyard Avenue and there will be dual left- tum lanes at the intersection of Vineyard Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. He stated there will also be a right-turn lane into the project so that southbound traffic can get out of the regular flow of traffic when entedng the property. Mr. Buller stated that staff feels the traffic circulation will be improved over current conditions. He indicated he was not aware of any requirements with regard to ventilation systems containing odors and said such a condition had not been placed on any other restaurants, either fast-food or sit-down. Commissioner McNiel noted that with Phase One, the Commission was looking at Burger King and a spec sit-down restaurant, parking, plaza and street frontage. Commissioner Bethel said that when he first saw the project at the Design Review Committee (DRC) meeting, there was no roof plan and no idea of whether the screen would cover the equipment. He indicated the equipment was changed from a 5-ton unit to two 10-ton units but they were the same size. He said DP, C asked that the parapet be high enough to screen the equipment and the applicant has complied. He noted that a chimney appears to be missing on one of the elevations and he hoped the chimney has not been eliminated. He felt the project is in an emergency mode and staff has been trying to save it and move it forward. He stated he had never seen a project with so many conditions. He felt conditions should be for clean-up of a project, not a rework; and he thought so many conditions would mean that the Commission is opting out of its responsibility. He said he could not support the project at this time. Commissioner Tolstoy indicated he liked the elevations but did not feel confident that was what would be built. He stated that Burger King was moved from Foothill Boulevard because it was first proposed to be located dght next to the historic Klusman house on the site and the Commission felt there needs to be room around the house and a driveway should not be at the house. He thought that the parking area immediately south of the Klusman House should be eliminated. He stated that the Klusman House is an important historic structure and he did not want it to be emasculated by having parking or a building too close. Commissioner Tolstoy thought the Burger King could possibly be located on Foothill Boulevard closer to the intersection. Mr. Buller observed that there had been a Pre-Application Review with the Burger King located near the intersection but it required a vadance because the plan violated minimum setbacks of the Foothill Specific Plan. Commissioner Tolstoy stated the moving of Burger King to Vineyard Avenue was one of the first comments from the Commissioners and had nothing to do with the appointment of new Planning Commissioners. He reiterated that he liked the renderings but noted that many of the 48 separate conditions from the Planning Division require Planning Division review and approval, so he felt it was not really known what the City will get. He thought the issues should be resolved before the Commission approves the project. He did not feel it was fair for the applicant's engineer to make the statement that the Foothill Boulevard drain should be located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard without calculations to show that the drain could be located on the north side. He did not think that question could be answered tonight. Commissioner McNiel concurred with the chronology of events with respect to moving Burger King from Foothill Boulevard to Vineyard Avenue. He recalled that Burger King was not moved closer to the comer because it crowded the activity center. He acknowledged the project has been in process a long time but said that progress has been slow because there have always been loose ends. He agreed that the renderings are nice, but commented that the renderings for the McDonalds located 'at the southeast corner of Base Line Road and Carnelian Street had been very nice and he was Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 1997 unhappy with the constructed results. He expressed concerns about the drainage and the use of earthen berms, noting that it is unknown when, or if, Phase Two will occur. He stated he did not feel comfortable enough to approve the project. Commissioner Macias felt the City needs to do a better job of making sure applicants understand that DRC concentrates on design and approval by the Committee does not guarantee approval of a project. He noted that DRC approval does not preclude new issues. He observed he did not say he would support the project, merely that he liked the design and the way the corner looks. He felt the design of the building will be complimentary to the rest of the City. He expressed concem about Phase Two and thought a master plan for the entire site should be considered. He agreed with Commissioner McNiel regarding drainage. He noted there is a question of when Phase Two will be constructed and said he wished he could see Phase One in the total context of the site. He took exception to the notion that new Planning Commissioners changed the location of the Burger King. He observed that he had personally been involved in four to five meetings where the Commissioners requested information and the information was provided in a piecemeal fashion. He remarked that he had never seen an architect for the project. He agreed with Commissioner Bethel that staff had bent over backwards to expedite the project, but felt efforts have been unsuccessful. Chairman Barker asked if there had ever been any other project with this many conditions. Mr. Buller conceded that there is more being deferred on this project than on others. He remarked that pad buildings are generally not processed ahead of major tenants for a center. He said staff had tried to determine if there is adequate room for parking the square footage envisioned. He acknowledged that the biggest piece of the puzzle is not shown. Chairman Barker said he felt like he had seen the project forever. He admitted he was anxious to move the project forward because he liked the way the corner is shown. He thought all the deferred steps and conditions are proof that staff had gone out of its way to make the project work and he felt the effort was laudatory. He agreed with the other Commissioners that is not the most comfortable way of processing. He thought the drainage issue should have been worked out before the project reached the Commission and did not feel the Commission could comfortably make a decision to move the drain within Foothill Boulevard. Mr. Buller stated that the applicant's engineer had pointed out that the storm drain pipe in Foothill Boulevard is to be constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. He thought the condition gives the City Engineer the ability to consider what the applicant had proposed. Chairman Barker summarized that Commissioner Bethel was concerned about the large number of unresolved issues, Commissioner Tolstoy expressed concern about what the project will look like because of the large number of conditions, Commissioner Macias questioned what Phase Two will be like and thought a master plan should be required, and Commissioner McNiel was troubled by the temporary earthen berms and the loose ends and endless series of questions. Commissioner McNiel remarked that most of the issues that were before the Commission had been discussed countless times and there were still questions and no resolution. He thought staff had gone way beyond what is normally done to move the project forward. He said that if the project were approved, he wanted to go on record that the conditions were etched in stone and not subject to negotiation or relaxation by staff. Commissioner Macias noted that many conditions were subject to City Planner or City Engineer discretion. He asked what would happen if the issues could not be resolved with the applicant. Mr. Buller replied that the City Planner or City Engineer could forward the matter up to the Commission or the applicant could appeal any decision to the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 1997 Commissioner Macias asked if unresolved issues would always come back before the Commission. Mr. Buller responded affirmatively. Commissioner Macias asked what the applicant would gain if the project were approved at this time. Mr. Buller indicated that normally the Commission would know the architectural and landscaping theme before approving a project. He noted that the Commission was being asked tonight to approve two very different buildings on a parcel that contains a third historic building. He said that on most projects, better guidelines are established so that they can guide future tenants with regard to design and direction. He noted that the applicant must resolve many issues prior to pulling the first building permit. Chairman Barker asked if it would be fair and accurate to say that the City would be entering into an agreement that the applicant can pull permits if he meets all the conditions. Mr. Buller observed that many of the conditions have milestones that prevent the applicant from progressing beyond a certain point without meeting the conditions. He said this provides safeguards. He confirmed the number of conditions was beyond what the Commission had accepted in the past. Commissioner Bethel felt the Commission was being asked to approve a process rather than a project. Mr. Buller observed that the City would be getting improvements to Foothill Boulevard consistent with the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, including curb, gutter, sidewalks, and an activity center. He said those were features that will improve Foothill Boulevard. He acknowledged that normally pad buildings are deferred and not put in first. Commissioner Macias stated the process had not been the best but he acknowledged that Mr. Bullet had made an excellent point about improvements that would be made to the corner. He thought approval may be a way of spoon-feeding the applicant to get what the City requires under the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. Chairman Barker questioned if a condition should be added that the project would return to the Commission if agreements are not reached. He said he did not want to dump a bunch of problems on the City Council. Commissioner Bethel observed that the majority of the conditions call for City Planner approval and he felt the Commission was dumping its responsibility on staff and setting a precedent for future projects. He asked if the next project would have 49 Planning Division conditions. Commissioner Tolstoy said he would like to get a consensus on the parking located south of the Klusman House. He preferred that a planter strip be placed in the area. Mr. Buller observed that there is more than ample parking for Phase One without including that strip of parking. He suggested requesting that the applicant landscape the area and forward a plan for how it will be designed in the future, subject to approval of DRC. Commissioner Macias stated he could not support the project because there were still too many outstanding issues. Commissioner McNiel observed that if the Commission approved the project at this time, it would be approving two buildings within Phase One of the project. He said the Commission still had not Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 1997 seen the other buildings to be included with Phase One, but the applicant could pull grading permits and building permits for those two buildings. Mr. Bullet confirmed that was correct. He pointed out that Planning Condition 5 requires the applicant to submit a concept for the design of the other buildings and said it is to the applicant's benefit to provide such a design guideline supplement. He reported that Terra Vista has design guidelines for pad buildings and staff is able to turn around such buildings in four to six weeks. He noted that this project has different architecture on different buildings and felt it will be hard to write the design guidelines. He stated there is no unifying theme other than heritage architecture. Commissioner Tolstoy said he would be more comfortable having those design guidelines before approving the project. Chairman Barker remarked that Commissioner Bethel had said he would like to see most of the issues resolved before approving the project. He asked if Commissioner Tolstoy agreed with that approach. Commissioner Tolstoy indicated he did. Commissioner Macias said he did not feel a lot of confidence with this project because there are too many unresolved matters, He observed numerous conditions deal with large issues. He felt uncomfortable with approving the project at this time. Commissioner McNiel wished the project were built. He stated he likes the Rodriguez family and said he wished he could approve the project for them but he was concerned that the City is only ending up with a Burger King. He asked if Phase One would include the activity center, street improvements, and storm drains in Foothill Boulevard. Mr. Buller confirmed that it would. Commissioner McNiel said he saw those improvements as good for the city but he did not think the project is ready for approval. Chairman Barker said it appeared the Commission was heading toward denial. Mr. Bullet stated that if the Commissioners did not feel there was enough evidence to support the project, staff would request the project be continued to the next meeting to allow time to prepare a resolution of denial. He suggested the resolution of approval could also return to the Commission at that same meeting in case the Commissioners felt there had been some progress in resolving the issues. Chairman Barker said he was hearing concern about a number of issues. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated the hearing should be reopened and the matter continued to March 11, 1997. Chairman Barker reopened the public hearing and continued Conditional Use Permit 95-25 to March 11, 1997, to allow staff to prepare a resolution of denial. The Planning Commission recessed from 8:45 p.m. to 8:53 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 1997 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: February 26, 1997 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Steve Hayes, AICP, Associate Planner 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-.~pplication 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) 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. D. 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 11,030 PHASE ONE TOTAL 21,478 Number of Number of Parking Spaces Spaces Ratio Required Provided 1/75 39 1/100 55 1/100 20 1/250 44 158 230 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: 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 Intedm Design Policies for drive-thru facilities established by the Planning Commission. The building and drive-thru lane is set back 45 feet from the ultimate face of curb along Vineyard Avenue and a combination of low walls and landscaping is proposed to completely screen activity in the drive-thru lane from view of Vineyard Avenue. The vehicular circulation pattern proposed for the Burger King is similar to that utilized at the Taco Bell at the southeast corner of Highland and Milliken Avenues; the drive aisle directly adjacent to the Burger King is proposed to be one-way so that traffic does not overflow into the main driveway entrance off Vineyard Avenue. In order to make it more obvious that this drive aisle is intended to be one way for southbound traffic PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ February 26, 1997 Page 3 only, on-site directory signage and painted arrows on the asphalt will be used to properly direct customers to the drive-thru lane, the parking spaces lining the adjacent drive aisle have been angled at 45 degrees, and the planter islands at the south end of the drive aisle have been expanded by using rolled curbing and turf-block, thus narrowing the width of the access to the main east/west drive aisle at this location. The proposed Master Plan includes a 41,250 square foot major tenant (i.e. a supermarket) and shop buildings totaling approximately 13,750 square feet. These buildings are shown south of and adjacent to the main east/west drive aisle with the main entrances facing the field of parking north of the buildings. On the south side of these buildings are potential loading docks with service drive areas for large vehicles. The. Master Plan is not being considered at this time and is conceptual only. Design Review Committee: The Design Review Committee reviewed this item on numerous occasions as courtesy reviews prior to staff deeming the application complete. Most recently, the project was reviewed by the Committee (Bethel, Coleman) on February 18, 1997. The Committee determined that the applicant had not submitted the previously requested Roof Plan for Burger King nor provided sufficient information to explain the roof equipment. The applicant also wasn't sure whether the chimney element was to remain or if it was no longer functional and would be removed. The applicant indicated that his architect was not cooperating in providing plans. The Committee did not recommend approval and asked the applicant to provide plans and answer a number of specific questions regarding roof equipment, prior to tonight's meeting. Technical Review Committee: On January 2, 1997, the Technical Review Committee reviewed the project and determined that, with the recommended special and standard Conditions of Approval, the project is consistent with all applicable standards and ordinances. Grading Committee: The project was reviewed on several occasions by the Grading Committee but was rejected each time for incomplete plans and drainage problems. Most recently, the project was reviewed by the Grading Committee on February 18, 1997. The applicant chose to drain approximately two-thirds of the site to a drainage facility at the southwest corner of 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. 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 I 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" Exhibit "B" Exhibit "B-2" - Exhibit "C" Exhibit "D" - Exhibit "E" - Exhibit "F" Exhibit "F-I" - Exhibit "F-2" - Exhibit "F-3" - thru "F-5" Exhibit "G" - Exhibit "H" - Exhibit "1" - Exhibit "J" - Exhibit "K" - Exhibit "L" Exhibit "M" Resolution Site Utilization Phase One Site Plan Master Plan Phasing Plan Conceptual Landscape Plan Conceptual Grading Plan Building Elevations (Burger King) Roof Screen Alternatives Burger King Roof Plan Burger King Roof Equipment Plans dated Feb. 4, 18, & 20, 1997, consecutively Building Elevations (Restaurant) Design Review Committee Comments Initial Study, Part II Pre-Application Review 93-04 Minutes Pre-Application Review 95-04 Minutes - Project Chronology - Photographs of Site of Approval with Conditions UT'I L/ ZATiON HAP ,.-I ........... !_J..LU.LJ..LI.I.!.I I I I I I I ! I w Z boulevard / / / " . !::-':::Z..,J.,I ~ i~:::;' /~:::: ::::t::i: :~:~:::: 't .:: '~' ,I~ ';'"'~ ."~ .... :=::-,-.. ....... ~ i .--:~:..: ::::~:.:: :;:~:::: ~-~:~~~~ k~ ~ ,I. ~::: .... t ........; ....I--; ..... ~ . i I . h:: ....t ........,~ ....:N:::: :~~~~ ~~~ N~'~-I'~ I~ P::----i- ......+~:- :~:T::: :~~~~'~ ~~~.....~ ~,;. ~ .... :::!::: ::':~ ..... ,~ ...... : ~ ~ , ~--';~ ~, = I '[::::. ' 't _ : ~ : ~ ~-I ..... ~lE~~"' r ....~ ....r .........~ ~-~-~i-i-- ,. ~ .......: .....;'"'-'&",~ ,, ~:---~; .....~ ~ .....~ ., ,., ... ~ - ----~,~ "1~-::: ~I ~ ~l i ......... ' ', I~ i::::~', .~~ ~ .......... ~ .......L~_ ............] . , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~,1 ~ I~::::P ~ ~ ...............i~ ~ ~ ~~~1 '~:::: / I ' ~"~:' :1 iI ~:: ........Y"T~:t ........................:~ ...........................................................11LLllil I I I I I I ! I ,.~.... :~..: ~~~~~~.~ J ,j, SITE PLAN f:,)th~11 bo~Jlevord ~ 'i CONCEPTUAl IANDSCAPF PIANI~ iiI _1. ~JI H"fE)RO~OGY DATA [- 0 Z 'i , , i DINING DRIVE lx_D~ ~ THRU WI ~, KIT 18.5t 41'-6' ROOF EQUIPMENT PLAN DINING WINDOW RECEIVED FEB 2 0 '1997 City of Rancho Cucamonga PJanning 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 (FBSP) 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. The Klusman House is designated as a Local Landmark. The exterior of the house has been improved over the past few years and many improvements were made to the interior to accommodate commercial uses. As a local landmark, staff believes that the site should be designed to "show oft" 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 visibil~ 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 cota 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 entry. 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 Planner: Steve Hayes The Committee directed the applicant to work with staff to revise the Site Plan to address the following 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. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 5:40 p.m. Steve Hayes September 3, 1996 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-25 - RODR/GUEZ - 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 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 parking south and west of the restaurants has been modified to a more standard configuration, without the pedestrian pathway that leads to the future Master Planned shopping center. The applicant has made these revisions in an attempt to address previous concerns of the Planning Commission and Design Review Committee without significantly modifying the Site Plan. However, it has been requested by members of the Planning Commission and Design Review Committee in the past to relocate the Burger King away from the Activity Center. Therefore, the Committee should determine if the setback modifications are significant enough to allow the applicant to move forward 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 viewSlied 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. o To accentuate the Klusman House, the formal landscape/hardscape treatment used for the Activity Center should extend from the public sidewalk to the house entry. Pedestrian amenities (benches, a fountain, etc.) could be incorporated into the hardscape area. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. A decorative cap should be provided on all screen and retaining walls throughout the project. 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 approval of the project to the Planning Commission. However, if the Committee still feels that the location of the two new buildings should be modified, then the Committee should recommend that the applicant make the appropriate changes and resubmit the project for further Committee review. Attachments DRC AGENDA CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ September 3, 1996 Page 3 Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Rich Macias, Larry McNiel, Brad 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. o 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 ifa drive-thru restaurant is to be located within this project that consideration should be given to locating it either west of the project entry on Foothill Boulevard or south of the project entry on Vineyard Avenue. The Committee indicated they were willing to consider a third alternative which swapped the Burger King and Zendejas pads subject to suitable site plan analysis. The Committee requested site plan alternatives for their review. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 5:15 p.m. Steve Hayes December 3, 1996 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ - A request to construct a 2,900 square foot drive-thru facility and a 5,548 square foot restaurant on 3.7 acres of land in the Community Commercial designation of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the southwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-211-12 and 13. 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 away from the pedestrian Activity Center area. Comments from the September 3rd and May 14th Design Review Committee meetings as well as the October 25, 1995 Planning Commission Pre-Application Review meeting have been attached for your convenience. The purpose oftonight's meeting is to review the revised Site Plan prepared by the applicant to determine if it is in compliance with past recommendations of the Planning Commission and Design Review 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 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 main entrance driveway from Foothill Boulevard should align with a focal point (i.e., tower element on Major Anchor, plaza, major landscape element, etc.). Do The Master Plan does not indicate that sufficient parking is being provided for Phase II at ultimate build out. The distribution of parking 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 entry. The new Site Plan layout shows 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 with 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 stacking 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 Committee. 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 berming in addition to the elements already provided. Secondarv 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. 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 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. The Burger King restaurant trash enclosure should be relocated to a place where it would not have as high of potential to interfere with vehicular circulation. DRC COMMENTS CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ December 3, 1996 Page 3 Significant screening of the site should be provided along the southern property line to screen the proposed parking lot, as well as any future loading and unloading areas from view of the residentially zoned land to the south. The offset 4-way intersection on-site near the northernmost Vineyard Avenue vehicular access location to the project should be modified to that the offset is eliminated. The driveway throat for the southernmost vehicular access to Vineyard Avenue should be elongated to avoid blockage of parked vehicles related to stacking of cars leaving the site. 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 Review 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 Plan~ consistent with the revised Site Plan. Requested revisions to the Site Plan are as follows: The Master Plan should be revised to reflect that the shopping center as a whole meets the minimum parking requirements of the City. The pedestrian connection from the Activity 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 ~ .~, 1996 Page 4 The parking and vehicular circulation around the Burger King building should be revised as follows: ao The drive aisle immediately west of the Burger King should be made for one-way travel only (southerly) and the southern end of the drive aisle should be enhanced to discourage any northbound traffic by necking down the width of its access by extending the planter south of the entrance to the drive-thru lane. b. Turf block and a rolled curb should be used in the planter extension area. Special paving should be provided in a raised manner in the drive aisle between planters and in the two locations where the pedestrian spine crosses the drive-thru lane. do The parking spaces should be angled accordingly on both sides of the drive aisle west of Burger King to promote the one-way traffic scheme. Signage should be 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 north/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 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 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 project, west of the "Not-a-Part" parcel. DRC COMMENTS CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ December 30, 1996 Page 2 The applicant desires to have all other applicable comments related to the Master Plan from the attached December 3, 1996 Design Review Comments placed as recommended Conditions of Approval for the project. BURGER KING: The following issues should be discussed regarding the development around the proposed Burger King building: The parking and vehicular circulation around the Burger King building has been revised consistent with the direction of the Design Review Committee, as follows: ao 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. Secondary and Policy Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary and policy design issues: Reduce height of the Zendejas wall sign on the east elevation, measures 48 inches. In situations like this, where building is at setback line, the Commission has limited signs to 18 inches. Further, the Commission has reserved 48 inch high letters for major anchor tenants. All applicable secondary design comments (comments 1-5 from the attached December 3, 1996 comments) and all applicable policy design issues are recommended to be placed as Conditions of Approval for the project. The applicant has agreed to this direction. DRC COMMENTS CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ December 30, 1996 Page 3 Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that, if the Committee generally finds the revised Site Plan and building elevations acceptable, that the 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: 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 north/south pedestrian link on both sides of the main driveway entrance off Foothill Boulevard. Increase the width of the landscape planters at each end of two pedestrian links. Provide tree wells with tree grates along the two pedestrian links. d. Revise Master Plan to address any technical issues. 2. Burger King. Provide 45 degree parking stalls for the parking bay (double loaded parking spaces with a drive aisle) located west of Burger King building. Provide a double white or yellow line to show two lanes for one way direction. One lane is to be signed for the drive-thru lane. The row of parking spaces immediately west of the building should be striped for handicap spaces and a loading zone. Provide landscaping to the "dead" space at the ends of rows of the angled parkang spaces. Show location of direction signs for the drive-thru lane. Provide additional architectural treatment to the south and west elevations. Examples of architectural treatment are but not limited to recessed areas with metal trellis and vines, additional windows, surface treatment to the building plane, etc. Consider reducing the height of the parapet wall and the chimney, and design them to be more integrated with the building design. d. Reduce the size of the proposed signs. DRC COMMENTS CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ Page 4 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 COMMENTS 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 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. 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 13e 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 ~nd 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 REVIEW COlVfiM~NTS 8:30 p.m. Steve Hayes February 4, 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 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 from 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 grading 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 Design 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 or C. The Committee did not recommend approval and requested the applicant to address the following, prior to the Planning Commission meeting: Submit a Roof Plan for Burger King. Submit revised elevations for Burger King which correct all inconsistencies. 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. City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND '1. Project File: CUP 95-25 2. Related Files: Pre-Application Review 95-04 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) 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 o 10. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Contact Person and Phone Number: Steve Hayes (909) 477-2750 Other agencies whose approval is required: Caltrans, San Bernardino County Flood Control District 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. (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 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. () 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. Signed: "'~"'~Br r,~~~~~ ~ r 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 Significant Impact Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incomorated Impact Impact USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal.' Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Issues and Supporting Information Sources: POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? Potentially Significent Impact Less Potentially Un!ess Than Significanl Mitigation Signif'~..ant No Impact Incorlx~aled Impact Impact () () () (x) () () () (x) () () () (x) Initial Study for CUP 95-25 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 4 Issues and Supporting Infon'nation Sources: GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS, Wou/d the proposa/ resu/t in or expose peop/e to potentia/ impacts invo/ving: a) b) c) d) e) 0 g) h) i) Fault rupture? Seismic ground shaking? Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? Seiche hazards? Landslides or mudflows? Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? Subsidence of the land? Expansive soils? Unique geologic or physical features? Potentially Significant Iml~act Potentially Significant Impact Less Unless Than Mitigation Significant Inco~orated Im13act () (x) () () () (x) () () () (x) () () () () () (x) () () () (x) () () () () (x) () () () () () () () No Impact () (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. 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? f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? Potentially Signif-~ant Impact Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact () () (x) () () () (x) () () () () (x) () () () (x) () () () (x) () () (x) () () () () (x) () () () (x) () () () (x) Comments: a-b) The proposed project will result in changes to the absorption rates, drainage patterns or the rate and amount of surface water runoff through increases in developed area, buildings, and paved areas. The project will result in a surface water runoff of Q~0o=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. Issues ~d $UplX~ting Informalio~ Sources: AIR QUALITY. a) b) c) d) Potentially Significant Impact Less PotentiallyUnless Then SignilK:antMitigetio~'~SignificantNo Impact Incot'porate~Impacl Impact Would the proposal: Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) Comments: a) The project will generate vehicle trips, as well as car idling in the drive-thru lane, which will contribute air pollutants. The City's General Plan EIR and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan EIR address the short term and long term cumulative impacts of traffic upon air quality. b) The land to the south is planned for residential and the land to the east is developed with residential condominiums. There are no schools, hospitals or convalescent home facilities nearby. The City's General Plan EIR and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan EIR address the shod 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, padiculady 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 Would the Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Signifioant Impact Less Unless Than Mitigation Significant Incorl:~orated Impact No Imoact () (x) () () () (x) () () (x) () () (x) () () (x) 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)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ( ) ( ) ( ) (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 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.)? Potentially Significant Impac~ Less PotentiallyUnless Than Signit'mantMitigation Signif'mantNo Impact IncorporatedImpact Impact () () () (x) () () () (x) Initial Study for CUP 95-25 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, dparian and vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? Potentially Signif'mant Impact City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 8 Potentially Significant Impact Less Unless Than Mitigation Signif'~-.ant Incorporated Imoact No Impact () () () (x) () () () (x) () () () (x) Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Signif'~,ant Impact 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 Significant Impact Less Unless Than Mitigation Significant Incorporated ImDact No Imoact () () (x) () () (x) () () (x) 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? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? Potentially Significent Iml)act Po{enbally Significant Impact Less Unless Than Mitigation Signif'merit Inco~oorated Impact No Impact () () () (x) () () () (x) () () () (x) () () () (x) Initial Study for CUP 95-25 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 9 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Unless Than Mitigation Significant Incorporated Impact No Impact () () () (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 Significant I~rated Impact () (x) () () () (x) () No Impact 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 Ldn, 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 Suppod'ting 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 Signif'mant Impact · City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 10 Potentially Signifyant Impact Less Unless Than Mitigation Significant Incore,orated Impact No Irnpact () () () (x) () () () (x) () () () (x) () () () (x) () () () (x) 12. Issues and Suppo~ling Information Sources: UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) b) c) d) e) 0 g) Power and natural gas? Communication systems? Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? Sewer or septic tanks? Storm water drainage? Solid waste disposal? Local or regional water supplies? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Signif'manl Impact Less Unless Than Mitigation S~gnificant No Incaqx~ated Impact Impact () () () (x) () () () (x) () () () (x) () () () (x) () () () (x) () () () (x) () () () (x) 13. Issues and SupporUng In~o,'ma~ion Sources: AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? Potentially Signir~mt Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Unless Than Mitigation Significant Incof33ocated Impact No Impact () () () (x) Initial Study for CUP 95-25 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 11 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? c) Create light or glare? Comments: Potentially Significant Impact Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Imoact Impact () () () (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 Supporling Informalion 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: Potentialh/ Signify. ant Impact Less Potentially Unless Than Sig nit'~.,ant Mitigation Signify. ant No Impact Inco~oraled Impact Impac~ () () () (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. Poterltia~l;r Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Signit. ic~.qt Iml~act RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 12 Potentially Signif'~,,ant Impact Less Unless Than Mitigation Significant Incoqx)rated Impact No Impact () () (x) () () (x) 16. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Significant Impact 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 populaticn to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ( ) b) Short term: Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time. Long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) ( ) c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) . ( ) d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ( ) Potentially Signif'~,,.ant Impact Less Unless Than Mitigation Significant Incorporated Impact No Impact () () (x) () () (x) () (x) () () () (x) U.$.PROPERTI~S 714985~958 P.~I SENT BY: R CUCA~ONOA OOM DEV,; 2-1g-g7 3;30PU; gog 477 ~847 => 7149850950; #14/14 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonge Page 13 CUP 95-25 .... -. - - Corc!.. rpents: c) The pt0Je~t will generate b'affic. vehicle emissions, noise and light. These effects were analyzed by the City's General Plan EIR and Foolhill Boulevard Specific Plan EIR and were found to be not significant or were found to be significant but irreversible and a etatement of overriding consideration was adopted. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQ, A process, one o¢ more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Dectarstion per Section 15063(c)(3}(D), The effects identified above for this project were wilhin the scope of and adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant to applic,,able legal standardS, and such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The following earlier analyeas were utilized In completing this II'11tial Study and are available for review in the City of Rancho Cucai, rlonga, Planning Division offices, '10500 CivJo Center Drive (check all that apply): (x) General Plan EIR (Certified April 6, 1981) (x) Master Environmental Assessment for the 'I§SD General Plan Update (SCH ~8020115, carlifted January 4, 1989) (x) Foothill Boulevard S~e¢ific Plan fIR (SCH #87021615, certified September 16. 1987) APPLICANT CERTIFICATION I certify that I am the applicant for the project d~ibed in this Initial Study. I acknowledge that I have read this Initial Study and the proposed mitigation measures. Further, I have revised the pmjecJ plans or proposals and/or hereby agree to lhe proposed mitigation measures to avoid the effects or mitigate Ihe effects to a poi~ where cleatty no significant environmental effects would occur. Fax Note 7671 ' CO. Fax # ! ,l , 40' Scale: 1" = 40' ~ rrl ENCLOSURE 3 TRENCII LOCATION MAP (;ary S. Rusmussen & Associalcs, Inc. U.S. Pro~'rlies - Approximately IO Acres Rancho Cucamonga, Calilbmia Project No. 3233,1 I.cgcnd ~ ~ Trench and surveyed lalh ' +: :.~:~ Recommended Reslri¢lcd Use Zo.c I~,otmdary of Rancho (~ucantouga /"~"J~ .Ni)ccial ~ludic's (;cology by I"FJ I)ral'lcd by I'AG I"el)ruary 19, 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 Bullet, 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 - APN: 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 Melther felt the site plan is beautiful, however, "probably not workable because of the lack of visibility from Foothill Boulevard to the main tenant. He thought the Klusman House should have a more enhanced setting to the south which would create a more appealing sense of entry into the building. He also felt that the parking along the west side of the main building would be virtually worthless. Commissioner 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. He also felt the parking along the rear could provide a buffer to the residential area to the south, but would probably not be used. He cited the example of the NuWest center at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Hellman Avenue as a similar condition. 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 ADJOURN)tENT The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Secretary P C Workshop Minutes April 14, 1993 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting October 25, 1995 Chairman Barker called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga 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: PRESENT: David Barker, Heinz Lumpp, Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no announcements. NEW BUSINESS 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 ~hich 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 Klusman 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 Klusman House. Commissioner Lumpp stated that if Burger King had to be located on Foothill Boulevard, the building should be on the west side of the Foothill entry, as suggested by Commissioner McNiel. He felt the architecture was acceptable, although he believed Burger King should be designed more consistent with the Klusman House. He noted some elements of the Burger King drive-thru design are consistent with the direction being taken by the Planning 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 activity center to share seating with the other restaurant. He noted the drive-thru lane is however in conflict with the activity center goal of pedestrian orientation. He agreed relocating Burger King to the Vineyard frontage may be a good alternative. He thought the angled parking arrangement provided by the applicant is not workable. PC Adjourned Minutes ~~-2- October 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 that 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 Klus~an House and the Burger King was intentional in order to set the two structures apart rather than trying to blend them together. Chairman Barker asked the Commissioners to address the setback deficiency questions. Commissioner 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 tom that criteria. He observed that if the Planning Cow~ission 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 Buller, City Planner, recapped the Commission's discussions. He stated that Burger King was not acceptable 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 COMMENTS PC Adjourned Minutes October 25, 1995 There were no public comments. COMMISSION 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 -4- 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. February13,1996- 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 May 14, 1996- Sept. 3, 1996 - Sept. 9,1996- November 7, 1996 December 3, 1996 - December 5, 1996 - December 30, 1996 - Application scheduled for courtesy review (application still incomplete) for Grading Committee, DRC and TRC on May 1, 1996. These items were continued for two weeks at the request of the applicant, who made his request on April 29, 1996. Application receives courtesy review by all three Committees (TRC on May 15, 1996). All three Committees provide specific direction regarding revisions to plans and any other issues and recommend that the applicant revise plans and have project return to Committees once deemed complete. Application again reviewed on courtesy basis by Grading and Design Review Committees. Previous direction regarding major site planning issues (first passed on at the 10/25/95 Pre-Application Review) still not addressed and DRC reinterated these concerns. Staff prepares third incompleteness letter to remind applicant of all outstanding completeness items and other technical and design related issues, including need for $350 deposit to have geology study reviewed, first requested on 3/28/96. Staff receives check to review Geology study. Geologist selected and information mailed to geologist on 11/24/96. Other incompleteness items from 9/9/96 letter still not addressed. Application again reviewed on courtesy basis (still incomplete) for third time by DRC. Major site planning issues starting to be selectively addressed by applicant, but embellishments necessary to Master Plan and area around proposed tenants which require furtrier review of Committee. Staff receives comments from our Geologist and FAXes comments to applicant and original geologist same day. (As of 1/17/97, staff has yet to receive revisions from original geologist thereby making application still incomplete). Application reviewed on a courtesy basis again (Still incompleteness items) by DRC and Grading Committees (and TRC on 1/2/97). Site plan, Master Plan reviewed again by DRC. Some specific issues from 12/3/96 DRC meeting still not addressed regarding Master Plan. Architecture reviewed for first time, minor revisions requested and information needed from applicant before a recommendation of approval could be forwarded. Grading Committee deems plans incomplete and requests additional information previously asked for on May 14, 1996. Applicant states that modifications to plans can be made in sufficent time to allow staff, Grading Committee and DRC members to review for 1/14/ F\\% . 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 revelveal 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. January 21, 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 - Applicant returned call and said that the grading plan would be here by tomorrow (1/29). January 30, 1997 - Grading Plan finally received. February4,1997- Project reviewed by DRC and Grading Committee. Neither Committee recommends approval; addittional information previously requested by both Committees not yet received. Despite this, staff still keeps item pre- scheduled for February 26th Planning Commission hearing. Staff informs applicant of opportunity to review project at the February 18th Grading Committee and DRC meeting. Staff gives applicant submittal deadline of February 12th for additional information. February5,1997- Staff writes DRC follow-up letter to the previous days meeting, which includes final submittal deadlines for additional information needed for Planning Commission meeting. February 12, 1997 - Staff calls applicant regarding status x>f requested submittal information. Not received by end of day. February13,1997- Staff receives DRC information and revised Grading Plan in early afternoon. Final submittal requirements for Planning Commission not received, even though due on this date. February18,1997- 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 LOCATION MAP RECEIVED 1996 C.U.P. 95-25 15049 15009 City o~ Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division G 8 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 o 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 February 26, and continued to March 11, March 26, April 23, and May 14, 1997, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on the latter 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, March 11, March 26, April 23, and May 14, 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 part 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 May 14, 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, vadous 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 Klusman 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 May 14, 1997 Page 3 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF MAY 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 14th day of May 1997, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES:, COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 95-25, A MASTER PLAN FOR A SHOPPING CENTER, INCLUDING A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A 2,900 SQUARE FOOT DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT AND A 5,548 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT, ON 8.9 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 THROUGH 15, 38, AND 40. 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 February 26, and continued to March 11, March 26, April 23, and May 14, 1997, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on the latter date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public headng on Februa~ 26, March 11, March 26, Apd123, and May 14, 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 comer of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue with a Foothill Boulevard street frontage of approximately 844 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 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ May 14, 1997 Page 2 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 f. The application indicates Phase Two of the Conceptual Master Plan as being the balance of the 3.7 acre site and includes a 41,250 square foot major tenant, such as a supermarket, and approximately 13,750 square feet of shops space. This portion of the development will also be required to be processed through a separate development review application(s) in the future. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. b. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. c. The proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral 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 COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ May 14, 1997 Page 3 Planning Division 1) Any modifications to the proposed Phasing Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. 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. 2) 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. 3) 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. 4) 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 prior to the issuance of any building permits for Phase One construction, as shown on the Phasing Plan. 5) A portion of the amenities within the on-site pedestrian Activity Center area shall be completed with Phase One development. 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, and the proposed phasing of improvements, 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. 6) The design and location of the required bus shelter shall require review and approval of the City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits. 7) The following trees shall be at least 36-inch box size: a) Trees framing the main focal point; b) Entry access trees framing the main drive aisles throughout the project; and c) On-site Activity Center trees at the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue. The final landscape and irrigation design of the l O-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. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ May 14, 1997 Page 4 8) 9) 10) 12) 13) 14) 15) 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. Two works of art shall be placed; one at the Activity Center at the corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue and one at the terminus of the main driveway from Foothill Boulevard in front of the Major Tenant. The art piece at the Activity Center shall be installed within 180 days after the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for either building in Phase One, whichever occurs first. The Art piece at the terminus of the main driveway in front of the Major Tenant shall be installed prior to occupancy of the Major Tenant. The property owner and/or trustee shall be responsible to maintain the two art work focal elements for the life of this commercial center. Public telephones shall be placed inside the building. Placement of outside public telephones may be allowed and shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to installation. Placement of newspaper racks on-site shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to installation. Any outdoor displays of merchandise shall be limited to specific areas that will be considered as pad 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. A decorative cap shall be provided on all screen walls and retaining walls. 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. 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 o~ild~permits for Phase One development. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ May 14, 1997 Page 5 16) 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. 17) 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. 18) 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. 19) The parking area along the south properly line shall be set back a minimum of 15 feet from the southerly property line, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. The landscape palette along the southerly property line shall be selected as to provide a dense landscape buffer between the shopping center and any future development on the vacant residentially zoned parcel to the south, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 20) 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 denote 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 attached Exhibit "1"). 21) 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. 22) 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. 23) 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. 24) Revise the 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. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ May 14, 1997 Page 6 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 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 the pedestrian corridor. The right-of-way dimensions are subject to Caltrans approval during Technical Plan Review. 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 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, prior 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. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ May 14, 1997 Page ? 9) 10) 11) 12) 13) 14) 15) 16) 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 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. A cash contribution in lieu of construction towards one-fourth the cost of construction of special pavers within the Foothill BoulevardNineyard Avenue intersection shall be paid to the City, prior to the issuance of building permits and shall be based on the calculated amount as determined for the project located on the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue. 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. 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. 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. "No Parking/Stopping" signs shall be posted along the frontages of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue. The proposed project is draining 70 to 80 percent of the site to the southwest corner and conveying the drainage flows directly into Cucamonga Creek Drainage Channel. San Bernardino County Flood Control Distdct approval and permit is required, prior to the issuance of a building permit. The connections shall be sized to accommodate the drainage for the whole site in its ultimate condition. Since this is a sump condition, a secondary overflow is required. The sump condition shall pond a depth of water no greater than 18 inches. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ May 14, 1997 Page 8 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 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. 0 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. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ May 14, 1997 Page 9 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. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF MAY 1997. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAM©NGA 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 14th day of May 1997, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: fO,)thdl boulevard NOT CONCEPTUAl I_ANDSCAPF F J~ Z COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CON DITIONS PROJECT#: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: Conditional Use Permit 95-25 Master Plan for a Shopping Center Gil Rodriguez, Jr. Southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and 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 Limits Completion Date 1. Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, if building permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 24 months from the date of approval. 2. 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 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include __1__1__ site plans, amhitectural elevations, extedor materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, Development Code regulations, and the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. 2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions __1__1__ of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 3. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and __1__1 State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Division to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. 4. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. SC - 5197 Project No. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the time of building permit issuance. A detailed on-site lighting plan, including a photometric diagram, shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and Police Department (477-2800) prior to the issuance of building permits. Such plan shall indicate style, illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties. Trash receptacle(s) are required and shall meet City standards. The final design, locations, and the number of trash receptacles shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 10. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination. 11. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall be submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and approved prior to the issuance of building permits. 12. The project contains a designated Historical Landmark. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with Historic Landmark Alteration Permit No. 94-03. Any further modifications to the site including, but not limited to, extedor 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. 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. Shopping Centers A uniform hardscape and street furniture design 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 designs shall be submitted for Planning Division review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. Provide for the following design features in each trash enclosure, to the satisfaction of the City Planner: CUP 95-25 Comoletion Date / / / I / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / SC - 5/97 10. 11. SC-5~7 Project No. a. Architecturally integrated into the design of (the shopping center/the project). Separate pedestrian access that does not require the opening of the main doors and to include self-closing pedestrian doors. c. Large enough to accommodate two trash bins. d. Roll-up doors. e. Trash bins with counter-weighted lids. f. Architecturally treated overhead shade trellis. Chain link screen on top to prevent trash from blowing out of the enclosure and designed to be hidden from view. Trash collection shall occur between the hours of 9 a.m. and 10 p.m. only. Graffiti shall be removed within 24 hours. The entire site shall be kept free from trash and debris at all times and in no event shall trash and debris remain for more than 24 hours. Signs shall be conveniently posted for "no overnight parking" and for "employee parking only." All operations and businesses shall be conducted to comply with the following standards which shall be incorporated into the lease agreements for all tenants: Noise Level - All commercial activities shall not create any noise that would exceed an exterior noise level of 60 dB during the hours of 10 p.m. until 7 a.m. and 65 dB during the hours of 7 a.m. until 10 p.m. Loading and Unloading - No person shall cause the loading, unloading, opening, closing, or other handling of boxes, crates, containers, building materials, garbage cans, or other similar objects between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. unless otherwise specified herein, in a manner which would cause a noise disturbance to a residential area. 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 any combination thereof. Full samples shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. The Master Plan is approved in concept only. Future development for (each building pad/parcel) shall be subject to separate Development/Design Review process for Planning Commission approval. Modifications to the Shopping Center Master Plan shall be subject to Planning Commission approval. All future building pads shall be seeded and irrigated for erosion control. Detailed plans shall be included in the landscape and irrigation plans to be submitted for Planning Division approval prior to the issuance of building permits. The lighting fixture design shall compliment the architectural program. It shall include the plaza area lighting fixtures, building lighting fixtures (exterior), and parking lot lighting fixtures. CUP g5-25 Completion Date / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / Project No, 12. The design of store fronts shall compliment the architectural program and shall have subtle variations subject to Design Review Committee approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 13. All future projects within the shopping center shall be designed to be compatible and consistent with the architectural program established. 14. Any outdoor vending machines shall be recessed into the building faces and shall not extend into the pedestrian walkways. The design details shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits. 15. Cart corrals shall be provided for temporary storage. 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. 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. E. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans) All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet and shall contain a 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. Warehouse distribution uses shall provide bicycle storage spaces at a rate of 2.5 percent on the required automobile parking spaces with a minimum of a 3-bike rack. In no case shall the total number of bicycle parking spaces required exceed 100. Where this results in a fraction of 0.5 or greater, the number shall be rounded off to the higher whole number. 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. CUP 95-25 Completion Date / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / ! / / / SC-5~7 4 Project No. CUP 95-25 ComlHetlon Date Trip Reduction 1. Transit improvements such as bus shelters, bus pullouts, and bus pads shall be provided. / / G. Landscaping A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in this case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. / / 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. / / o All private slopes of 5 feet or less in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope, but less than 2:1 slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for erosion control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. / / All private slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, 1-gallon or larger size shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope banks in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one 5-gallon or larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered 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 such as mounding, alluvial rock, specimen size trees, meandering sidewalks (with horizontal change), and intensified landscaping, is required along Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue per the Activity Center guidelines of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. / / SC - 5/97 Project No. 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. H. 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. I. Environmental Mitigation measures are required for the project. The applicant is responsible for the cost of implementing said measures, including monitoring and reporting. Applicant shall be required to post cash, letter of credit, or other forms of guarantee acceptable to the City Planner in the amount of $ to be determined , prior to the issuance of building permits, guaranteeing satisfactory performance and completion of all mitigation measures. These funds may be used by the City to retain consultants and/or pay for City staff time to monitor and report on the mitigation measures. Failure to complete all actions required by the approved environmental documents shall be considered grounds for forfeit. J. Other Agencies The applicant shall contact the U.S, Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location of mail boxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for mail boxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mail boxes and the design of the overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. APPLICANTS SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: K. Site Development The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of issuance of relative permits. Please contact the Building and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new commercial or industrial development or addition to an existing development, the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: Transportation Development Fee, Drainage Fee, School Fees, Permit and Plan Checking Fees. CUP 95-25 Completion Date / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / SC - 5/97 Project No. 3. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation and prior to issuance of building permits. L. Existing Structures 1. Existing sewage disposal facilities shall be removed, filled and/or capped to comply with the Uniform Plumbing Code and Uniform Building Code. 2. Underground on-site utilities are to be located and shown on building plans submitted for building permit application. M. Grading 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. 3. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, {909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Dedication and Vehicular Access 1. Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets (measured from street centerline): Please see Enaineering Division's Special Conditions in the Resolution. 2. 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. 4. Easements for public sidewalks and/or street trees placed outside the public right-of-way shall be dedicated to the City. 5. 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. O. Street Improvements 1. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: N. Street Name Foothill Blvd. Vineyard Ave. SC-5~7 Curb & A.C. Side- Drive Street Street Corem Median Bike Other Gutter Pvmt walk Appr. Lights Trees Trail Island Trail b v' ~' ,/ v' e 7 CUP 95-25 Completion Date / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / Project No. Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement reconstruction and ovedays will be determined dudrig plan check. (c) If so marked, sidewalk shall be curvilinear per STD. 114. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu of construction fee shall be provided for this item. (e) Activity Center. Improvement Plans and Construction: ao Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any other permits required. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR or any other locations approved by the City Engineer. Notes: (1) Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200 feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer. (2) Conduit shall be 3-inch (at intersections) or 2-inch (along streets) galvanized steel with pull rope or as specified. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards, except for single family residential lots. h. Street names shall be approved by the City Planner prior to submittal for first plan check. Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in accordance with the City's street tree program. A permit shall be obtained from Caltrans for any work within the following right-of-way: Foothill Boulevard. CUP 95-25 Completion Date / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / SC - 5~97 Project No. Public Maintenance Areas A separate set of landscape and irrigation plans per Engineering Public Works Standards shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. The following landscaped parkways, medians, paseos, easements, trails or other areas shall be annexed into the Landscape Maintenance District: Foothill Boulevard ('see Special Conditions). A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. All required public landscaping and irrigation systems shall be continuously maintained by the developer until accepted by the City. Parkway landscaping on the following street(s) shall conform to the results of the respective Beautification Master Plan: Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue ('Activity Center). Q. Drainage and Flood Control A permit from the San Bernardino County Flood Control District is required for work within its right-of-way. Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe measured from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk. Utilities Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas, electric power, telephone, and cable 'IV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility Standards. Easements shall be provided as required. 2. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the 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. S. 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: T. General Fire Protection Conditions 1. Fire flow requirement shall be 2,000 gallons per minute. SC - 5/97 A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department personnel prior to water plan approval. CUP 95-25 Coml)letlon Date / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / o 10. 11. Project No. b. For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional fire flow test of the on-site hydrants shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by the fire department personnel after construction and prior to occupancy. Fire hydrants are required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed and operable prior to delivery of any combustible building materials on site (i.e., lumber, roofing materials, etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire department personnel. Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided pdor to water plan approval. Required hydrants, if any, will be determined by the Fire District. Fire Distdct 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. 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. 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. Plan check fees in the amount of $() 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. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1994 UBC, UFC, UPC, UMC, NEC, and RCFD Standards 22 and 15. CUP 95-25 Coml~letion Date / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / SC-5~7 Project No. 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: V. 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. W. 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. X. Building Numbering 1. Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime visibility. Y. 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. CUP 95-25 Completion Date / / / / / / / / / / / ! / / / / / / sc. 5/97 11 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: May 14, 1997 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Steve Hayes, AICP, Associate Planner ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-02 - CARL KARCHER ENTERPRISES - A request to construct a 3,050 square foot quick-service restaurant with drive-thru on a 1.14 acre parcel within the Terra Vista Promenade Shopping Center, located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard, west of the extension of Masi Drive - APN: 227-151-44. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Vacant; Community Commercial South - Quick-service restaurant; Industrial Park (Subarea 7 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan) East Service station/mini-market (under construction); Community Commercial West Vacant; Community Commercial General Plan Designations: Project Site - Community Commercial North - Community Commercial South- Recreational Commercial East - Community Commercial West - Community Commercial Go Site Characteristics: The site is a rough graded and hydro seeded vacant pad within the Terra Vista Promenade shopping center. Landscape improvements within the public right-of- way have been completed. The site slopes gently from north to south at less than 2 percent. D. Parking Calculations: Number of Number of Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces of Use Footage Ratio Required Provided Quick-service restaurant 3,050 1/75 41 58 ANALYSIS: General: The applicant is proposing to construct a 3,050 square foot quick-service restaurant with drive-thru on the west side of the main entrance to the Terra Vista Promenade shopping center. The drive-thru lane is proposed to be screened by a dense shrub hedgerow and a 3-foot high stacked stone wall, the same material used in the fountain near the Foothill ITEH G PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 97-02 - CARL KARCHER May 14, 1997 Page 2 Boulevard/Rochester Avenue intersection. Overhead trellis structures, consistent with those used on the ARCO and Home Depot buildings within the shopping center, are proposed over the pick-up window and over walkways to provide an element of consistency in design with the other buildings in the shopping center. The general architectural concept is consistent with the Terra Vista Promenade Design Guidelines for satellite buildings. Design Review Committee: The Design Review Committee reviewed the project on three separate occasions. On April 15, 1997, the Committee (Macias, Bethel, Coleman) recommended approval with conditions, which have been incorporated into the attached Resolution of Approval. The Design Review Committee Action Comments from the three meetings (Exhibit "G") have also been attached for your convenience. Technical and Grading Review Committees: On March 19, 1997, the Technical Review Committee reviewed the project and determined that, together with the recommended Special and Standard Conditions of Approval, the project is consistent with all applicable standards and ordinances. The project was conceptually approved by the Grading Committee on March 18, 1997. Environmental Assessment: Since the original master plan indicated a quick-service restaurant of a similar size to the one proposed on this pad, staff determined that this project could not have any additional adverse environmental impacts than those analyzed under the environmental review for the shopping center and, therefore, no additional environmental review was deemed necessary. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property has been posted, and notices sent to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 97-02 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with Conditions. City Planner BB:SH/jfs Attachments: Exhibit"A"- Vicinity Map Exhibit"B"- Master Plan Exhibit"C"- Site Plan Exhibit"D"- Landscape Plan Exhibit"E"- Grading Plan Exhibit"F"- Building Elevations Exhibit "G" - Design Review Committee Action Comments Resolution of Approval with Conditions TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP N0.!4022 IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAIIOI',tOA, CALIFOI~NIA FEBRUARY. 199S C/diLl ~I~CH~JLL=fA , AL II FLOWERING TREE TYP. TURF TYP. EXISTING LANDSCAP~_ TREE LIST EXISTING PIIOENIX DACTFLIFER.4 JACARANDA ACUTIFOLIA (24" bo~) FYRUS CAI.LERYANA 'BRADFORD' (15 SIIRUB LIST AGAPANTIIUS AFRICANUS (~ ~aL) DIETEX BICOLOR (5 gal.) NANDINA DOIq E~'TICA (~ PITTOSPORUM SPP. (5 PRUNUS CAROLINIANA 'COMPACTA'(S RAPlIIOLEPIS INDICA SPP. (5 lal.) (;ROUND COVER / TURF GAT-ANIA REPENS 'MITSUWA YELLOW~ ,~ RIIYNCIIOSPERbIUM JASMINOIDES .'.~-'~ SODDED TURFTO MATCII EXISTING IRRIGATION ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS TO RECEIVE 10q% COVERAGE WITll AN AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION .~ECTION .%-A. NORTH "1 ", ./-'- \ ,,!11::!::','.:,,Z:,:'::.;"' ...... ..... .' ¢' ~' . '' ' '" ~,,'%~'L; I ~ . ..'"" ........ =-~"C' , ,, ' ..... ' .,,, ...... - ~'~"'""~- ~ " ~ -- I {-' ~ .......... ".,"'~"'.~'.,', .... .t"',"'"..~ ~, ~ _e"---,,_-,Z'~ './..C/Z---%-- ' '¢_~-----' ~,,:, :=,.'.,,- '-::.-.,--' ....=-'~='-- .......::.:: .... .... _~___l__..z-~_~_;~" '~' .~'"~//' I =L_...~.-' ~ --~ ~.~' I,-, I ,,:-:.-_:=,,. ~'.%,-.=-' ;,: ....:~.'.:.",m=.,,- ......~ ....... ~ '- ,,~ e./~ ---1------ .'~ ,,~ t~ '~ / ' ::::-'-'-='"'=:,'==-::'::.'.,':'=:=:-: '" ~ :::-'-" ..... ¢_ ....... ~' N,~ [- / ~ I ~ .... ,I, ~ I ','. :;~'-'.4..~',=:~.~' ,~:~'~' -_--t;- :'""%.,. u ~,- e · / ~,~ ~ '4 '?,..'" *' :'.-%'"-- ~ '--,%". ,.- ....... " -'~.;' ~ ..,,,..,,,v..~ .......,~ ,_ ~ ..... ) ~ ~,~ ~ . :=..,...., ...........:_;_.::=::.,., .............. ~,'~:'_-%:"/.L":%" ~,.,tE.L-,-'~.:,c, '"',.,...-~ .~-~~,- ~ _ '...,.:"'".~'k,.f¢'J-~'~-'-~'~',~i:' :~?.'E'":'~"-"':':"" :':'-'""'--'::::-'--,-"'~ ...."~;~'~ ..... [ ' · . ! \i..-Q-,/-- - ' __~ '.,, ..... ,~, ..I -~:, ~ -[,¥.~,~,,,"t.~- ".' ' : I z , ~ .., , '~'~ ..,,, .~ '-~ '~ -~"-~.~r. 4 '¢k~I ~, , ..............,~ ......... ~.. · , ' , ,, , , · .[, -~.~. - _.: ,. t / ..... ?'.%%'".t~; ..... - .......... ~ ......... -,'.~ - ' ~------~ -- - ' ~"* ,. ,..'. ~t ~, ~-".'.~":.", / .," ' ~ - ~ .... 1 L A J ~,."",2',,.% '~,, ......... ,~..~. _ ,~ ~ . ~ -:~ ~ ~ ~. ~,~-.~ . - ......... ,," %''':. .-- . .... .... :,_~_,_,~ ~ r,.,,,,.,. I~ I TYPICAL SECTION - rOOTNILL 80ULEV*RI) u~ "' ~ ~', ~'=-'"'~' "I '-:1 ._ ' .... ;~'"' ~'~" ~ .: :.-: ,." -; '-"-="" ,," ,,,""-7:"""' ~ f "'~""'" "1 /', ' '~ I ,~u ,, ~ .,~,~,~, ~'1 / ;~" ~""~'~' I I ,~ c~,,~,~,,.,~ ~,^~. s~,~,~ ~ I · _ t '"" ........ ...... PRELIMINARY WEST SIDE ELEVATION EASf SIDF [LEVahON (D [\ll.l,hOl~ FINtSIt SL'M[ lit L[ I ExTERiOR FINISH SCHEDUL£ D DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:20 p.m. Steve Hayes March 18, 1997 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-02 - CARL KARCHER .ENTERPRISES - A request to construct a 3,050 square foot quick service restaurant with drive-thru on a 1.14 acre parcel within the Terra Vista Promenade Shopping Center, located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard, west of the extension of Masi Drive - APN: 227-151-44. DesiN Parmeters: The site is a rough graded and hydroseeded pad along the Foothill Boulevard frontage within the Terra Vista Promenade Shopping Center. The pad is immediately west of the major signalized intersection into the shopping center off Foothill Boulevard, opposite the ARCO am/pm mini market that is currently under construction. Curb, gutter and sidewalk exist along the property frontage. No significant vegetation or natural features exist on the site. The site currently slopes from nonla to south at roughly 2 percent. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Major Issues: The followSng broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: The Design Review Committee (McNiel, Macias, Fong) reviewed the preliminary Site Plan and building elevations on a courtesy basis at the request of the developer on December 3, 1996. At that time, the Committee recommended the following: The building should be re-oriented to be at an angle, consistent with the Master Plan for the Terra Vista Promenade Shopping Center (see attached Master Plan - Exhibit "A"). b° A tower element, similar to that used on the ARCO service station on the opposite side of the main drive aisle, should be integrated into the design of the building (see attached example - Exhibit "B"). The architectural concept should be revised to be more consistent with the Design Guidelines for the Terra Vista Promenade for satellite pad buildings (see attached example - Exhibit "C"). Staff believes that the angled "tower' elements are not significant enough to compensate for not angling the building and that the design. of the towers themselves is not consistent with the design guidelines for the shopping center. Staff would recommend that the Site Plan and building elevations be revised further to be more consistent with the established design guidelines for the shopping center and the previous direction of the Design Review Committee. Secondary. Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: The proposed stacked stone screen wall adjacent to the drive-thru lane should be extended in both directions to screen a larger portion of the drive-thru from view of Foothill Boulevard and the main driveway entrance into the shopping center. DRC COMMENTS CUP 97-02 - CARL KARCHER ENTERPRISES March 18, 1997 Page 2 The proposed design of the wood trellises appears to be consistent with those used within the shopping center. However, staff is concerned with how the trellises fie into the walls of the building. Staff would recommend that columns or an alternative support element be utilized adjacent to the building side of the trellis structures to give the appearance that they are freestanding structures. 3. The column and pole for the clearance sign should be consistent in design with the building. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: Betming and hedges of evergreen landscape shrubs should be used in combination with the proposed screen wall to screen activities in the drive-thru lane from public view. 2. The proposed transformer should be completely screened from view by landscaping and/or walls. o The size and spacing of the trellis members should be consistent with those constructed througJaout the shopping center. Light fixtures should be consistent in design with those already used throughout the shopping center. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee direct the applicant to revise the plans accordingly consistent with the previous direction of the Committee. Once deemed acceptable to staff, then the project will be scheduled for further review of the Committee. Attachment Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: David Barker, Bill Bethel, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Steve Hayes The Committee did not recommended approval and requested that the project be redesigned to create a stronger design statement for this main entrance into the Terra Vista Promenade shopping center. The Committee expressed disappointment that the applicant had not responded to the recommendations of the Committee on December 3, 1996 on substantially the same design scheme. The Committee desired a tower element, similar to the scale, mass and detail of the ARCO service station on the opposite side of this main entrance. h,lil) ...... t l., ,ql I'l~ PI.AN ' '.t") EX1 FI IIOII ELI:'VA1 ION II;~,'J; I I IAL;I I I_:NCLOL;UI I1~ FI IC)N Il E L EVA 1 lot,/ 'l I IAL;I I L:./,ICI.OSUI IE liEAll I!L.EVA I ION I:.X I I':RIO[I EI.I:.VA1 ION (") :::, I!X I ElllOll [:LI~vAIION Ih~111t FxCl,tl It IIL~. '~.11X I'11L,~.l II~.p4~ CI IlU:11 ( ~ ) ..: ..::: ,- .............................................. ~ ~,\Wlll dl l:s !? 0 O I~ 7'1I. !'~'!) /I 17 C,'I I) !'~' ,~ h (. I ION 6:30 p.m. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS Steve Hayes April 1, 1997 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-02 - CARL KARCHER ENTERPRISES - A request to construct a 3,050 square foot quick service restaurant with drive-thru on a 1.14 acre parcel within the Terra Vista Promenade Shopping Center, located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard, west oft he extension of Masi Drive - APN: 227-151-44. Design Parameters: The site is a rough ~aded and hydroseeded pad along the Foothill Boulevard frontage within the Terra Vista Promenade Shopping Center. The pad is immediately west of the major signalized intersection into the shopping center off Foothill Boulevard, opposite the ARCO' am/pm mini market that is currently under construction. Curb, gutter and sidewalk exist along the property. frontage. No significant vegetation or natural features exist on the site. The site currently slopes from north to south at roughly 2 percent. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an oufiine for Committee discussion. Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: The Design Review Committee (McNiel, Macias, Fong) reviewed the preliminary Site Plan and building elevations on a courtesy basis at the request of the developer on December 3, 1996. At that time, the Committee recommended the following: The building should be re-oriented to be at an angle, consistent with the Master Plan for the Terra Vista Promenade Shopping Center (see attached Master Plan - Exhibit "A"). A tower element, similar to that used on the ARCO service station on the opposite side of the main drive aisle, should be integrated into the design of the building (see attached example - Exhibit "B"). The architectural concept should be revised to be more consistent with the Design Guidelines for the Terra Vista Promenade for satellite pad buildings (see attached example - Exhibit "C"). Staff believes that the angled "tower" elements are not significant enough to compensate for not angling the building and that the design of the towers themselves is not consistent with the design guidelines for the shopping center. Staff would recommend that the Site Plan and building elevations be revised further to be more consistent with the established design guidelines for the shopping center and the previous direction of the Design Review Committee. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary, design issues: The proposed stacked stone screen wall adjacent to the drive-thru lane should be extended in both directions to screen a larger portion of the drive-thru from view of Foothill Boulevard and the main drivewav entrance into the shopping center. The proposed design of the wood trellises appears to be consistent with those used within the shopping center. However, staff is concerned with how the trellises tie into the walls of the building. Staff would recommend that columns or an alternative support element be utilized adjacent to the building side of the trellis structures to give the appearance that they are freestanding structures. DRC COMMENTS CUP 97-02 - CARL KARCHER ENTERPRISES April 1, 1997 Page 2 3. The column and pole for the clearance sign should be consistent in design with the building. Policv Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: Berming and hedges of evergreen landscape shrubs should be used in combination with the proposed screen wall to screen activities in the drive-thru lane from public view. 2. The proposed transformer should be completely screened from view by landscaping and/or walls. The size and spacing of the trellis members should be consistent with those constructed throughout the shopping center. Light fixtures should be consistent in design with those already used throughout the shopping center. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee direct the applicant to revise the plans accordingly consistent with the previous direction of the Committee. Once deemed acceptable to staff, then the project will be scheduled for further review of the Committee. Design Review Committee Action on March 18, 1997: Members Present: David Barker, Bill Bethel, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Steve Hayes The Committee did not recommended approval and requested that the project be redesigned to create a stronger design statement for this main entrance into the Terra Vista Promenade shopping center. The Committee expressed disappointment that the applicant had not responded to the recommendations of the Committee on December 3, 1996 on substantially the same design scheme. The Committee desired a tower element, similar to the scale, mass and detail of the ARCO service station on the opposite side of this main entrance. Attachment Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Bill Bethel, Rich Macias, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Steve Hayes The applicant presented revised plans which included a tile hip roof on tower and extended stacked stone screen wall. DRC COMMENTS CUP 9%02 - CARL KARCHER ENTERPRISES April 1, 1997 Page 3 The Committee recommended revisions to the plans and that the item return to the Commit, tee for further review. Recommended modifications are follows: The tower element at the southeast comer of the building should be upgraded further to be more consistent in strength (mass) and detail, but not necessarily match, the tower used on the ARCO building across the main drive aisle. Suggested revisions were to match the ARCO tower height and provide eave overhang with exposed rafter tails. A trellis should be incorporated on the south side of the building, over the sidewalk area. Soften the north elevation with a landscape tree planer. The amount of yellow color should be reduced on the north elevation. 6:00 p.m. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS Steve Hayes April 15, 1997 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERaMIT 97-02 - CARE KARCHER ENTERPRISES - A request to construct a 3,050 square foot quick service restaurant with drive-thru on a 1.14 acre parcel with the Terra Vista Promenade Shopping Center, located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard, west of the extension of Masi Drive - APN: 227-151-18. Back~ound: This project has been reviewed by the Design Re,dew Committee on two separate occasions (March 18 and April 1, 1997). At the last meeting, the Committee (Bethel, Macias, Coleman) did not recommend approval of the plans and directed the applicant to work with staff in order to have the project reconsidered by the Committee at their next meeting. Design Review Committee Action Comments from both previous meeting have been attached for your convenience. Staff Comments: At the time of comment preparation, staff had not yet received revised plans from the applicant. An oral presentation will be given by staff at the Design Review Committee meeting. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee consider the revised plans and, if deemed acceptable, recommend approval of the project to the Planning Commission. Attachment: Design Review Committee Action Comments Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Bill Bethel, Rich Macias, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Steve Hayes The Design Review Committee recommended approval of the revised plan package subject to the following conditions: The accent color on the north elevation should be modified to be more consistent with how the accent colors were used on the Home Depot building. The special paving used at the vehicular entrances to the parcel should be applied consistently with its use at the ARCO facility to the east. The overhead trellis on the west side of the main walkway into the shopping center should be constructed in conjunction with the Carl's Jr. facility. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97-02, A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A 3,050 SQUARE FOOT QUICK-SERVICE RESTAURANT WITH DRIVE-THRU ON A 1.14 ACRE PARCEL WITHIN THE TERRA VISTA PROMENADE SHOPPING CENTER, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, WEST OF THE EXTENSION OF MASI DRIVE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 227-151-44. A. Recitals. 1. Carl Karcher Enterprises has filed an application for the issuance of Conditional Use Permit No. 97-02, 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 14th day of May 1997, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on May 14, 1997, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard, west of the extension Masi Ddve, with a Foothill Boulevard street frontage of approximately 206 feet and lot depth of approximately 259 feet and which is presently improved with curb, gutter, sidewalk, and streetside landscaping; and b. The property to the north of the subject site is vacant, the property to the south consists of an automotive service station, the property to the east is an automotive service station/convenience market under construction, and the property to the west is vacant; and c. The application contemplates the construction of a 3,050 square foot quick-service restaurant with drive-thru on a vacant pad within the Terra Vista Promenade shopping center; and d. The site is designated Community Commercial by the Terra Vista Community Plan; and e. The site is part of the Terra Vista Promenade shopping center, for which a Conceptual Master Plan for development was prepared in conjunction with Phase One development. A quick-service restaurant with drive-thru was shown on this parcel on the conceptually approved Master Plan. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 97-02 - CARL KARCHER ENTERPRISES May 14, 1997 Page 2 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set fodh 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 Terra Vista Community Plan, 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 and Terra Vista Community Plan. 4. This Commission hereby finds and certifies that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder; and a Negative Declaration was issued on October 4, 1995. Further this Commission finds that the application is in substantial compliance with the original approval for which a Negative Declaration was issued. 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) The accent color on the north elevation shall be modified to be more consistent with the use of accent colors on the Home Depot building, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 2) The required special paving used at the two vehicular entrances to the parcel shall be applied consistently with that on the ARCO facility to the east, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 3) The overhead trellis on the west side of the main driveway into the shopping center shall be constructed prior to occupancy. 4) The design of the trellis structures around the building, including the heavy trellis members, shall be consistent with those used on other buildings throughout the project, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 5) The column used to support the clearance pole shall be consistent with the columns used on the buildings and trellises throughout the project, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 6) Berming and hedges of evergreen shrubs shall be used in combination with the stacked stone screen wall to screen the drive-thru lane, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 97-02 - CARL KARCHER ENTERPRISES May 14, 1997 Page 3 7) All transformers and other above-ground equipment shall be completely screened from public view through the use of evergreen shrub hedges, low walls, or a combination thereof, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 8) All light fixtures used shall be consistent with those already used within the shopping center or specified with the Design Guidelines supplement, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 9) The drive aisle along the north side of the project area shall be extended westedy so that a complete interim turnaround loop is formed for the purpose of emergency access, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 10) The final location of the proposed pay telephones shall be subject to review and approval of the City Planner, prior to the issuance of building permits. 11) The trash enclosure shall be designed consistent with the design guidelines for the Terra Vista Promenade shopping center, to the satisfaction of the City Planner, including the following amenities: a) An overhead wood trellis consistent in design with other trellises in the Terra Vista Promenade shopping center; b) An overhead roll-up door painted to match the walls of the enclosure; c) Trash bins with counter weighted lids; d) Separate pedestrian access; and e) Chain link fencing between the top of the enclosure walls and the trellis to prevent trash from blowing out of the enclosure. 12) All pertinent conditions from City Council Resolution No. 95-140 shall apply to this project. Engineering Division 1) The traffic signal at Rochester Avenue and Chervil Street shall be installed upon any development within Phase 2 of the Terra Vista Promenade (CUP 95-11). The signal shall be operational prior to occupancy. 2) Revise the following public improvement plans to the satisfaction of the City Engineer: a) Revise Sheet 46 of 1555-L, the approved Activity Center and Median Landscape Plans for Terra Vista Promenade, to show street trees, the existing 84-inch storm drain, and the limit line for tree planting relative to that storm drain. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 97-02 - CARL KARCHER ENTERPRISES May 14, 1997 Page 4 b) Revise Sheet 9 of 1555-D to show the revised location for the proposed private storm drain lateral. 3) All missing Foothill Boulevard frontage improvements shall be installed per the approved public improvement plans, Drawing No. 1555. 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) Parkway landscaping along Foothill Boulevard shall conform to the Foothill Boulevard Design Supplement. 5) Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of the existing 84-inch storm drain on the north side of Foothill Boulevard (Drawing No. 1555-D), measured from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk. A copy of the On-Site Landscaping Plan, with the storm drain plotted, shall be provided for the City Engineer to verify this condition is being met. 6) Structures within the storm drain easement, like the monument sign and the drive-thru lane screen wall, shall be designed to not place concentrated loads on the storm drain. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF MAY 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 14th day of May 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 97-02 3,050 square foot quick-service restaurant with drive-thru Carl Karcher Enterprises NWC Foothill Boulevard and Masi Drive 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 Limits Completion Date Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, if building permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 24 months from the date of approval. / / 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, extedor materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, Development Code regulations, and the Terra Vista Community Plan. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. / / SC - 10/96 1 Go Do Project No. 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. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination. 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. 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. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans) All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet and shall contain a 12-inch walk adjacent to the parking stall (including curb). Textured pedestrian pathways and textured pavement across circulation aisles shall be provided throughout the development to connect dwellings/units/buildings with open spaces/plazas/recreational uses. 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. CUP 97-02 Completion Date / / / I / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / SC - 10/96 Project No, CUP 97-02 Completion Date Landscaping A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in this case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. / / 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. / / A minimum of 30 % of trees planted within the project shall be specimen size trees - 24-inch box or larger. / / 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. / / o 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 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. / / 10. Special landscape features such as mounding, alluvial rock, specimen size trees, meandering sidewalks (with horizontal change), and intensified landscaping, is required along Foothill Blvd. / / 11. 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. / / SC - 10/96 Project No. 12. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division. 13. 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. F. 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. G. Environmental Mitigation measures are required for the project. The applicant is responsible for the cost of implementing said measures, including monitoring and reporting. Applicant shall be required to post cash, letter of credit, or other forms of guarantee acceptable to the City Planner in the amount of $ to be determined, pdor to the issuance of building permits, guaranteeing satisfactory performance and completion of all mitigation measures. These funds may be used by the City to retain consultants and/or pay for City staff time to monitor and report on the mitigation measures. Failure to complete all actions required by the approved environmental documents shall be considered grounds for forfeit. In those instances requiring long term monitoring (i.e.) beyond final certificate of occupancy), the applicant shall provide a written monitoring and reporting program to the City Planner prior to issuance of building permits. Said program shall identify the reporter as an individual qualified to know whether the particular mitigation measure has been implemented. APPLICANTS SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: H. Site Development The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of issuance of relative permits. Please contact the Building and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new commercial or industrial development or addition to an existing development, the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: Transportation Development Fee, Drainage Fee, School Fees, Permit and Plan Checking Fees. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation and prior to issuance of building permits. I. 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. CUP 97-02 Completion Date / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / SC - 10/96 Project No. 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. 3. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: General Fire Protection Conditions 1. Fire flow requirement shall be 1,500 gallons per minute. a. A fire flow shall be conducted by the buildeddeveloper and witnessed by fire department personnel prior to water plan approval. 2. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for all hydrants and installed prior to final inspection. 3. 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. 4. A fire alarm system(s) shall be required as noted below: X Other Fire Sprinkler Monitoring. CUP 97-02 Completion Date / / / / / / / / / / / / / / o Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District's fire lane standards, as noted: X Other: Turning radius on north and west parking areas. Fire department access shall be amended to facilitate emergency apparatus. 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 ordedng information. Plan check fees in the amount of $._~0 have been paid. An additional $ 645.00 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. Plans shall be submitted and approved pdor to construction in accordance with 1994 UBC, UFC, UPC, UMC, NEC, and RCFD Standards 22 and 15. / / / / / / / / / / SC - 10/96 5 Project No. Oo K. 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: L. 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. M. 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. Windows 1. Store front windows shall be visible to passing pedestrians and traffic. Building Numbering 1. Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime visibility. Alarm Systems 1. Install a burglar alarm system and a panic alarm if needed. Instructing management and employees on the operation of the alarm system will reduce the amount of false alarms and in turn save dollars and lives. CUP 97-02 Coml~letion Date / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / SC - 10196 6 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: May 14, 1997 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission, Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer ~~~ ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 97-01/GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 97-01B The Trails Committee held a meeting Thursday, May 8, 1997, at 5:30 pm. In attendance were Committee Member Bethel, Coleman, Hahn and Rabone. The Trails Committee concurred with staff's recommendation for the elimination of the equestrian trail across the San Sevaine Basin. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: May 14, 1997 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission, Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer Maria E. Perez, Assistant Engineer GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 97-01B - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the General Plan to modify the Hiking and Riding Trails Master Plan, Figure III-7A, by eliminating the segment of community trail from Youngs Canyon Road across the San Sevaine Basin and modifying all applicable exhibits therein. Staff has prepared a Notice of Categorical Exemption. APNS 226-112-02 and 03. ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 97-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the Etiwanda Specific Plan to modify the proposed Wardman Bullock Road/Youngs Canyon Road, between Wilson Avenue and Cherry Avenue by eliminating the landscaped median and across the San Sevaine Basin by reducing the pavement width and eliminating the equestrian trail and modifying all applicable exhibits therein. Staff has prepared a Notice of Categorical Exemption. APNS 226-102-17, 226-111-05 and 06,226-112-02 and 03,226-311-27, 226-321-01. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: The portion of the project west of the San Sevaine Basin is surrounded by vacant land zoned Low Density, 2 to 4 dwelling units per acre. The portion of the project across,the San Sevaine Basin is surrounded by area owned and operated by the San Bernardino County Flood Control District. It is designated open space to be utilized for Chino Groundwater Basin recharge. General Plan Designations: The proposed designation for Wardman Bullock Road/Youngs Canyon Road is a future Special Design Secondary Street. Site Characteristics: The planned location for the street is currently undeveloped land covered with light vegetation and gently sloping to the southeast. ITEMS H & I ANALYSIS: The Etiwanda Specific Plan currently reflects a freeway interchange just south of the intersection of Youngs Canyon Road and Cherry Avenue. Caltrans has now located the planned interchange within the City of Fontana at Summit Avenue, east of Cherry Avenue (reference Exhibit B). In response to this change and in an effort to reduce the amount of City maintained landscaping, staff is proposing to eliminate the raised landscaped median. The level of service of the proposed street will not be altered by this modification. The change will reduce the City maintained area by a ten foot wide sectional area which is proposed as a painted median. The portion of the street across the San Sevaine Basin will be constructed by the City as development of the area dictates. The street through this area will be lined with street trees and provide a sidewalk on the south side for pedestrian access to Cherry Avenue in conformance with the pedestrian trails and sidewalks shown in Figure 5-19 of the ESPA (reference Exhibit C). The pavement section will be reduced to allow for four travel lanes. The painted median will be narrowed and the trail will be eliminated across the basin. This design will provide for a minimum reconstruction of the basin. The request to remove the trail segment crossing the basin was reviewed by the Trails Committee on May 8, 1997. Comments were not available at the preparation of this staff report, they will be provided at the Planning Commission meeting. References to 24th Street on the affected exhibits will be corrected to read Wilson Avenue per Planning Commission Resolution 95-25, approved June 14, 1995. FACTS FOR FINDING: Based on the facts and conclusions listed above, staff believes the Planning Commission can make the following findings regarding this application: Ao The proposed modification is a minor alteration to a planned road and is categorically exempt per section 15305, class 5 Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations of the California Environmental Quality Act. B. The proposed amendment conforms with the policies and objectives of the General Plan. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the project site and homeowners in Tract 13566. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolutions, thereby recommending that the City Council issue a Notice of Exemption and approve General Plan Amendment 97- 01B and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 97-01. Respectfully submitted, Senior Civil Engineer Attachments: EXHIBIT A - Vicinity Map EXHIBIT B - State Highway Plan EXHIBIT C - ESPA, Pedestrian Trails & Sidewalks, Figure 5-19 EXHIBIT D - Figure 5-34, existing EXHIBIT E - Figure 5-34, proposed EXHIBIT F - Figure 5-34A, proposed EXHIBIT D - Resolution Recommending Approval of GPA 97-01B EXHIBIT E - Resolution Recommending Approval of ESPA 97-01 · {~ WARDMAN BULLOCK ROAD (~) YOUNGS CANYON ROAD WIL CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ENGINEERING DIVISION ITEM: Vicinity Map TITLE: Wardman Bullock Youngs Canyon Section ........ EXHIBIT: A INDEX OF 'ETS sut,~ i T AVE BEGIN CONSTRUCT ON 30.01.32 Bc J, I~. ROUf RTE 30 - 653+00 PM R10.~D ZD (~ ROUTE 30 s* s;o s~o "~ :::::'~ 't'~, ,.,~ss I CONNECT I, i I SI, J~ I T AVE 578+4:~,44 POT ( Jl4~. ROUTE '40(BK)- ST $w sPe.~_C $~ed In the ''Notice 'to Controctors, *. , 1 8TATE -- J O, ALIFORNIA o,~J_..~c~,.r, I ~, .~.,~ ..... ,,,~ DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECT PL~N~FOR CONSTRUCTION STATE HIGHWAY ,ON TO be aUpPl~nfed by St~ord PI~e ~oted July, 1992 i 15 - 5S5+00 PM 10.3 L SUt441T AVE )EAST AVE O~ - Br. NO. 5q-$ao VICTORIA ST ) PM R13.4 BASELINE RD RTE 15 - 401+00 PM 7.2 · ~ t'sssssssssll_C~S__~[_~CtsstSsssslI CU 08234 £A --. ,- '~ ....................... .~_. _ 204301 WILSON AVENUE ? ,r L / v / ~ IMPROVED SIDEWALKS One Side Only Both Sides ...-. Hiking / Pedestrian mrails(um..d '.,,,~ Foothill blvd. S.P. EXHIBIT C figurel 5-19 / REVISED 10/16/85 N/E LOOP Between 24th and 1-15 FIG. 5-34 EXISTING EXHIBIT D NIE Large Columnar Tree Type A 102' ROW /Large Columnar Tree Type A Equestrian Trail / '-~ 5' J, 12' 20' / WARDMAN BULLOCK ROAD / YOUNGS CANYON ROAD Between Wilson and San Sevaine Basins FIG. 5-34 S/W PROPOSED EXHIBIT E Large Columnar Tree Type A~,,~? ~ 54' 70' Large Columnar Tree Type A .r~ s ,11' ., YOUNGSCANYON ROAD Between San Sevaine Basins and Cherry Avenue FIG 5-34A PROPOSED EXHIBIT F RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 97-01B, TO MODIFY THE HIKING AND RIDING TRAILS MASTER PLAN, BY ELIMINATING A SEGMENT OF COMMUNITY TRAIL AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. 1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has filed an application for the amendment described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject General Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 14th day of May 1997, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on May 14, 1997, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to a vacant undeveloped strip of land which extends from the westedy boundary of the San Sevaine Basin easterly to a future intersection at Cherry Avenue. b. The segment of community trail crossing the San Sevaine Basin does not conform with the policies and objectives of the City's trail system. 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 modification is a minor alteration to a planned road. b. The trail segment across the San Sevaine Basin does not conform to the Policies and guidelines of the City's trail system. 4. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been prepared and reviewed in compliance with the Califomia 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 there is no possibility the proposed amendment will have an effect on the environment and therefore, the proposed amendment is categorically exempt pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15305, class 5, Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. GPA 97-01B - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA May 14, 1997 Page 2 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby recommends approval of General Plan Amendment 97-01B to amend the Hiking and Riding Trails Master Plan, Figure 111-7A as shown on exhibit 1 attached hereto. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF MAY 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 14th day of May 1997, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ee L, SEE ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC, L 'Figure 111-7A HIKING & RIDING TRAILS MASTER PLAN LEGEND Propo~d Bridge Proposed Street Undercro~elng E~l~tlng Street Undemm~lng umr mee~ m mmrmn~ fsclm~ nj~h u I)~..~ ?a~, m vaM~g leith aml m u th. im b.twe. n th. · /m.~ ~he k~ fee~ ~ala a~e pdme h-ai ea~ Equemtrlan/Rural Area CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 111-~3A RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 97-01, TO MODIFY THE PROPOSED WARDMAN BULLOCK ROAD/YOUNGS CANYON ROAD, BY ELIMINATING THE LANDSCAPED MEDIAN AND REDUCING THE PAVEMENT WIDTH AND ELIMINATING THE EQUESTRIAN TRAIL ACROSS THE SAN SEVAINE BASIN AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. 1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has filed an application for the amendment described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Eftwanda Specific Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 14th day of May 1997, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing 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, Par1 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 May 14, 1997, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to a stdp of land, of varying widths, extending southerly from Wilson Avenue and curving southeasterly to Cherry Avenue, planned to be Wardman Bullock Road/Youngs Canyon Road and is presently vacant undeveloped land. 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. The proposed modification is a minor alteration to a planned road. b. The segment of community trail crossing the San Sevaine Basin does not conform with the policies and objectives of the City's trail system. c. The proposed amendment is 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 furlher specifically finds that based upon substantial evidence, it can be seen with certainty there is no possibility the proposed amendment will have an effect on the environment and therefore, the proposed amendment is categorically exempt pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15305, class 5, Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. ESPA 97-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA May 14, 1997 Page 2 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby recommends approval of Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 97-01 to amend the Street System, Figure 5-6; the Community Trails, Figure 5-18; Proposed Wardman Bullock/Youngs Canyon Road Section, Figure 5-34; and Proposed Yourigs Canyon Road Section, Figure 5-34A, as shown on Exhibits 1 through 4 attached hereto. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF MAY 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 14th day of May 1997, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: WARDMAN BULLOCK ROAD YOUNGS CANYON ROAD WILSON AVENUE ~:,'5-32 -=-= A ~' =.= p5-35A , ~;~5.35B4 ITEM: ESPA 97-01 TITLE: EXHIBIT 1 r · .. .~/, ~.i:~-i:~:~-'i:~:¢::;..i ~ L, I ........:l ~/,p>,~o. '1 "' ., ~',.I 5-6 i ' "' STREET SYSTEM Secondary Arterial mm~mm Special Design Collector Local Streets R3othlil blvd. S.P. Figure Number Location 'NILSON AVENUE :,...,,:,,., ,-~,~..~,,,~..,,,.,,,,.. ,.,,,..,,...,.,,,,..,,....,,,..,,..,-~,...,,,,..,,...,..,,,.,.,.,...,.,.m.,,,,,,,,,,.,,...,,,~/ -7~ .....~ii'~io ............ ~ .................. ~ ..... '.°T ............... :'" "- .nil /// i' · = ; ' -" = ~ · ; · · ~: : ~ : :. : -- i - ~ ~ · j = · -/I /..'/ -' · · ~ · i · suM,~rr A~ ~: ~ - . t - / ,-'/ ............................... =..~,_ ........... I .L[ ..... . //'/ i -- = · ~ · ' ..--: II Bike Lane* or Bike Route* (On Pavement Shoulder) ,,,,,.,,,,,,,,~, Bike Path (In Parkway) ..... · ' Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan * Consult Trail Implementation Plan (title figure~ 'COMMUNITY 5-18 ITEM: ESPA 97-01 TITLE: EXHIBIT 2 REVISED 9/7/88 REVISED 4/1/92 N/E Large Columnar ' Tree Type A ~ Large /.'"~-v~. I Columnar fj/Tree Type A '~~~ Equestrian '~,L,-~-'~-~- / Trail 102' ROW 20' ~ WARDMAN BULLOCK ROAD / YOUNGS CANYON ROAD Between Wilson and San Sevaine Basins FIG. 5'34 ITEM: ESPA 97-01 TITLE: EXHIBIT 3 Large Columnar 54' 70' Large Columnar Tree Type A s YOUNGS CANYON ROAD Between San Sevaine Basins and Cherry Avenue FIG 5-34A ITEM: ESPA 97-01 TITLE: EXItlBIT 4 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: May 14, 1997 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Thomas Grahn, Associate Planner ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-09 - KAISER PERMANENTE - A request to develop a 50,103 square foot medical office building on 5.72 acres of land, and the vacation of non-vehicular access on Arrow Route, in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the northeast corner of Arrow Route and Red Oak Street - APN: 208-352-53 thru 56. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - South - East - West - Vacant; Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan Existing industrial development; General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan Post Office; Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan Existing industrial development; Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan B. General Plan Designations: Project Site - Industrial Park North Industrial Park South General Industrial East Industrial Park West Industrial Park Site Characteristics: The project site is located on vacant property north of Arrow Route, east of Red Oak Street, and south of Civic Center Drive. The property is vacant and, except for a large berm south of Civic Center Drive, slopes gently to the south. Vegetation consists of a neglected vineyard, several clusters of olive trees, and grass and weeds. ITEM J PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPC)RT DR 97-09 - KAISER PERMANENTE May 14, 1997 Page 2 Parking Calculations: Number of Number of Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces of Use Footage Ratio Required Provided Medical Office 45,540 ~ 1/200 228 249 ANALYSIS: The project proposes a gross floor area of 50,103 square feet and a net floor area of 45,540 square feet. General: The project proposes a two-story medical office building for out-patient use that totals 50,103 square feet. The net building area, excluding mechanical rooms, elevator shafts, stairwells, etc, totals 45,540 square feet and includes a 2,200 square foot pharmacy. The project architecture is designed in a contemporary style utilizing a variety of materials including concrete block, stone veneer, glass reinforced concrete panels, exposed steel beams, and tinted windows. The building entry utilizes a variety of materials, massing, angle, and proportion to create a distinct design for the project. The building entry was designed in the applicant's words to "celebrate the entry" with a unique design that creates a visual connection between the entry drive aisle and the building entry. Related Application: Engineering Division Conditions of Approval require the applicant to submit a Lot Line Adjustment to modify the project site parcel configuration from the current six parcels to the proposed three parcels. The Condition of Approval requiring vacation of the vehicular access restriction will allow for flexibility in locating a future driveway upon development of the adjacent parcel without imposing a joint access requirement on the Kaiser project. Design Review Committee: On April 15, 1997, the Design Review Committee (Bethel, Macias, Coleman) reviewed the project and, together with the attached conditions, recommended approval subject to the following: The applicant presented a revised entry drive aisle off Red Oak Street that removed the awkward circulation design and deleted the dead end drive aisles. The Committee accepted the revision as presented. Berming shall be provided in the parking setback areas off of Arrow Route, Red Oak Street, and Civic Center Drive. o A consistent paving material will be provided at both the project driveways and the pedestrian connection paths. Technical Review and Grading Committees: The Technical Review and Grading Committees reviewed the project and recommended approval subject to the conditions contained in the attached Resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 97-09-KAISER PERMANENTE May 14,1997 Page 3 Environmental Assessment: In completing the Initial Study, staff determined that there would not be a significant adverse impact upon the environment from this project. Issuance of a Negative Declaration is recommended. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with Conditions and issuance of a Negative Declaration. Respectfully submitted, Brad Bull~ City Planner BB:TG/jfs Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Exhibit "B" - Exhibit "C" - Exhibit "D" - Exhibit "E" - Exhibit "F" Exhibit "G" - Location Map Site Plan Landscape Plan Grading Plan Elevations Design Review Committee Minutes dated April 15, 1997 Initial Study Part II Resolution of Approval with Conditions SITE UTILIZATION MAP .. industrial Building "'' i Indm~,rin~' Con:kolex r ~I~ .I. ~.IOl/.I le " - - KAISER PERMANENTE- MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING RANCHO CUCAMONGA Project' ~ ~['1,.-0 c( Title: [/~4't,0~ ~F' Exhibit: I~/k" Date: Q '1% : ~:: MEDICAL OFFIC[ I : [, 4 / ARROW H I O H W A Y ... ., , "~i:,...~ ,'~ CITY OF RANCHO.,CUCAMONGA PLANNIN'G DI'ViSiON Project: Title: Exhibit: Date: C IV tC C E N T ~ R 0 R IV ~ PLANT PALETTE A R R O W CITY OF RANCH~',CUCAMONGA PLAI;NING DIVISION H I C;H W A Y Project: .~ ql-0~ Title: UA~t;:;~CA~ ~ Exhibit: t,, ('_,,t' Date: .~i1~4...7 65 CITY OF RA, NCHQ,,CU(;AMONGA PLANNING' DIVISION 133 Z Project: ~ ~--0ff Exhibit: '""~ u Date: (CIVIC CENTER DRIVE FRONTA(]E) NORTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION Project: Title: Exhibit: :: ~1~ Date' (AR;~OW ~GHWA r ~;~ONr,4GE) SOUTH ELEVATION (RED OAK FRONTAOE} WEST ELEVATION /' ,.,,.~ % ¢" x.:...::', :"..:::'-.-~:. ~ CITY OF RANCliO CUCAMONGA PLANNING DIVISION ~., ,,, ~, ~.~. ~ ,.~ Project: ~ ~'~'0~ Title' ~~~'1'1 ~lq~ Exhibit: I~ ~..? Date: 7:10 p.m. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS Tom Grahn April 15, 1997 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-09 - KAISER PERMANENTE - A request to develop a 49,705 square foot medical office building on 5.72 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the northeast comer of Arrow Route and Red Oak Avenue - APN: 208-352-53 thru 56. Design Parameters: The project site is located on vacant property located north of Arrow Route, east of Red Oak Avenue, south of Civic Center Drive. The property to the north is vacant, to the south is the County Department of Public Social Services, to the east is the Post Office, and to the west are various industrial uses. Vegetation consists of a neglected vineyard, several clusters of olive trees, and grass and weeds. The project architecture is designed in a contemporary style utilizing a variety of materials including concrete block, stone veneer, glass reinforced concrete panels, exposed steel beams, and tinted windows. The building entry utilizes a variety of material, massing, angle, and proportion to create a distinct design for the project. The building entry was designed in the applicant's words to "Celebrate the Entry." The project was designed to create a visual connection between the entry drive aisle and the building entry. 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: Staff feels that there are no major design issues associated with this project. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondmy design issues: Arrow Route is identified as a Specifil Boulevard and requires undulating berms with an average height of 3 feet to screen parking. The berming shown adjacent to Arrow Route is located in an area that may ultimately provide additional parking for the project. This berming should. be relocated within the setback to the future parking area. The proposed entry drive aisle offof Red Oak Avenue creates an awkward circulation pattern and creates the potential for continual circulation conflicts. The drive aisle should be revised to reduce the potential for conflict and improve project circulation. DRC COMMENTS DR 97-09 - KAISER PERMANENTE April 15, 1997 Page 2 o The current circulation plan creates 2 dead-end drive aisles adjacent to the west side of the building and should be revised for drive-thru connections for improved circulation. Provide a consistent paving material at both project driveways and the pedestrian connection paths. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee forward the project to the Planning Commission for their consideration. Attachments Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Bill Bethel, Rich Macias, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Tom Grahn The Committee recommended approval of the project subject to the following: The applicant presented a revised entry drive aisle off Red Oak Avenue that removed the awkward circulation design and deleted the dead end drive aisles. The Committee accepted the revision as presented. Berming shall be provided in the parking setback areas off of Arrow Route, Red Oak Avenue, and Civic Center Drive. A consistent paving material pedestrian connection paths. will be' provided at both the project driveways and the I:~TOM\CEQA~DR97-09.PT2 City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND Project File: Development Review 97-09 Description of Project: The proposed development of a medical office building totaling 50,103 square feet. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Kaiser Permanente 393 East Walnut Street, 5th Floor Pasadena, CA 91188 General Plan Designation: Industrial Park Zoning: Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The property to the north is vacant, to the south and west are various industrial and office uses, to the east is the Post Office. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Contact Person and Phone Number: Thomas Grahn, Associate Planner (909) 477-2750 Other agencies whose approval is required: None. Initial Study for Development Review 97-09 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 2 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 (v') Water ( ) Air Quality (v') Transportation/Circulation () Biological Resources ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources (~') Hazards ( ) Noise (v') Mandatory Findings of Significance ( ) Public Services ( ) Utilities and Service Systems (v') Aesthetics ( ) 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. () 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 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. Thomas Grahn Associate Planner April 16, 1997 Initial Study for Development Review 97-09 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 3 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 Significant Impact Less PotentiallyUnless Than SignificantMitigation SignificantNo Impact IncorporatedImpact Impact USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal.' 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 Informatari Sources: POPULATION AND HOUSING. a) b) Potentially Significanl Impact Less PotentiallyUnless Than Significan!Mitigation S~gnificentNo Impact IncorporatedImpact Impact c) Would the proposal.' Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~/) 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') Issues and Supporting Information Sources: GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? b) Seismic ground shaking? Potentially Significant Impact Less PotentiallyUnless Than SignificantMitigation SignificantNo Impact IncorporaledImpact Impact () () () (¢) () () () (¢) Initial Study for Development Review 97-09 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: c) d) e) 0 g) h) i) 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? Issues and Supporting Information Sources: WATER. a) b) c) d) e) g) h) i) Will the proposal result in: Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? Discharge into surface water or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? 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? 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? City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 4 Potentially Significant Impact Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incoroorated Impact Impact ( ) ( ) ( ) (~) () ( ) () (~') ( ) ( ) ( ) () () () () () () () () () () () () Potentially SignifY. ant Impact Less Potentially Unless Than Significant M*tigation Significanl No Impact Incoroorated Impact Impact () () (¢) () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () Initial Study for Development Review 97-09 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 5 Comments: a) Adoption of the proposed project will increase the amount of paved surface area which could result in a decrease in absorption rates and an increase in the amount of surface water runoff. All runoff will be conveyed to existing drainage facilities which were designed to handle the subject water flows. No mitigation is required. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: AIR QUALITY. a) b) c) d) Potentially Significant Impact Less PotentiallyUnless Than SignificantMitigation SignificantNo Impact IncorporatedImpact Impact Would the proposal: Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v~) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Create objectionable odors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Polentially Signifyant Impac~ Less PotentiallyUnless Than SignificantMitigation SignificantNo Impact IncorporatedImpact Impact TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) ( ) (v') ( ) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) ( ) ( ) g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Comments: a) The project will be constructed outside any public rights-of-way, will not interfere with such transportation system components, and will be designed to meet all Initial Study for Development Review 97-09 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 6 applicable rights-of-way improvements. The applicant will prepare a traffic study to determine if project related impacts warrant traffic signal improvements at the intersection of Arrow Route and Red Oak Avenue. The project will generate additional vehicular movement in a localized area. The City's General Plan EIR and Industrial Area Specific Plan EIR address the short-term and long-term cumulative impacts of traffic upon these streets. Based on this information, the proposed project has no potential to alter the present pattern of circulation and will improve any immediate traffic congestion problems. No mitigation is required. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Polentially Significant Impact Less PotentiallyUnless Than SignificantMitigation SignificanlNo Impact IncorpocatedImpact Impact c) d) e) 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.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v") Locally designated natural communities (e.g., eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) -( ) ( ) Issues and Supporbng Information Sources: Polentially Significant Impact Less PotentiallyUnless Than S~gnificantMitigation SignificantNo Impact IncorporatedImpact Impact c) ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal.' a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') 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? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Initial Study for Development Review 97-09 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 7 issues and Suppoding Information Sources: HAZARDS. a) b) c) d) e) Potentiarly Signifyant Impact Would the proposal involve: A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? ( ) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) 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 Impact Less Unless Than Mitigation Significant IncorporatedImpact No Impact () () () () (v') () (¢) () () () (~) () () Comments: c) The project involves the establishment of a medical office whose equipment, processes, and services will be typical to those associated with the normal operation of a medical office and will not involve the creation of a health hazard. Operation of the facility will involve the processing of biohazard waste whose disposal is regulated by the San Bernardino County Department of Environmental Health Services. No mitigation is required. 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 Less PotenliallyUnless Than SignificantMitigation SignificantNo Impact IncorporatedImpact Impact () () () (¢) () () () (¢) 11. Issues and Supporting 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) Fire protection? b) Police protection? Potentially Significant Impact Less PotentiallyUnless Than SignificantMitigation SignificantNo Impact IncorporatedImpact Impact () () () () () () (v) Initial Study for Development Review 97-09 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 8 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: c) d) e) Schools? Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? Other governmental services? Potentially Significant Impact () () () Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Inco,"~orated () () () Less Than Sign~..anl No Impact Impact ( ) (v,) ( ) (v') () (,/) 12. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or suppries or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) b) c) d) e) 0 g) Power or 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 Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Imoact Impact () () () (¢) () () () (¢) () () () (¢) () () () (¢) () () () (~) () () () (¢) () () () (¢) 13. Issues and Support~l Infom~ation 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 Signif~.anl Impact () () () Potentially Significant Impact Unless M~bgation Incoq:x:~'ated () () () Less Than SignScant Impa~ () () (v') No Impact (~') (¢) () Comments: c) The project site is ~,e located within an urbanizing area which has no light sensitive '~. uses. The only outdoor lighting associated with the project will be for security purposes or to illuminate entrances and parking areas. This type of lighting is common to the project area, including existing industrial areas directly to the south, ear, and west, and will not significantly alter the present condition or result in .~ Initial Study for Development Review 97-09 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 9 significant adverse impacts. Light fixtures will be designed to comply with City Standards. No mitigation is required. 14. Issues and Suppoding Information Sources: CULTURAL RESOURCES. a) b) c) d) e) Potentially Significant Impact Less PotentiallyUnless Than SignificantMitigation SignificantNo Impact Incorl:x~ratedImpact Impact Would the proposal.' Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? () () () (v') Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') 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 Less PotentiallyUnless Than SignificantMitigation SignificantNo Impact Incort:x~ratedImpacl Impact () () () () () () 16. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: 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? Potentially Significant Impact Less PotentiallyUnless Than SignificantMitigation SignificantNo Impact IncorporatedImpact Impact () () () (¢) Initial Study for Development Review 97-09 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 10 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: b) c) d) Potentially Significant Impact Short term: Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? ( ) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( ) Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ( ) Poten[ially Significant Impact Lass Unless Than Mitigation Significant Incorporated Impact No Impact () () (~) () (~) () () () (~) Comments: c) Adoption of the proposed project will not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. The proposed project will pay development impact fees established by the City, the rates of which have been designed to mitigate the potential impacts to fire protection services, police protection services, parks or other recreational facilities, and other governmental services to a level of non- significance. To the extent the project may impact upon utility resources provided by private utility companies, potential impacts upon such resources will be mitigated by the payment of rates and charges to these companies. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The following earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply): (¢) General Plan EIR (Certified April 6, 1981) (v') Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989) (,/) Industrial Area Specific Plan EIR (Certified September 19, 1981) MAY 01 '97 10:55AM P.E.P P.2x2 ~ Fromm : HOGI~--IR~L~ND INC PH[]~E No. : 909T8~9~ Ma~.01 1997 11.'~G~M P84 Study for ~velopment Review 91 City of Rancho Page APPLICANT CERTIFICATION ! certify that I am the .ppliGant f~r Ih~ piejest doamlbed in t~e In~al Study. i ackn~l~go ~at I have read this Initfe~ 8~Oy and the pm~ m~on ~asuma. Fu~r, I ~ave ~vl~O the p~je~ pla~ or pra~aale a~or he~ agree ~ ~ p~aee ml~lgation measu~s ~ avo~ the effeela or mitigate the effe~ to a ~1~ ~ere ~eaHy no ~nih~t en~ronme~l e~ WOUld PHnt Name an~ RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 97-09 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 50,103 SQUARE FOOT MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING ON 5.72 ACRES OF LAND, AND THE VACATION OF NON-VEHICULAR ACCESS ON ARROW ROUTE, LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF ARROW ROUTE AND RED OAK STREET IN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK DISTRICT (SUBAREA 7) OF THE INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 208-352-53 THRU 56. A. Recitals. 1. Kaiser Permanente has filed an application for the approval of Development Review No. 97-09, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 14th day of May 1997, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a meeting on the application and concluded said meeting on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced meeting on May 14, 1997, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located at the northeast corner of Arrow Route and Red Oak Street with a street frontage of 399 feel along Arrow Route and 516 feet along Red Oak Street and is presently vacant; and b. The property to the north of the subject site is vacant, the properties to the south and west contain existing industrial buildings, and the property to the east contains the Post Office; and 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and b. That the proposed use is in accord with the objectives of the Industrial Area Specific Plan and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 97-09 - KAISER PERMANENTE May 14, 1997 Page 2 c. That the proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Industrial Area Specific Plan; and d. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and e. The vacation of the non-vehicular access easement on Arrow Route is consistent 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 adopts a Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows: a. That the Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder; that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the application. b. That, based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission during the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Planning Division 1) Berming shall be provided in the parking setback areas off of Arrow Route, Red Oak Street, and Civic Center Drive. The design of the berms shall be undulating to provide interest and visual access to the building. 2) Berming adjacent to Arrow Route shall be undulating and average a height of 3 feet (maximum slope not to exceed 3~: 1) to screen parking. 3) Provide a consistent paving material at both project driveways and the pedestrian circulation paths. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 97-09 - KAISER PERMANENTE May 14, 1997 Page 3 o Engineering Division 1) A traffic study to determine the need for a traffic signal at the intersection of Arrow Route and Red Oak Street shall be provided prior to building permits. If warranted, a traffic signal shall be installed pdor to occupancy. The developer shall be eligible for fee credits toward and reimbursement of costs in excess of the Transportation Development Fee, in conformance with City policy. 2) A Certificate of Compliance shall be processed to reconfigure the parcels as proposed, prior to the issuance of building permits. 3) All outstanding frontage improvements shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Drawings 328 and 404 revised to reflect the additions or changes. 4) All street frontages shall be posted "No Parking" or "No Stopping." 5) Vacate the existing non-vehicular access on Arrow Route. The Secretan/to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF MAY 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 14th day of May 1997, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CON DITIONS PROJECT#: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: DR 97-09 Medical Office Building Kaiser Permanente Northeast corner of Arrow Route & Red Oak Street ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. Time Limits Com131etion Date Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, if building permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 24 months from the date of approval. / / 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, and the Industrial Area 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 Distdct and the Building and Safety Division to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. / / 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. / / SC - 10196 1 Project No. 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. 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. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans) All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet and shall contain a 12-inch walk adjacent to the parking stall (including curb). Textured pedestrian pathways and textured pavement across circulation aisles shall be provided throughout the development to connect dwellings/units/buildings with open spaces/plazas/recreational uses. 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. Warehouse distribution uses shall provide bicycle storage spaces at a rate of 2.5 percent on the required automobile parking spaces with a minimum of a 3-bike rack. In no case shall the total number of bicycle parking spaces required exceed 100. DR 97-09 Completion Date / / / / / / / / / / / / / / SC - 10/96 2 Project No. 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. Landscaping A detailed landscape and irrigation plan shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. A minimum of 30 % of trees planted within the project shall be specimen size trees - 24-inch box or larger. 10. 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 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. 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. 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. DR 97-09 Completion Date / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / SC * 10196 Project No. 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. G. Other Agencies The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location of mail boxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for mail boxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mail boxes and the design of the overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. APPLICANTS SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: H. Site Development The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of issuance of relative permits. Please contact the Building and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new commercial or industrial development or addition to an existing development, the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: Transportation Development Fee, Drainage Fee, School Fees, Permit and Plan Checking Fees. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation and prior to issuance of building permits. I. 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. DR 97-09 Completion Date / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: J. Dedication and Vehicular Access 1. Corner property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards. SC - 10/96 4 Ko Project No. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be provided by separate document and processed concurrently with the Certificate of Compliance for the Lot Line Adjustment. Street Improvements 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 Arrow Route Civic Center Drive Red Oak Street c v' v' c v' v' ,/ c v' v' ,/ DR 97-09 Completion Date / / / / Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan check. (c) If so marked, sidewalk shall be curvilinear per STD. 114. (d)If so marked, an in-lieu of construction fee shall be provided for this item. Improvement Plans and Construction: Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any other permits required. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR, or any other locations approved by the City Engineer. Notes: (1) Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200 feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer. (2) Conduit shall be 3-inch (at intersections) or 2-inch (along streets) galvanized steel with pull rope or as specified. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. / / / / / / / / / / SC - 10/96 5 Project No. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards, except for single family residential lots. h. Street names shall be approved by the City Planner prior to submittal for first plan check. Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in accordance with the City's street tree program. Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with adopted policy. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project intersections, including driveways. Local residential street intersections and commercial or industrial driveways may have lines of sight plotted as required. L. Public Maintenance Areas A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. M. Utilities 1. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from the CCWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. N. 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: O. General Fire Protection Conditions 1. Mello Roos Community Facilities District requirements shall apply to this project. 2. Fire flow requirement shall be 3,000 gallons per minute. A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department personnel prior to water plan approval. DR 97-09 Completion Date / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / sc - lO/96 Project No. b. 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. 3. 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. 4. Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided prior to water plan approval. Required hydrants, if any, will be determined by the Fire District. Fire District standards require a 6" riser with a 4" and a 2-1/2" outlet. Substandard hydrants shall be upgraded to meet this standard. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specifications on approved brands and model numbers. 5. Prior to the issuance of building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be submitted to the Fire District that an approved temporary water supply for fire protection is available, pending completion of required fire protection system. 6. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for all hydrants and installed prior to final inspection. 7. An automatic fire extinguishing system(s) will be required as noted below: X Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15. X Other: 1994 Uniform Building Code. 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. 8. Sprinkler system monitoring shall be installed and operational immediately upon completion of sprinkler system. 9. A fire alarm system(s) shall be required as noted below: X Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15. X California Code Regulations Title 24. 10. Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District's fire lane standards, as noted: X All roadways. X Other: See Ordinance No. 22. 11. Fire department access shall be amended to facilitate emergency apparatus. 12. All trees and shrubs planted in any median shall be kept trimmed a minimum of 14'6" from ground up so as not to impede fire apparatus. 13. A building directory shall be required, as noted below: X Standard Directory in main lobby. DR 97-09 Completion Date / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / SC - 10/96 7 14. Project No. 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. 15. Plan check fees in the amount of $0 have been paid. An additional $ 645.00 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. 16. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1994 UBC, UFC, UPC, UMC, NEC, and RCFD Standards 22 and 15. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: P. Security Lighting 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. All buildings shall have minimal secudty 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. Q. Security Hardware 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. All roof openings giving access to the building shall be secured with either iron bars, metal gates, or alarmed. Building Numbering Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime visibility. Developer shall paint roof top numbers on one or more roofs of this development. They shall be a minimum of three feet in length and two feet in width and of contrasting color to background. The stencils for this purpose are on loan at the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department. Alarm Systems 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. DR 97-09 Coml)letion Date / / / / / / / / / / / / / / $C - 10/96 8