Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2011/09/28 - Agenda Packet w • THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA RANCHO CUCAMONGA SEPTEMBER 28, 2011 - 7:00 PM Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center Council Chambers 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California I I: CALL TO ORDER I Roll Call Chairman Munoz Vice Chairman Howdyshell • Fletcher_ Wimberly_ Oaxaca _ IIL APPROVAL'OFMIN+UTES. ; ' „ • I August 24, 2011 Special Joint City Council and Commission Meeting Minutes September 14, 2011 Regular Meeting Minutes September 14, 2011 Adjourned Workshop Meeting Minutes III. ‘,: PUBLIC HEARINGS . I The following items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice their opinion of the related project. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address the Commission by stating your name and address. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. Please sign in after speaking. A. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2011-00352 - GENSLER FOR CHASE BANK -A proposal to demolish an existing retail building of 6,600 square feet and construct a bank of 4,207 square feet with remote drive-thru ATM kiosks within an existing shopping center in the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) District, Terra Vista Community Plan (TVCP), located at 10598 Base Line Road at the northeast corner of Haven Avenue and Base Line Road- APN: 1 076-481-35. Related file: Pre-Application Review DRC2011- 00041, Tree Removal Permit DRC2011-00683, and Uniform Sign Program • Amendment DRC2011-00668. This action is categorically exempt from the 1 of 3 a y PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA • Aso-1 SEPTEMBER 28, 2011 RANCHO CUCAMONGA California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15302 - Replacement or Reconstruction. B. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT DRC2011-00683 - GENSLER FOR CHASE BANK - A request to remove trees in conjunction with a proposal to construct a bank of 4,207 square feet with remote drive-thru ATM kiosks at 10598 Base Line Road located within an existing shopping center in the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) District, Terra Vista Community Plan (TVCP), located at the northeast corner of Haven Avenue and Base Line Road;APN: 1076-481-35. Related file: Pre-Application Review DRC2011- 00041. ' IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS, I This is the time and place for the general public to address the commission. Items to be discussed here are those that do not already appear on this agenda. • V. COMMISSION$USINESS%COMMENTS • ;I I , . ' VI. 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, Lois J. Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on September 22, 2011, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. 'H. .7—1., IgiIf you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the Planning Department at (909) 477-2750. Notification of 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. Listening devices are available for the hearing impaired. • 2 of 3 • PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA S SEPTEMBER 28, 2011 RANCHO CUCAMONGA INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION The Planning Commission encourages free expression of all points of view. To allow all persons to speak, given the length of the agenda, please keep your remarks brief. If others have already expressed your position,you may simply indicate that you agree with a previous speaker. If appropriate, a spokesperson may present the views of your entire group. To encourage all views and promote courtesy to others, the audience should refrain from clapping, booing or shouts of approval or disagreement from the audience. The public may address the Planning Commission on any agenda item. To address the Planning Commission, please come forward to the podium located at the center of the staff table. State your name for the record and speak into the microphone. After speaking, please sign in on the clipboard located next to the speaker's podium. It is important to list your name, address and the agenda item letter your comments refer to. Comments are generally limited to 5 minutes per individual. If you wish to speak concerning an item not on the agenda, you may do so under"Public • Comments." There is opportunity to speak under this section prior to the end of the agenda. Any handouts for the Planning Commission should be given to the Planning Commission Secretary for distribution to the Commissioners. All requests for items to be placed on a Planning Commission agenda must be in writing. The deadline for submitting these items is 6:00 p.m. Tuesday, one week prior to the meeting. The Planning Commission Secretary receives all such items. AVAILABILITY OF STAFF REPORTS Copies of the staff reports or other documentation to each agenda item are on file in the offices of the Planning Department, City Hall, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. These documents are available for public inspections during regular business hours, Monday through Thursday, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., except for legal City holidays. APPEALS Any interested party who disagrees with the City Planning Commission decision may appeal the Commission's decision to the City Council within 10 calendar days. Any appeal filed must be directed to the City Clerk's Office and must be accompanied by a fee of$2,164 for maps and $2,273 for all other decisions of the Commission. (Fees are established and governed by the City Council). Please turn off all cellular phones and pagers while the meeting is in session. Copies of the Planning Commission agendas and minutes can be found at http://www.ci.rancho-cucamonga.ca.us • 3 of 3 Vicinity Map • Planning Commission Meeting September 28 , 2011 A and B r- CII I--; c -- ---,._...._..— z� :j D o C > I _� U I Q 2 2 c. Y 4 1 NI F _ d i t, I E I a fJ _ IF i ,`"-1-_ I •- 19® t' I��f� t T. 1. i Base Line 1 I __ ,K Base Line 1 Church i�� t ti Church MiniFoothill r i € a �PN ( ; Foothill Arrow • caul ! r / n j e Arrow Jersey r i Hi 8th : .._.._.._..! m � w Wi \‘,11, 2 n t••_n_w > A 0 8th n T. ^ c m 8th N 2 4th "' a 4•--__—.._. .._..... t __—..14th Meeting Location: ® • City Hall 10500 Civic Center Drive • • August 24, 2011 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL, FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, REDEVELOPMENTAGENCY JOINT MEETING WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING • ::.. ... ,. � ,: A CAL• L'.TO.ORDER A special joint meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council, Fire Protection District and Redevelopment Agency was held with the Planning Commission on Wednesday, August 24, 2011, in the Tri-Communities Room at the Civic Center, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Mayor/Chairman/President L. Dennis Michael called the meeting to order at 5:02 p.m. Present were Council Members/Board Members/Agency Members: Bill Alexander, Chuck Buquet, Diane Williams, Mayor Pro Tem/Vice ChairmanNice President Sam Spagnolo and Mayor/President/Chairman L. Dennis Michael. Present were Planning Commission Members: Richard Fletcher, Vice Chairman Frances Howdyshell, Chairman Lou Munoz and Ray Wimberly. Francisco Oaxaca arrived at 5:35 p.m. Also present were: Jack Lam, City Manager; Jim Markman, City Attorney; John Gillison, Assistant City Manager, Linda Daniels, Deputy City Manager; James Troyer, Planning Director; Trang Huynh, Building and Safety Services Director; Mark Steuer, Engineering Director and Debra L. McNay, Assistant City Clerk/Records Manager. • B. PO Bub.COW UNIGATIONs There was no one from the audience who wished to speak. • C. ITEM(S) OF DISCUSSION C1. Report and presentation from the Development Review Working Group on updating the Development Review Process. Linda Daniels, Deputy City Manager, noted that at the January, 2011 City Council workshop a goal was identified to review and update the development review process. She reported that a working group of professionals was formed to analyze the process and make recommendations. Mrs. Daniels noted that a report has been prepared for the City Council and the Planning Commission which lists the recommendations of the Working Group. In addition, a matrix has been developed in order to identify the tasks needed to implement the recommendations. Members of the Working Group were in attendance at the meeting to discuss their recommendations, including Len Santoro, Carol Plowman, Peter Pitassi, John Young, Mark Bertone, Stan Morse and Joe Schumacher. In addition, Mrs. Daniels introduced John Bosler and Todd Corbin, representing Cucamonga Valley Water District, who have been participating in the meetings. Linda turned the meeting over to the Working Group members for their presentation. Peter Pitassi, Pitassi Architects, reported on the three meetings that were held by the Working Group and staff and their analysis of the development review process. Overall, he noted that the process works well and commended City staff. The Working Group has developed recommendations regarding the • completeness letter and has made suggestions to improve the timing and method of staff responses to applicants. Special City Council/ Fire Board/ Redevelopment Agency Joint Meeting with the Planning Commission—August 24, 2011 Page 1 of 4 Stan Morse, MDS Consulting noted that he has worked in the City since its incorporation and discussed how the process has worked well all these years. Mr. Morse stated that the process can be overwhelming • to young or inexperienced staff that is expected to process the plans on behalf of their company. Therefore, the group discussed ways to better communicate the City's values so that the development review process can result in a quality product as quickly as possible. Mark Bertone, Madole & Associates commented that the system is not broken and that the recommendations presented by the Working Group were meant to fine-tune the process. One of the Working Group's recommendations is that the City assemble examples of exceptional design values as well as poorly executed design examples along with a commentary that describes the redeeming values or how the project did not succeed. John Young, Lewis Group of Companies noted the need to conserve paper and to enhance existing technology in the development review process. The Working Group is recommending that the City accept 1/2 size sets; consider the number of full sets that are being requested and to modify the RCTOPS system to be more"contractor friendly". Carol Plowman, Lee and Associates stated that the Working Group is recommending that the City contact the property owners of undeveloped or underdeveloped property in order to discuss the property owner's plans for development and land use. She noted that many cities place their retail areas apart from one another. The City is unique as there is six million square feet of retail in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. She noted that new projects should be carefully considered before being approved. Also, Mrs. Plowman noted the need to revitalize and repurposing retail centers and suggested that live/work opportunities should be pursued. Len Santoro, CB Richard Ellis reported the need to address the building transitions that are taking place. There is a current trend to consider existing buildings for adaptive re-use to occupancies that might not be a perfect fit. Mr. Santoro stated that forward-looking companies are pursuing LEED certified or green • coded buildings and suggested that the building standards be reviewed and modified accordingly. Mr. Pitassi indicated that the LEED certification should not be mandated but encouraged in the City. Council Member Bill Alexander thanked the Working Group for their recommendations. He stressed the need to work with the development community and noted that the document contained many statements containing the word, "should" instead of "will". Council Member Alexander addressed the Screencheck letter and suggested that a provision be added to encourage the applicant to turn in the corrections sooner to even further expedite the process. He suggested that the City Council provide conceptual approval to the recommendations to allow further time for review and modifications. Linda Daniels introduced Trang Huynh, Building and Safety Services Director to briefly discuss the RCTOPS system. In closing, Mrs. Daniels noted that the recommendations include improving communications with the applicants, marketing the services provided by the City and enhancing the development review process. She welcomed comments from the City Council and the Planning Commission and requested their endorsement of the recommendations. While many of the recommendations can be implemented immediately, Mrs. Daniels addressed several matters that will take longer to develop. These included taking a more greener approach to the number of sets required with submittals, review and modification of the handouts to include examples of exceptional design values, determining the viability of accepting 1/2 size sets and review of the RCTOPS program to see if it can be modified as recommended by the Working Group. She suggested that the Working Group be convened every 2-3 years in order to look at the modifications and make sure that the review process stays current and efficient. Commission Member Richard Fletcher appreciated the formation of the Working Group and their recommendations on how to fine-tune the development review process. He said because there is a • Special City Council/ Fire Board/ Redevelopment Agency Joint Meeting with the Planning Commission—August 24, 2011 Page 2 of 4 process, the end product is better. He stressed the need for customer service and encouraged a more • proactive and problem-solving approach to project review. Commission Member Ray Wimberly appreciated the analysis and recommendations. He noted that there is a good process currently in place which refines and enhances the projects submitted for consideration. He supported the idea of providing good examples for developers to review and noted that the developer needs to provide due diligence in this process as well. Commission Member Francisco Oaxaca agreed with the use and refinement of technology to assist in the development review process and specifically mentioned improving the "RC Tops" services. He also favored a more "green" approach to project submittals. Commission Member Oaxaca commented that newer developers may be more comfortable with new technologies. He supported the recommendations of the Working Group. Vice Chairman Frances Howdyshell commented on communication in that it is both internal and external and that all levels of staff should be provided training and to understand the process. She said once changes are in place, a "checkpoint" to evaluate how the implementation is working/not working would be valuable down the road. Chairman Lou Munoz appreciated the discussion regarding re-purposing existing buildings. He thanked the Working Group for their analysis and recommendations on how to fine-tune the development review process. He mentioned the example of parking analysis and how the Commission and staff are already working with a customer towards a workable solution and that he supports enfolding these types of changes into the Development Code Update. Mayor Pro Tern Sam Spagnolo concurred with the recommendation to contact property owners to discuss their plans for undeveloped or underdeveloped parcels. He thanked the Working Group for their report. • Council Member Diane Williams appreciated the candid comments and practical suggestions. She supported the recommendation to contact property owners to disuses their future plans for undeveloped or underdeveloped parcels and concurred with the concept to develop exceptional designs and planning solutions. Council Member Chuck Buquet indicated that he has worked with many of the Working Group members and noted that their recommendations were a good start in refining the process. He noted that the Screencheck letter should be very clear as to the items needing correction and whether these are design or technical issues. The goal is to get projects past the Screencheck letter and into the review process. Council Member Buquet suggested that the Design Award program be re-established and stressed the need for a customer friendly development review process. He noted that the plan distribution list should be evaluated in order to lessen the number of sets required and that electronic filings should be pursued. E-mail should be used rather than letters. While the system is not broken, Council Member Buquet noted the need to create an environment to encourage development and job creation. Council Member Bill Alexander agreed that further refinement is needed. Mayor Dennis Michael pointed out that this is the first time a working group of professionals has been asked to review the process. With the economy starting to turn around, it is the perfect time to reposition ourselves to facilitate quality development. Mayor Michael stressed that communication was the key and supported the recommendation to develop exceptional design examples. He concurred that the Design Award program should be re-established. Mayor Michael spoke about re-purposing of existing buildings and supported the pursuit of research-and-development facilities and a highly educated workforce. In conclusion, he appreciated the Work Group's insight and recommendations. Linda Daniels appreciated the comments that had been made and requested endorsement of the recommendations. In response to Council Member Bill Alexander, Mrs. Daniels confirmed that the recommendations can be modified at any time. It was noted that a report can be given at the teambuilding • workshop scheduled for January. Special City Council/ Fire Board/Redevelopment Agency Joint Meeting with the Planning Commission—August 24, 2011 Page 3 of 4 Discussion was held regarding how to involve the Working Group in future reviews and analysis of the development review process. Council Member Chuck Buquet requested a copy of the matrix and • suggested that a report be prepared for a City Council meeting outlining the steps needed to implement the recommendations. Jack Lam, City Manager, suggested that a status report can be made to the City Council at the January team building session. Feedback from the Working Group on the development review process can be obtained prior to the meeting. MOTION: Moved by Chairman Lou Munoz, seconded by Vice Chairman Frances Howdyshell, to adopt the recommendations listed in the staff report. Motion carried 5-0. MOTION: Moved by Mayor Pro Tem Sam Spagnolo, seconded by Council Member Diane Williams, to adopt the recommendations listed in the staff report. Motion carried 5-0. I D. ADJOURNMENT -L;L:PLANNIid COMMISSION • I Chairman Lou Munoz adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 6:30 p.m. I E. EXEC UTIVE•,DIRECTOR/CIT . MANAGER STAFF'REPORTS El. Consideration of an Enforceable Obligation Payment Schedule pursuant to AB1X 26 Linda Daniels, Deputy City Manager, noted that the California Redevelopment Association and the League of California Cities have filed a lawsuit in the California.Supreme Court seeking to overturn ABX1 26 and ABX1 27. Unless overturned, these bills will result in the elimination of many redevelopment agencies and/or forced payments by local agencies to fund State obligations to schools. Mrs. Daniels distributed an Enforceable Obligation Payment Schedule for the Rancho Cucamonga • Redevelopment Agency for the Agency's consideration. Jim Markman, City Attorney, reported that the California Supreme Court has issued a stay, freezing the State legislation affecting the elimination of Redevelopment Agencies. He noted that even though the Agency has decided not to dissolve and has chosen to make the payment to the State, an Enforceable Obligation Payment Schedule must be adopted by the end of August in the event that the Redevelopment Agency is eliminated in accordance with ABX1 26. MOTION: Moved by Council Member Bill Alexander, seconded by Council Member Diane Williams, to approve the Enforceable Obligation Payment Schedule pursuant to AB1X 26. Motion carried 5-0. F. ADJOURNMENT I The meeting adjourned at 6:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Debra L. McNay, MMC Assistant City Clerk/Records Manager Approved: September 7, 2011 (City Council) • Special City Council/ Fire Board /Redevelopment Agency Joint Meeting with the Planning Commission—August 24, 2011 Page 4 of 4 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting September 14, 2011 Chairman Munoz called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:20 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chambers at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Richard Fletcher, Frances Howdyshell, Lou Munoz, Ray Wimberly ABSENT: Francisco Oaxaca STAFF PRESENT: Steven Flower, Assistant City Attorney; Steve Fowler, Assistant Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Lois Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary; Mike Smith,Associate Planner; James Troyer, Planning Director; Tabe Van der Zwaag, Associate Planner ANNOUNCEMENTS • None APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by Wimberly, (Howdyshell abstain, Oaxaca absent)carried 3-0-1-1, to approve the minutes of August 24, 2011. Chairman Munoz recused himself to avoid any perception of a conflict of interest as he is employed by a communications company. He left the Council Chambers at 7:21 p.m. Vice Chairman assumed the role as Chairman for the hearing item to follow. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2011-00010-PTS FOR T-MOBILE AND PLANCOM, INC. FOR VERIZON -A request to remove an existing single-carrier Minor Wireless Communication Facility of 35 feet in height and in its place construct a multi-carrier Major Wireless Communications Facility of 75 feet in height on a parcel of 4.65 acres that is developed with facilities owned and operated by the Cucamonga Valley Water District(CVWD) in the Very Low (VL) Residential District located at 6615 Etiwanda Avenue; APN 0227-051-29. Related file: Minor Development Review DRC2005-00762. This action is categorically exempt from the • California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15302 Replacement or Reconstruction. Mike Smith, Associate Planner presented the staff report. • Commissioner Fletcher asked if we have height limitation. • Mr. Smith said it is 35 feet. Commissioner Fletcher asked if we have a 75-foot tower anywhere else. Mr. Smith said in the Industrial Area. Commissioner Fletcher asked how the height is determined and what kinds of efficiencies are gained by adding height to the tower. Vice Chairman Howdyshell opened the public hearing and invited the applicant's representative to answer the question. Peter Blied, representing Nextel, said the height is determined for maximum coverage area; the higher the tower, the better coverage. He said these systems also operate via line of site. He said the Code has a provision for additional height if there is a collocation proposed. He said if they are not able to stack the antennae in this manner then there will be more of these facilities would be needed within a smaller area to provide the same level of coverage. Commissioner Fletcher asked how many carriers can collocate on a 75 foot pole. Mr. Blied said 4-5 carriers; he added that 75 feet should also cover any need for future carriers. Commissioner Fletcher noted the before and after exhibits. He asked how much more efficient is a 35 foot tower as opposed to a 75 foot tower. • Mr. Blied said each have a range limitation and there are two factors to consider; basic coverage and also density and the volume of users. He said Rancho Cucamonga has had considerable growth and everything is going wireless. He said the map exhibits may show coverage but not capacity. Vice Chairman Howdyshell noted that the northern part of the City typically gets less reception. Commissioner Fletcher said he was curious about if it will tower over the neighborhood. He said that he lives in the foothills and there is pretty sketchy coverage there. Mr Blied said there is a grove of eucalyptus along the home tract boundary that will soften the visual impact of the tower. He said Commissioner Fletcher's point was well taken. The carriers want to maximize their coverage and there are many factors to consider. Commissioner Wimberly asked what the required separation is on the pole between carriers. Mr. Blied said it is generally 10 feet from tip to tip depending on the carriers and engineering. He said some are farther apart depending upon bandwidths. Commissioner Wimberly asked if microwaves work differently. Mr. Blied said they require more control such as a pinpoint. He said phone and data is a more broad application. • Planning Commission Minutes -2- September 14, 2011 Vice Chairman Howdyshell asked if there is room for more expansion on this tower or if it is maxed out. • Mr. Blied said it appears there is room for one more carrier. Vice Chairman Howdyshell opened the public hearing and seeing and hearing none, closed the public hearing. Commissioner Fletcher said his biggest concern is how it fits in the neighborhood. He said the location is appropriate and it is good that the existing pole is there and still can be used during construction of the new pole. He said there is a need of better coverage for our residents and businesses. Commissioner Wimberly agreed with Commissioner Fletcher, especially regarding coverage. He said that leaving the 35 foot pole in place while the new one is under construction should not have any impact. He said he is in favor of the project. Vice Chairman Howdyshell said that the location is lined with significant trees. She said it will be camouflaged and with the housing to the south there are many trees as well. She said increased cell service is good. Motion: Moved by Wimberly, seconded by Fletcher, 3-0-1-1 to adopt the Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit DRC2011-00010. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, WIMBERLY NOES: NONE ABSTAIN: MUNOZ ABSENT: OAXACA - carried • . . . a * Chairman Munoz returned to the Council Chambers at 7:40 p.m. . . . . . B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT18806 - LEWIS OPERATING CORPORATION - A request to create a 33 lot Tentative Tract Map on 10.35 acres located in the Low-Medium (LM) Development District of the Etiwanda Specific Plan (ESP) on the north side of Base Line Road between Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue-APN: 0227-131-03, 08 and 62. Related File: Development Design Review DRC2010-01005. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DESIGN REVIEW DRC2010-01005 - LEWIS OPERATING CORPORATION - Site plan and architectural review for a 33 lot subdivision on 10.35 acres located in the Low-Medium (LM) Development District of the Etiwanda Specific Plan (ESP) on the north side of Base Line Road between Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue - APN: 0227-131-03, 08 and 62. Related File - Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18806. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. D. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT DRC2011-00165 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION -A request to remove 81 trees related to the development of 33 homes (DRC2010-01005) on 10.35 acres located in the Low-Medium (LM) Development District of the Etiwanda Specific • Plan (ESP)on the north side of Base Line Road between Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue- APN: 0227-131-03, 08 and 62. Planning Commission Minutes -3- September 14,.2011 Tabe van der Zwaag,Associate Planner presented the staff report. He noted that he received a call today from a neighbor with concerns about the timeline of the intersection completion, the loss of habitat for birds, and the loss of shade for property to the east that is currently provided by the large • windrow. He said the applicant agreed to all the DRC requirements. Commissioner Wimberly asked if he was able to resolve the caller's concerns. Mr. van der Zwaag said she seemed satisfied with respect to staffs intent to install the intersection. He noted that the applicant made an offer to the owner to the west to relinquish the easement needed for the access but they said they not interested. Commissioner Wimberly asked about the size of the trees being planted. Mr. van der Zwaag pointed out that although some think it would be better to transplant larger trees, it is known that smaller trees transplant better and may grow faster than more mature trees and the likelihood of their survival is better as well. Commissioner Fletcher asked about the plastic fence and what would happen with that. Mr. van der Zwaag reported that this issue stems back to the development of the project to the east. He said the owner of the old existing residence (Mr. Mora) did not want his trees removed and did not want a block wall put in because the construction would damage the tree roots. He said at that previous Commission meeting, the Commission decided to put in vinyl fencing to protect the trees with the hope that when this future development came in, the Commission could then require the block wall to be installed as originally intended. He said he sent a letter to all the property owners. He said he received 14 replies and they want the wall. Commissioner Fletcher said he recalled the issue was that the windrow was very close to the • property line. He said at the time he had a concern about the liability of property damage that could be caused by the trees. He noted there was also a building that extended over the property line. He said considering the trees are all mature,diseased, bug infested eucalyptus; he felt they presented a hazard. • Garth Chambers representing Lewis Development reported that Lewis is a 50 percent partner with Van Dale Homes and Lewis is vested through the process. He thanked staff for their assistance. He said they have reviewed and accept the conditions of approval. Chairman Munoz opened the public hearing. Edgar Placentia said he lives on Green Canyon Drive and owns a home to the east adjacent to the project. He said he has met with their HOA and they have concerns about the development with respect to 1) increase of traffic in their neighborhood/safety risk; the developer should consider a primary access from Base Line Road and 2) they do not want the trees removed; the new homes should be built without having to remove the trees as they shade the homes saving energy costs and also provide shade for the walkers and joggers as well as providing habitat for hawks, and owls that may be nesting. He said they are asking to leave some of the trees in place, and 3)the current homes have an HOA and that they have been told the new development will not have an HOA which could affect property values. He said the new neighborhood should have one; there are minimal costs with good benefits. Lupe Eastman said she is a current property owner. She said the tree branches are falling and there is a bug infestation. She said they are costly to take care of. She said a thinning of the trees would benefit the Van Dale community. She said she is worried about the liability if the branches • should fall. Planning Commission Minutes -4- September 14, 2011 Chairman Munoz closed the public hearing. • Garth Chambers of Lewis Development said with respect to the concern about traffic; there is an ongoing effort to acquire the full right of way. He said they have worked with staff towards an alternate solution that does not greatly impact tract to the east. He noted they prepared an arborist report which indicates the trees are not healthy or safe. He said they will replant with a better species. He said there will not be an HOA but they will have guidelines. He said they will not burden these owners with an HOA. Commissioner Fletcher asked what the backyard depth from the rear property line is. Mr. Chambers said they are about 35 feet deep; 27 feet from the back of the house to the trees. Commissioner Fletcher said the street is designed to handle anticipated traffic flows. He said he recalled the prior project approval to the east and he looked at the windrows and they were in bad shape then. He said he would not want them adjacent to his wall or backyard as they are diseased bug infested. He said they are a -hazard to the new and existing homeowners. He said to replant gives the developer an opportunity to build a nicer development and they may have healthier trees over time. Commissioner Wimberly said the project should add to the value of the surrounding properties. He said he worked with the applicant at DRC and they worked with staff and came to terms with all the recommended changes. He said their proposal for trees is very fair and it should be a nice project. Vice Chairman Howdyshell said she looked at the proposed and the existing circulation plan. She said Pasture Court appears landlocked. She said those residents should benefit with the proposed circulation. She said the development should add to this neighborhood. • Chairman Munoz said in general, the traffic concerns are unfounded. He said the proposal gives the existing residents flexibility. He said with respect to the tree issue, pruning has to be done right and it could be big expense. He said the design of the homes is very nice. He noted that these are not final drawings but the applicant accepted all recommended changes. He said he supports the project as proposed. Commissioner Fletcher commented on the house product and size of the homes. He said he enjoyed seeing this size of this product at about 2700 square feet. He said they are easier to afford and it expands the City's product base. Chairman Munoz added that he is glad the applicant met the 25% single-story requirement. Motion: Moved by Wimberly, seconded by Howdyshell, to adopt the Resolutions approving Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18806, Development Design Review DRC2010-01005 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2011-00165. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, MUNOZ, WIMBERLY NOES: NONE ABSENT: OAXACA, - carried E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16804 - LEWIS INVESTMENT COMPANY-A request to create a Tract Map that includes 55 single-family lots and 12 lots for condominium purposes for a proposed 119 unit development (55 single-family • residences and 64 multi-family residences) on 18.7 gross acres of land for a site located in the Low-Medium (LM) Residential Development District at the southwest corner of Archibald Planning Commission Minutes -5- September 14, 2011 Avenue and 6th Street - APN: 0210-062-08. Related files: Development Review DRC2010- 00960, Variance DCR2011-00168 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2011-00166. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. • F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DESIGN REVIEW DRC2010-00960 - LEWIS INVESTMENT COMPANY-Site plan review for a 119 unit development that includes 55 single-family residences and 64 multi-family residences on 18.7 gross acres of land including architectural review for the 64 multi-family residences and common buildings for a site located in the Low Medium (LM) Residential Development District at the southwest corner of Archibald Avenue and 6th Street - APN: 0210-062-08. Related files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18804, Variance DCR2011-00168 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2011-00166. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. G. VARIANCE DRC2011-00168-LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CORP. -A request to construct south property line walls up to 9 feet high due to a grade difference between the project site and the existing lots to the south related to Development Review DRC2010-00960. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. H. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT DRC2011-00166- LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CORP. -A request to remove 17 trees related to Development Review DRC2010-00960 for an 18.7 gross acres site located in the Low-Medium (LM) Residential Development District at the southwest corner of Archibald Avenue and 6th Street -APN: 0210-062-08. Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He said he received a letter today from Carla Florena, a resident at 9580 Meadow Street, which expresses concern about removing the trees as it eliminates a bird habitat; the writer asked for a tree buffer between properties, and a landscaped center median. Ms. Florena said she is glad the developer met the 25% single-story requirement but all of the two-story homes are along the north property line and • none are along the south property line. The writer expressed concern that the park is heavily sports oriented and she would like a walking path and access of that for residents. She also complained of fast traffic along 6th Street. Chairman Munoz asked if staff suggested she contact the Traffic Engineer. Mr. van der Zwaag indicated staff did that. Vice Chairman Howdyshell asked if there is access to the park by the Hawthorne development. Mr. van der Zwaag said they have gate which gives them access. He said the applicant has met with the Hawthorne development HOA and resolved the issue. He reported that staff also added a condition for a monument and plaque-design which will be approved by the Planning Director. He noted that Lewis will put in a bus turnout and one suggestion is that they could incorporate a seat wall and incorporated the monument element into it. Commissioner Fletcher said he would favor a mosaic design. He said the Commission could discuss where the monument could be and it could be brought back to the DRC or the Commission. Chairman Munoz said he might like to see that at the DRC. Garth Chambers, Lewis Operating Corporation said it is a unique project. He said they have reviewed and accept the conditions of approval. He commented that there is connectivity; they are providing a gate to the park. He said with respect to the location of the single-story homes vs. the two-story homes, there will be a tree barrier along the 6th Street right-of-way and the site falls 0-5 • feet north to south. He said the grade should help mitigate the views along with landscaping. He Planning Commission Minutes -6- September 14, 2011 said they are in favor of conditioning single-story lots along the south side of the site to help preserve views and the city lights. • Chairman Munoz asked how many trees will be planted. Mr. van der Zwaag said they are planting 600 trees. Commissioner Fletcher asked if all the houses on the south side will be conditioned to be all single- story homes. Chairman Munoz opened the public hearing. Hearing and seeing no comment, Chairman Munoz closed the public hearing. Vice Chairman Howdyshell said she really likes the combination development because of the gardens, the nice mix of homes and multi-family product. She said she is in favor of this. She complimented the developer for the floorplan of the condos that include a downstairs bedroom. She said the City does not currently have any with first floor bedrooms. Commissioner Wimberly said he worked with the applicant at DRC. He said he is very pleased. He offered kudos to the applicant as they worked with staff. He said they brought an exceptional project. Commissioner Fletcher said he is impressed with Lewis projects overall,that much thought was put into this. He said he likes the single-family detached homes, the walkways and community garden plots, a nice amenity for a condo owner if they want it and it will help sell the product. He said these are a nice generous size for condos and this adds to our product base. He said the wall variance makes sense because of the drop in grade/elevation. • Chairman Munoz noted that when this came to the DRC there was very little architectural work to do. He said he appreciated the level of styling that came out from the start; he gave kudos to the architect. He said he supports the project and called for a motion. Steven Flower,Assistant City Attorney suggested the Commission determine if their motion includes the issue of the design of the monument and the added condition regarding the design of the Historic Point of Interest plaque. Chairman Munoz clarified that he believed the Commission was approving the project as amended. He noted the added condition regarding the monument on Agenda Packet Pages 146 and 181. He asked for comment about the monument condition,the location and design and the suggestion with respect to a mosaic design. Commissioner Fletcher suggested a plaque and mosaic would be nice and it would add interest and a seating area near the entrance. He said that would be an appropriate place. Commissioner Wimberly said the design suggested by Mr. van der Zwaag has merit. He asked about the placement of the plaque. Mr. van der Zwaag said the original idea was for a seat bench at the corner and a monument with a plaque would be there. Vice Chairman Howdyshell asked where they are typically placed. • Mr. van der Zwaag said there is no standard for this. Planning Commission Minutes -7- September 14, 2011 Chairman Munoz referred to the Agenda Packet exhibit found on E,F,G,H-Page 14. He suggested it be placed on corner as an idea. Vice Chairman Howdyshell said she liked the idea of a mosaic as it would be colorful and • recognizable. Mr. van der Zwaag said the project name is Harvest as it refers to the community gardens. He suggested an alternate name of"Harvest at the DeBerard Rancho." Mr. Flower asked who will review the design and placement. James Troyer, Planning Director, recommended the DRC review the design and location. Commissioner Fletcher suggested they approve the project with the included amendment. Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by Wimberly, to adopt the Resolutions of approval for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18804, Development Design Review DRC2010-00960, Variance DRC2011-00168 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2011-00166 as amended. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, MUNOZ, WIMBERLY NOES: NONE ABSENT: OAXACA, - carried PUBLIC COMMENTS None COMMISSION BUSINESS AND COMMENTS • None . . . . . ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by Howdyshell, carried 4-0-1 (Oaxaca absent), to adjourn. The Planning.Commission adjourned at 8:45 p.m. to a workshop to discuss Pre-application Review DRC2011-00724. The workshop adjourned at 9:40 p.m. and those minutes appear separately. Respectfully submitted, James R. Troyer, AICP Secretary Approved: • Planning Commission Minutes -8- September 14, 2011 • CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting September 14, 2011 Chairman Munoz called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 8:55 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: Richard Fletcher, Frances Howdyshell, Lou Munoz, Francisco Oaxaca; Ray Wimberly ABSENT: Francisco Oaxaca STAFF PRESENT: Steven Flower, Assistant City Attorney; Steve Fowler,Assistant Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Lois Schrader, Planning Commission • Secretary; James Troyer, Planning Director • • ANNOUNCEMENTS None • . . . NEW BUSINESS A. PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW DRC2011-00724-JONATHAN C. CURTIS-A request to review Tentative Tract Map 18823 for consistency with the North Etiwanda Specific Plan. The site is a 13.52 acre remnant parcel of a larger 15.03 acre parcel which was previously divided into 5 parcels under Recorded Parcel Map 15550, located within the Very Low (VL) Residential District of the North Etiwanda Specific Plan on the west side of Wardman Bullock Road at Blue Sky Court-APN: 0226-081-15 though 17. • John Curtis of Trevear Holdings LLC introduced his team including Brenda Vargas and Stan Morse of MDS Consulting. Mr. Curtis stated that he was appointed the receiver by the court for the property. He said they have been working with Planning, Building and Safety and Engineering towards a workable solution. He gave an overview of the prior development noting that work started about 10 years ago resulting in one house on Blue Sky and the property owner has 4 lots. He said the original plans for the homes came through the County and permits were issued by the City many years ago. He said there are different owners and his objective is to clean up a mess, do some site planning to try to move forward. He said they have attempted to consider the size of the lots, home and street placement, horsetrails etc. • Commissioner Fletcher asked if all 4 properties are owned by the bank. Mr. Curtis said there are 4 legal owners but it is really owned by the same people. He said as receiver, the bank takes over the entire property and he has full jurisdiction over the property. He 1 • said the bank wants us (Mr. Curtis and team) to fix it, as they really don't want to foreclose on the . property. He said they would not build out the rest of the lots although they are trying to finish the • two lots that were left partially built, and then the other lots would probably be sold off later. Commissioner Fletcher asked if there are legal difficulties considering there are four different owners. . • Mr. Curtis explained that there is one court order for the entire property and only one signature is needed (his) so that it is not so tricky in that regard. Chairman Munoz asked if there are any plans for the short term. Mr. Curtis said the plan is to finish off and sell off.the property. Vice Chairman Howdyshell said she recalls that the one existing house appears to be the same or very similar to the other two partially built homes. Mr. Curtis said they are basically the same. Vice Chairman Howdyshell confirmed that the intent is to complete them and then with the completion of the tract they would have 5 homes completed. • Chairman Munoz asked what they anticipate as issues with 4 applicants. Mr. Curtis said they already identified a need for several variances and minor modifications. Stan Morse, MDS Consulting said an issue is how to work with the existing houses and streets. He said for Lot 10 they have to define the depth and for Lot 11 they would have to have frontage along • Street B but the front yard setback would be from Wardman Bullock. He said the mid-lots do not fit the rules for equestrian because they cannot fit the corrals in there. He said those lots may be able to access a trail they believe will be installed by Centex and if that plan fails, they do have a fallback position. He noted the issues to follow: • - • Some interior lots (tan colored on the plans) are not equestrian-Lot 1 is not large enough. He • said they have some lots with minor exceptions. • With respect to 50 - foot street widths— He suggested they give the City the streets they want but they would be 36 feet curb to curb with a parkway, and an easement inside the property lines. He said it would look like a 60 -foot wide street but it would be contained within a 50-foot width with a 4 -foot sidewalk easement on each side of the street. • If they are unable to gain right of way via quitclaim for the knuckle property, then emergency • access to the other culdesac will be provided. Vice Chairman Howdyshell said she is encouraged to see the vision as the property is currently a real eyesore. Commissioner Munoz said it looks like a fairly good plan to correct a not-so-easy problem. • Mr. Morse said that because of the street placements, it made it nearly impossible. He said they need a Variance on Lot 10 for lot depth; and a Minor Exception for Lot 2 for lot coverage and then they need a by off from the Fire Department for two points of access with respect to the knuckle • property. He noted that the property owner on Lot 1 of Parcel Map 15550 is somewhat content with his solitude and has not really indicated what he wants or would accept. PC Adjourned Minutes -2- September 14, 2011 Mr. Fowler said the Fire Department is looking for two means of access. He said with respect to the 50 foot widths-if they are required to go to 60 feet, then the lots will be below the required 25,000 • square foot average lot size-and that would result in another Variance or loss of parcels. He said on Lots 18, 19 and 20 they could take 10 feet off and still meet the required lot depths. Mr. Morse said Street B would be an issue and typically they would not want a trail in front of the lots, but they should talk with Centex and see if they will allow those lots to use their trail access. Mr. Troyer noted that the Commission only needs to direct staff to investigate the issues and to see what works. • Mr. Fowler asked Mr. Curtis if they have considered leveling the two partially complete houses. • Mr. Curtis said so much money has been put into them. He said there is value associated with those and it is also helping them to get it cleaned up faster. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer said those two homes can not receive occupancy until those streets are developed. Mr. Morse noted they are currently cleaning up trash piles, mountains of block and winterizing the site. • Commissioner Fletcher said to get as much compliance they can find with the Specific Plan. He said he is not opposed to the Variance idea, but he would want to see access to the trail. He suggested they adjust the lot lines to make it work with the Specific Plan without all these changes and Variances and bring the street through with the knuckle property (see Lots 1 and 20). • Vice Chairman Howdyshell noted the interior lots are too small for equestrian and not having them adds a nice mix. • Commissioner Fletcher said that with that in mind, he is not opposed to a Variance to forget about those lots being equestrian lots. Mr. Fowler said the properties along the Centex (south) property line will be equestrian with that access. Vice Chairman Howdyshell said she agrees with the other commissioners, that perhaps once the • owner of the knuckle property sees the benefit he will gain by punching through the knuckle, he will cooperate to allow the street to come through. Commissioner Wimberly noted that the proposed plan is mapped for 20 lots. He asked if they could consider fewer units. Mr. Morse said they are constricted with trying to map around the partially built homes. He said they have done other studies with more lots but they want the lots to be legitimate lots with trails. He said they are not driven by the number of lots. Commissioner Wimberly noted that they need to justify all those Variances. Mr. Curtis noted that they have very unique circumstances and they are trying to minimize the number of Variances. • Mr. Troyer said no commitments are being made here but if we can make findings to support the Variances then they will be brought to the Commission for consideration. PC Adjourned Minutes -3- September 14, 2011 • Chairman Munoz suggested Mr. Curtis work with staff to see what they can work out and to minimize Variances where possible. He said tonight's workshop is a pre-application and they have work to do; no guarantees. • Mr. Morse said they will start negotiating in earnest with the one property owner with respect to punching through the knuckle to gain a proper connection between Blue Sky Court and Street A. Commissioner Fletcher said that if they have to wipe out the partially built houses, he did not have a problem with that and he would prefer they meet all the requirements of the Specific Plan. Mr. Curtis said they want proper planning in the end. PUBLIC COMMENTS • None COMMISSION BUSINESS AND COMMENTS None • • • ADJOURNMENT • The Planning Commission adjourned at 9:40 p.m. • Respectfully submitted, • James R. Troyer, AICP Secretary • Approved: • • • • • PC Adjourned Minutes -4- September 14, 2011 -40 STAFF REPORT '� • PLANNING DEPARTMENT Li_ J RANCHO DATE: September 28, 2011 CUCAMONGA TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: James R. Troyer, AICP, Planning Director BY: Mike Smith, Associate Planner SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2011-00352 - GENSLER FOR CHASE BANK - A proposal to demolish an existing retail building of 6,600 square feet and construct a bank of 4,207 square feet with remote drive-thru ATM kiosks within an existing shopping center in the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) District, Terra Vista Community Plan (TVCP), located at 10598 Base Line Road at the northeast corner of Haven Avenue and Base Line Road - APN: 1 076-481-35. Related file: Pre-Application Review DRC2011-00041, Tree Removal Permit DRC2011-00683, and Uniform Sign Program Amendment DRC2011-00668. This action is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15302 - Replacement or Reconstruction. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT DRC2011-00683 - GENSLER FOR CHASE BANK - A request to remove 22 trees in conjunction with a proposal to construct a bank of 4,207 square feet with remote drive-thru ATM kiosks within an existing shopping center in the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) District, Terra Vista Community Plan (TVCP), located at • 10598 Base Line Road at the northeast corner of Haven Avenue and Base Line Road - APN: 1076-481-35. Related file: Pre-Application Review DRC2011-00041. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: Site - Shopping Center — Neighborhood Commercial (NC) District, Terra Vista Community Plan North - Single-Family Residences and Day Care Facility — Low-Medium (LM) Residential District, Terra Vista Community Plan South - Single-Family Residences — Medium (M), Low-Medium (LM) Residential Districts, Terra Vista Community Plan East - Single-Family Residences — Low-Medium (LM) Residential District, Terra Vista Community Plan West - Single-Family Residences — Low (L) Residential District B. General Plan Designations: Site - Neighborhood Commercial North - Low-Medium Residential South - Medium and Low-Medium Residential . East - Low-Medium Residential West - Low Residential • C. Site Characteristics: The project site is located within a shopping center of approximately 556,000 square feet (12.8 acres) that is approximately 884 feet (east to west) by Item A & B • PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2011-00352 AND DRC2011-00683— GENSLER FOR CHASE BANK September 28, 2011 Page 2 • • approximately 884 feet (north to south). The shopping center is comprised of 13 buildings with a combined floor area of approximately 135,000 square feet. Of the 13 buildings, seven (7) of them are contiguous to each other and form a single strip that is generally located at the northeast corner of the site. The other five (5) buildings are single-tenant pad buildings or multi-tenant buildings that are located along the street frontage along the south and west sides of the site (Exhibit C). The specific location of the project site is at the southeast corner of the shopping center near the intersection of Base Line Road and Valencia Avenue. The area of work is presently developed with a 6,600-square foot retail building occupied by Terra Vista Animal Hospital and a medical office (Exhibit D). With the exception of a day care facility at the northeast corner of Haven Avenue and Valencia Avenue, the shopping center is bound on all sides by single-family residential development. The zoning of the center is Neighborhood Commercial (NC) District, Terra Vista Community Plan. The zoning of the properties to the north and east is Low-Medium (LM) Residential District, Terra Vista Community Plan. The zoning of the properties to the south is Medium and Low-Medium (LM) Residential District, Terra Vista Community Plan. The zoning of the properties to the west is Low (L) Residential District. • ANALYSIS: A. General: The applicant, on behalf of Chase Bank, proposes to demolish the 6,600-square foot retail building and construct a bank of 4,207 square feet (Exhibits D and E). The new building is proposed to be plotted. near the west side of the project site. The bank will be • • conventional in design/layout with the exception of the location of the drive-thru automated teller machines (ATMs). Instead of having a conventional drive-thru lane that wraps around the building to a set of ATMs located at the side of the building, this proposal will have the ATMs located separate from the building at remote kiosks at the northeast corner of the parcel. There will be an overhead canopy of 500 square feet at the kiosks. The drive-thru lane will also serve as an alternate exit for customers. A set of ATMs for pedestrians will be provided inside a vestibule near the entrance of the building. The proposed building will generally match the other buildings within the shopping center, including a raised tower element at the main entrance of the building, a series of projections with arches and columns on the south and north elevations, and a colonnade along the north side of the building. Details that will be incorporated into the design include exposed rafter tails, storefront glass on the north and south elevations, wainscots, and a combination of horizontal and curvilinear parapets with prominent cornices. The architecture of the ATM kiosk similarly incorporates the details/features, finish, and materials present in the shopping center, including the use of columns that match those located throughout the shopping center. The southeast corner of the site will be reconstructed with new landscaping and decorative walls. A 6-foot high by 60-foot long wall will be constructed along the east side of the ATM drive aisle. Where it is not possible to preserve the existing landscaping, new landscaping, including trees will be installed following completion of the project. Mature landscaping comprised of numerous trees, shrubs, and ground cover located in the public parkway and at the west side of the site will remain in place. Although access to the project site from within • • A & B 1 • • PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2011-00352 AND DRC2011-00683— GENSLER FOR CHASE BANK September 28, 2011 • Page 3 the shopping center will be revised, no new access points to the shopping center are proposed. • B. Floor/Area Analysis: Per Chapter 2, Figure LU-2, the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) in the Neighborhood Commercial land use category is 35 percent. The net area of the project site is approximately 38,035 square feet. Following the completion of the bank, the building coverage (including the ATM canopy) will be 4,707 square feet. Therefore, the floor area ratio for this site will be 12 percent. Parking Calculations: The parking calculation for the shopping center is 4.5 parking stalls per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area per Section 17.12.040(B)(1)(b)(1) of the Development Code. There are 710 parking stalls within the shopping center. The parking calculations provided include the recently approved gas station (Ralphs Gas — Related files: Conditional Use Permit DRC2010-00348 and Development Review DRC2010-00348D) and the proposed project. Both proposals will result in a reduction in the overall floor area of the shopping center. Also, eighteen (18) parking stalls will be removed for construction of the gas station, and there will be a net reduction of eleven (11) parking stalls following construction of the bank. This will result in a remainder of 681 parking stalls overall as shown below: Type Floor Area Parking # of Spaces # of Spaces of Use (SF) Ratio Required Provided Shopping Center (existing) 135,000 4.5/1000 608 710 • Shopping Center (after construction of 128,000 4.5/1000 576 692 Ralphs Gas) Shopping Center (after construction of 126,000 4.5/1000 567 681 Chase Bank) C. Design Review Committee: The project was reviewed by the Design Review Committee (DRC) (Munoz, Wimberly, and Granger) on August 16, 2011 (Exhibit 0). The Committee reviewed the application and deemed it acceptable for forwarding to the Planning Commission for review and action. The Committee concluded that the architecture of the bank was consistent with the shopping center. They concurred with staffs recommendation to add decorative tile work 'within' the arched area on the west elevation to match the decorative tile • work applied on some of the other buildings within the shopping center. The applicant agreed to do this and comply with all policy issues discussed in the DRC report. D. Grading and Technical Review Committees: The project was reviewed by the Grading and Technical Review Committees on August 16, 2011. Both Committees deemed it acceptable for forwarding to the Planning Commission for review and action. Staff has included in the Resolution of Approval each Committee's standard and special conditions. E. Neighborhood Meeting: On July 18, 2011, the applicant conducted a neighborhood meeting at the Goldy S. Lewis Community Center at Central Park, located at 11200 Base Line Road. • There were two (2) persons in attendance. Their questions generally were centered on the proposal, the operations of the bank, access to the project site, and existing traffic conditions A & B 2 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2011-00352 AND DRC2011-00683— GENSLER FOR CHASE BANK September 28, 2011 Page 4 • in the immediate vicinity. All questions were satisfactorily addressed by the applicant, representatives from Chase Bank, and staff. The two individuals in attendance indicated no objections to the proposal. F. Land Use Compatibility: The project will be consistent with development district of the site, the existing uses within the shopping center (Exhibit N), and the surrounding development districts. Banks are common in shopping centers; one of the existing uses on-site includes another bank (Citibank). Staff does not expect any negative impacts. However, in the event that there are disturbances/nuisances, there are thresholds for noise and lighting specified in the Development Code that a commercial activity cannot exceed. If this occurs, then the Code Enforcement Department can be contacted to correct the problem. If necessary, the matter may be brought to the attention of the Planning Director and/or Planning Commission for further review and action. G. Tree Removal Permit DRC2010-00683: The proposed project includes the removal of twenty-two (22) trees within the area of work (Exhibit L). These trees are located in the areas immediately surrounding the existing building and within the existing parking lot. Eleven (11) existing trees outside the area of work and within the public parkway will remain. There are a significant number of mature trees within, and at the perimeter of, the shopping center. Consistent with the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance, incorporated in the Resolution of Approval is a condition requiring new trees to be planted on a one-to-one basis to replace the trees that have been removed. H. Environmental Assessment: The Planning Department staff has determined that the project is • categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines. The project qualifies as a Class 2 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15302 - Replacement or Reconstruction - as the proposal is to demolish an existing retail building of 6,600 square feet and construct a bank of 4,207 square feet with remote drive-thru ATM kiosks. There is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 660-foot radius of the project site. No comments have been received. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review DRC2011-00352 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2011-00683 through adoption of the attached Resolutions of Approval with conditions. Respectfully submitted, ames R. Troyer, AICP Planning Director JRT:MS/ge • A & B 3 • PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2011-00352 AND DRC2011-00683— GENSLER FOR CHASE BANK September 28, 2011 • Page 5 Attachments: Exhibit A - Location Map Exhibit B - Aerial Map Exhibit C - Overall Site Plan Exhibit D - Project Site Plan/Topography (Existing) Exhibit E - • Project Site Plan (Proposed) Exhibit F - Grading Plan Exhibit G - Floor Plan Exhibit H - Roof Plan (including the ATM canopy) Exhibit I - Building Elevations Exhibit J - ATM Kiosk Canopy Elevations and Wall Elevations Exhibit K - Photometric Plan Exhibit L - Site Plan for Tree Removal Permit DRC2010-00683 Exhibit M - Landscape Plan Exhibit N - List of Tenants Exhibit 0 - Design Review Committee Action Comments (August 16, 2011) Draft Resolution of Approval for Development Review DRC2011-00352 Draft Resolution of Approval for Tree Removal Permit DRC2011-00683 • • A & B 4 it • IH �. a L?XSnMil • Y b 3 .3001111.5 OR 5 "AL>ndNDSr avuLp 1 S `d A#` ! _4, \\ �\ 3A MEAWMOCDDA II pa' 4%,AI-xognsr uupvon) I lEr & �' I; a r �LVmmv _ a es $'. AIkDND ST mpG$ Resew 5NXR[x �IAAS AO \3 � �� I , _ II .`PeQ' 5mra11 g n i.. s �� _ 5.!, it II_N DOEN;flM MN {gyp. v-:F 0• IR gF R 0� C4gR ,DR' u• ,Iw1PAx1n s R"" Y iwxwS Y G-SDA meter II umwl5 n _I ima�9F1N C e Y + hewn a II v:. 4. R� �,.^�5c St S g Y I wmtue BDP�CR A �._SNERWPoDMDN DAMLLADq n'11 4R"" 0 VISTA:KW ST a uwxyn I r IM g ___ s„.2,,„,4 SWx PIAWY ST II [4AG SI Wi € $pt Y4. AD C £Y RG� nAalAlwvl-_ I"i waV 5.x Iwu.w muW`€ ES - G R VMITYMFWSI 1 01 a G3atGaD corm 1dWAarR� °? s 55 =I .S VVIENDA$T uRAX . � m��Rnxc AMn lx vrtA [ E15"t' nY J - ! GGy Ej_HILGIPZ AD _3D�I r _�' [p I_. g.�" .FyC I HILLSIDE RD�' _:p:_ s :A 3 II 0.Di >IIPEAN , € T�M "A,I Mct 1 PUR EACHTEE H 5 V a 1oMOSXCI 'j S-- < ui E ura^I dllb doe AO I I BEECHWDDDDP .M ...m JUCKWO oDP nl Y %a4 ,.,1 t Z WIAFLS1x 5 - 7 c ¢aRA/315 I> - mutton - �5 a. 111xAAlx 5 P S IrwP-, ----, _ _WIL_SD _ -- __`VAS NAVE' - - F._ ._ RRTAOR —. a MM MN [ r'-' r [ 5 RUM' 1 E G Ij�HERMOSA IIu'0 W ; ZD • C C.1 IN•5 - 1 pg. x/ACALI CEDAR CREWS. p i � S K m3a.me `'. II xanlgaf Go i 'S et dmsxma s[llrf R ^ D fm : '-vAaum Lp' - - o M1Swhd_ XL�OA</ rtIDMOaW M nRmM:nAgF rEQ,DA 3 I s s. ` MgwR. ,�„aRn CHAFFEY Azar _ y �1- A KWMn IOIMn oA I. 111A n V42!n d r n 44D0 �d 3 -101“3._, COLLEGE —rim!, *1 Is4MCMRA61 . - mvnm si-tay 6 1 dlC/ 5 T1 11 1 t ,I 5 5 ,aka.an , t 1151"-"16_"." !: ., t g a s ( $ 3 3 3 �u II a `COCA ST l <-/ Fire , i LOS OSOS - I!i BANYAN Sf _ pvuGS 1�- I�I ,m°^ frwma- tee—: ( • Brerl 1r._!a' 9 __B9NYANST t v ten -- r .xw, a M•ww F c Y lI ear 5[ ROWS" (� \I MOO I BANYAN ST Y -'Biay��9;* 4sL©BANYAN �� e sv��/�q, .,i, r.: aar mM "ata G G @5 ph 551- 5 t5t N. e 5 5 • Cw. aI$s-}5 �.yM"40,,, A "A445oA.- Y.. [; 66 Mpsw C O_ RYN}►p' .yv• �'Gtt P-2!.S 12 Y EIV<Ittu€[ IN]ia a it y.. P d sdeef 5 13 > p3 5 \ AM a<M�OIi t f��` i�[(Y1 f ^."Rill Sy 0. Y' L nt"11. W•1[ I cpl •°S 5 .. 3 •44 mrtu g.-`n E�xdt0 51 1 ason tmcwxO Y EGmratfL51 3Y� \ Ix g Mf. ox 9 --;,*"7,0"4° xm r` Sr s: I _ ItMpxAME : _ 9 _€ s ,3 wt._ __- _ -_LGKKIpE * * � it !"r..M ', . 1.` l oP.xo 6r Dxxxct ST 'aH.x6f si Xeu ( h 4AAx4E Si I SoPAXm"S1 y'AA x �" i ' /yrs. I ' ss J �3 g@ CRIS OL OP �R reel_ Yr tsDw sn 1C)' 5vA 3g 1 r VINEYARD i - Mwmuo8 ""A ox E 5 u°w II q PoG m i� a i��° f Q'.ALIA AOA TA IOMA_ g 1 b , II a£Si r _i H'e m HIGHLAND AVE R 5351< _. 1 R ate( - -- _ [43./.14.;3 I /,rt wrw"w. M 4.6 la r i`°,6 a+° " Y axn �I r''''' II - 5 @ S" �t , i 1 IkfNPYUN 1 #•,° ed _ii C4 ITIre 03 - A9 .pa € q /s1MW 9p'S a,v x° n i< 1cE,r�im WAY u; i •w a 1'Sfetll ne RuG _sdoPr.of m "^,, ('-':•••• -1��17° PROJECT SITE �^ ppL �°°° M dF s aa" Is ` � qa E R ¢ j111 GALA A• AVE e'er i 'Liu£ a . 3 6 - RANCH[ F ?fix; iy',1 JXMI sl v` 'e '!Yi I.wrhon ` � � '.` 4? �. CULAM, m4 C3. jI amenln I c UUUU�,oamn I At si - ,Ata Goons E IY c\ At - r a. K fl 2a xau Y Sa 12 'S SKnm n1�y rma C H ,m4 ,f l Katy s'3.6p-A p'V S Pt 5Isoe w "•• GROVN CmG c�Wp ¢ 1p { % € 5 _rip, ....$ § vrw u..n. B - I '" - :['. lw+ ..1-.1,246._ sm PA?aR -,6*,wen . E M \eµ � t E E g53 `Ka ' E `aa "'Man" 5 : s nA+n nr°.ons„wld 5 ' „"n „,,:i 8 € qq wrnTWT wI. X2,co ,/MONIF 4MIA• 5T w ° I 5 5 SMONTE MIA ST_. 3. 5 w e § r ♦n f 'A.F . >R gg G < Run to WX.a Ai' >'G' " 'Auk*AG5 c turosl F� II Iw ° IT a¢ a I"' Ar E � F [ @ za' � B � Fad£ x..h,m ^o•m WAr?C M s � 4•gu � E• unisl J. -ALTA I-"3: 6 J_. nE. [ EIY'..I' °e * z Y 2 r Y 41.a 4I{ C 6 [ I ; 4 r L}�, F 1 - uxx(s, i I •- unrrz:IT:7 .� - G ¢ G a sfu4RPRMS 1 LOMA g x M /�'��_tjl� III lu4 04A wu43 t M, 6 LMI De v n 1 _ .Wy II 8 z5 t - - • -. _ r CENTRA NIA s AP y PFex DB 1 EI S M "" I G, >F4d P C RANCHO CUCAMO ro � ^'ui4 Ds sT I Y l' S. LPARK a M MBSa� T�P4 E"wkA J S ae I Y aA w.. I V l 1\ L. r 9[. DNB +s' 1 - ASE__- L N R g .yTS:R Ptah. RD �'` I`Am - 5 raDD _LINE D z -».tP Y IS �,f i °sr _ rtPPt S:1 _ k. r uy. ( :=°"� in 3 r _„ 3� `#' t$i5 of f L NB swR — & xwv°D,SLIBRARY , RO1..mos1 f 5 ( °v^'aa F'"an 3 4wMDDw I' r e s $5 [uAE tR �S SP- �I< N Aa Ows __I, o § 5' a /P - [p IC § Kr' N m c , I L�k� 2 mr" ALaR Sr 33 u n 0..17.. p "'OU 8 €p.rw"4' z Q < HO. a a 5 aaaa 5 .. �m 5 Asri.¢tt5 ..wA \EyN . If""w,y --___ _ II g• Ali s: yr C' `*a,. / 4Mn-cC .£ 5 r 11 ,E" a E FF F(/ Ja WY < a MSC' {'i f( l 3 PALO, ALTO Si 5 t e 3 -AL3.7 - • E�p' _7 ^N m c-. ST >?A Ab. c. BALSA. Si (B Y 5 II Axs.sl g S'7 y 0`'_p,1 \ G1 4 O VISTA \ [5:; ill g.- I. PI[ sxPA R / &. N° 1 P 42s w.lf; 4 d . y I _ 2 1 z 'ri usn y CUCAMONGAG 5 5ua„ t CR6lEYA-- ...c. � i h NERCEOS m"a^'m 4pl`o/ ''"a r T4faG bq 1 -'''6v : . gs g - € 5 1 o.ww W..+we a [ ++¢,aR l// ,,wg ® .'.F° ,,,a,a. ? DWrAx ' >�1 �+-Sot $b Q• 3 { 4 E 5 s RCN a X a n% RUTH N - et• VI �r. 1 mwm A+a' taws I [ I 3rkw n C e a mws Ij sA Rxuc < MUSSER Kamm ssd 0664 AwFM I ns, dd E ( I'.CHIIRCN ST l @ 't 3 I _ m .�- {• / ..ar - K °g w:4 5iII I R it- 5 _4_- f mm Onas, p I,—_ !E .'Cy Q a a >�� M ocurwoAO 'sy S 1wsa i .EuvmdsL e.I ?n,ai. p Y-f T5 c ! 1. HIV v9C, A -. ..,1" isp 0 rwn• .miLKEN o f• ro_ " g J Iw `i " 3 1_._4_, n P to ST egos�• �5t ;P° "�`°�Y .R _ .4 ry MH4A 4 `rvy S wmIXxP1i• G 5 5 1 wa't,a " Xdwi[� n I Y sT Im CANYON ç'YMCA 44J ^tpt II. _ Em N II rM.�S.i,�€ max., inEx III- <7.2 r 'CO,�i Rpm IT� , / t t• Is. s.. s,AVm 11/3 fin° .E 5 _E wuErR / f) t'Pn \ -" < i R „s.. iffNiiOSr$�i I TERRA VISTA i PARK _ e c"x1 , .- g Nclstr TOWN CENTER RANCND DPmoMPCn I� I 1 O MEDICAL O O srox AdxxaN III HISTORIC _— I, CENTER I; —__--_ EXHIBIT A - I. -- i�_.�6 COURT I. . I & B 5 HOUSE �,Liman ,'_ 40GALYFTUS,5t �; •3F3 [ IX V I 6ESA& 11DI 5 AI.1 :.HALL L. 1/ 0... _ IFw `I'_�1� wimumci:.. r=—t • Development Review DRC2011 -00352 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2011 -00683 /77' _ :,.. . J .:,11 i J v„ ft.• v. 11Zeh .‘• r. • ' A • .c.1:- kr - 1E7' sis ..: G • ' �• �l! �t: is se•�. f r,• ' '"C ( i - t �Z Lq - ..17,4 ir .t. ;s• a _ r f H' r_,. 1: \Lr - . ■, 1 •• z ►p I,r . 'aA.\ 17 »" s= - 1.I �' =/ { p \ .`\s ' \� f'�_'I :alr a . a `arm _.'. °.�"i I I f li:!I I a I ' ;•l .. 1 ' ��... o (a . -'w ;..a 4 w 'y r:Protect 2 s f " 14) j ' 1;,4: 1 2J: �' ,1 ►r c a r VI ;. . IA/ ' , 77" -;="gBaattiineRoad '� ,. _ -`c= • C.na ; 1 ‘ 4:1ti mrIb?tr — i .i �.r s 4 Y• , , f y cam-, _ ws. i t r• 6 4 , -, , - .,. a <J P8 * EXHIBIT B A & B 6 . , ill : 5; 1' 11 ill i I I , ! 1 ■ cz = ..-...,!; ■ikill I I , W 7U ; ;;?.;g I t ' i Jr, ED 44 W a - #' ; ?= i, • I if I 1 ii I g 7:' I 1 Fltr,.- . = •ii: .1-1, we w) 4.- ., ,' 1'1:1 I 0 1 1 ci 1 -1 7-r, C ,1- ,- IC. 7.1 ri 1 I i ii,I. - m. 4 7 1.,-rt I! 5 1 !, ..,-. 8 ,,1,H,1 :, , 11 . z Z 0 5,2 ce ui I-• CI Pl$ U) . -- -- ......- i , ..,.......- .-- , .....--..' e ' • • • v."... , I I ; I ' C772"'— ''' • / .,.. - A.......\" \., J.----..........---, I 111 t .4.. ,,,/ ' -— --,•- •— / . t'. '-'-. ik ' IA ■ r +2 ' 1\ ' —I r• 1 I 7 • " /.. i , I of- - 9 /e/ ) / ;4's,(4', 61SZ g 1 1 nr ■ ;, / ,.' / \ '''. A +, ; C. i,. L, ..1.•.!. 4 .1' / — . \ , ,..• rld N --- I 1 / & Fg -... •■ tC------.=.,.--.... -r ,' , .• lv '..) •• 9 ,.• / -- A ,$ .›),- - .- ,-,- ,, /-- • , ,... .. ....„ .......... , , x . 1 i . . _ r -I 1 1 i , I I•/ It r'' / I I , t ,t' ,,,•64 i -..., ii it., I / I I ' I I L-1- I I ii 1 / L i 1 1 I l i i-- 1I I / /- I I . / i /H i ,1 • 1 1 ----1 L ( —1 I 1 : i■ -_• I 1 i 1 ' — 1 i I s j I I- Il i l I I I I I' ,- 7 , , I i i\ - I 1 ! !?3) I t I "-----; I - • I ! 1\ I — _ 1 n 11111 -' i ! Hi " I I ) 'Ti r— I. *11 1 1 : I ri I ' < 1 I s--- I 1 \\I cil ---- --- r irl • JD) ,, . 1 ., ..,, • 1 , ____.).„ , _J ., ;_,_____- ----_, , = • , , wip I .,I, ) 1 . ,. 1 1 ,; I ., i, ; _ __ - ; - , L_ t -- ..1 , I rLI l ' i ._—_- . - , --_- 1 1 ' 'I L J_ ' 11111 1 11 1.1111 j ' . • . _L III , EXHIBIT C A & B 7 • • =pl A 8.1 ri , ir - ., r 1 i 5,3 fi 5! Arkg ti? i!=i14;:i5tY: ,- a. • " 55 . - ' . i ; .. C: • : : i !.;. . # 5 't 5 ; q .:. ; ' " q“ q - ce z 1 C : "ii ! E I FES": =t" 5. i k =!. r"• i i"" !:.ii :=04:141, k5,' " 5 if :f - = ..13 ; - 7 1 1 i e: 5 • arr E R ;c .1 a iOnl E tE i lg E , t E E. a . . t i/ „ gi EE"E:i Eggt::geg.g t-Igtilr.tf. T- 5 ii a 1,1 m.1Z 1 . 1 i a ig g gE 5 f Mt ? t tg W 1 E 9 1 :f 5ig 18 gi g!! ilee tilglig050 a4;0:!1E lj .;L F a .0.cc •- ..„,„ • x g i ,,: , ,;„ r- 1 5 kg., " I 16 1 i 1 E. ! g/. re 1 t, !:8 06t .40,r1;r4", A?.fr's.e; 1! 111 P ECI2 ; ". . , . Z.! 1 ;" ' '; n I. t 1 - .05 54,5 t 7 1“1 i. ..1 a - ” ''. r — 1! V it t 2 / ! t / ;141 1;t:: :?tt4atat0; 5-454r5a A:4 • -4 j4t..-p t2 1 R.: ii ,7 PI • ] 1 In g : r 6 iv' :JP ', p- i P'• 80 t" 1;,0' ''i ? 'E 8 ' '; 4 ‘.11 ■ : ' , ,if tttt. r . 4: ..45! ff4e5•-i4;t5 g C555: 54: 11, 4 ...z .. a 2 12 get ' Eigt:A"i/ i lf=tet 't E t g-its; ' tligfE f !fg. f ill E EE8 !fel E 1 :4 tl tit Efgftie.5.11 0 8,E!!!!EfEE 57; eti if;2" 'EP' 105gtant55; rkil-A5 01 gr EZ • k T tab : 5f . 1 -V #r v 4::,,..14.3t• P: ."55e5 qA rEEI D Iii0112 ihq! E47f, t:PgraYO'lgt4.4ii+ 4 IF2 0 0 i 1 15: AM g r ; 55", , 5: r C r 54 - ft • 15 t5 5.1 Lib ta It Y If.t/Eg 581? . .?gtEetzgiEili ..ig?g.z“-?. tEE-. m :btu - . , , if:, : z C P - - „ - >i cON w ' 1 1: - i , . • w .,. , ! lw ' g Wg iii g. : f : ! ri;g„ i g ;,. ,f 5 ; A i 1 c i.i ;i. isK ii,.g1 0 ri v.th 4 t h 7 k on\0_ 0 i,,,4;;;: ;1.,,,,t5-,i.c....P: :.,L....: 2;. ?;:, :::_,...4.'.4,..., ..,°i,f,i, :2tiriltgur .4 : o:i 5 El r :-, , 1 E E; 55 , '; r;Ph i I :1 !, , 2. Y.,- 2 ii. rif- IS ' g 1 -gg = ' 0 - . fl t ; fiRgi'L'i! : t E ik ,v,:. ita - •, 52 ; t _ t ; ; f .1 . ei' ffIrg 15 .i.i5fli gfrrTf i: r = e , t ,. . nildtd t-,i;. if we 8.1 ; ! ft 4gE ! if 1 ff 'Vg g . ,', 1ii , gif i ffi 8: gifi. 182 401- r:Ii:1 rt : fE ItE Ee.f ggiEfig ! i.cif N re oil Jtill f : : i ! g 5. : 5 54 !! I gP r 1 5511.1 1 ii5l4 52:5 ii 31 i itC! it 5i 1 ! 1.5.!!5; i 2 r nti '.., 4 r g a; 2 ! i T ! t ai '4 kil;14 t!Wi i ; 2t• "i!i ; .1' _ tgtgE i gi i!1 rii; It !kci ', 42 ;t=Iit Er:et Teo; P4g 4 i= t Fr ! ii:k1 1215' • v, _ v.& - p; !I ,:. 2"-ir iSi .-51.7E „I edf ; ti ii il..E t! E.:8! Ev-,1 •? ig!;:a.ii J 46 ' 1E:1" '• i 1"i„rE 1.7 fuEgt itffE7gi eggP! L , f: 1. g? mit ,E,2 E 5: :11.4! 5 rig! : ;5 , !E t 17C' Et.= A iiii 1 :hill lin 15 5 t;:55 5t 4r „q 0 io Efi !P„ gg g8 E . 5 ik. i5551S p ;a4;ik!i ;Ii0 ;!! 1 eg zt !ft E -' tE! E etzE E d5' -ggq gg err,. : I 5 'hi'? :: vit :: :il it! In tor ', al 8::: 6 •.! t 1.. VA '4A If t ' I..I;xi •-qq"-, L.,(- 011 ‘r% a/7N.F.4 V WO/VH7VA 1 1 1 1 k i 11 1 1 .. _____— •k.-- g- ---- \ , ..–.., ...n.,„ ,,,„„ 1 il -„ , %,. • ' il f; — .-,.. ..i•t","?..t1 k :I I 1 L .- - ---7- ;to I. ; • ip . - - ",, ,• :: / - :li t f -; 1-: -, . . :ii: e 7 t5 X"5 .f. ....•• • .d—r-a-lt I 2 b. \ • . •i.: !: t. t fi "1 .•r:FI t 4 I t 55;555'51M I '”i'l+1-F .! ch i ‘,5,Ltriii -”triiiigh=ri, :-. ,' \.41•01--c---7:‘-'--,Tr'::,0%:.r‘ ii I i TA: E 11 v '' ! , , ; 4;:i.:,.., :::::-.',v;-„: 2i • • . ] yr', -.,",t-, . s'„ •-,:;,:::i: -,4 zl, 1 , •1 01 u) i. d , ,,— ...— , i .: •:cf.1.-E te.,,.,:t.„ ,.,e. 9 ri;, 4 4 1 1 ! . e: I, - :.fr• '4 IX/1! r it 1 1 a!' 1 11 t ---0. ka! !: 1., 4:7- ›,•.:. -:.:1,•.;-;,,---,-: .• , ;•-,I,,„...1 : •fg". kilkaaiaatNiii ar S- '• ,1 5 V;e1.1=I;-;; ;;:i'jc; -,.,,A-ipe-T:'A 1 -,9- :::,„.iali--,,,,.:±:":,...y,:.---s,..,:,2,1 ■_s__, , ;N; .,-, 1.L.-- . . - ,..1 xi,: ,. .,, ,..I , H , i : 0 40 _, t._____ a.„._ qi ,.., .... : , : ,- (1: ,i .• ---, . 1 _J . 1 • , , ., 1 1 ! 1 , , , 1 ■ I -- !I 1 / I ftellii,e,'89 S/7N3A V ., N3/I VII —.744e--• EXHIBIT D _.,....,......_ A & 8 8 . , 1 ' :1 4 I H141 ,j, I ■ II II i I ! I, ! • 1 c. , 0 :„ i!, 1 1). ,hit' ,I 1 1 1 I . : I I 1‘ [ 1 II -' j1 ' il 'III 5 0 1 i 11 1 : onm ( I Iti 111 r!.• < il i! le o g 1 , . 7, r. .," • 5' 0 -- -- = i s C L. z a -:i Zil:;.' 'P 4,3 U Fi -, 0 F.:g 8 0 •4-2]. 11 H I . ! II , 1 i 1.N wil% : . 4 1! 11 r) 1.1 ,! 1 I I , _ P. : - It LI:°11;11Igi 0-4 z 2. 'C 2 ," . E F .. : E4F, .i”radi Ai 9;Si vv. CC ., E - II(1 g ; , ,`; i' “ 51ilign,“-'4,,, ,g,7""tt-ti ILE ' idith triith i Ftl 'a Iiin $ V,Oi r", i g : '0b. lit n' ,. i5f 6nElii -0 ir:EF EEnEEt: w , - - 4g V Fr t1 eseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeseeeseeeeeeeeeeee 311N3AV VIDN37VA 93 .Lu . -- 4 ;f: ,411 I,232-1-9.- ':■riTg=i4P,:i#\-Ref: ,,(; ' tg,‘:4:-.1 .- -- -- %.0.:Ed> ,:rt,c->&.:Ss3::->'L ;--d:•'•:,,d.W-c-Ck4ts \ ' * el _ ritm__1 _ , •,,,,L.,-.>>> >,.*, -.d'.'> — t,dk-o.,,,.-d.\,:>,,,.; „nda e \-- ---;:7 -r- i 1 I Th,..„,.„,,-...t..--, - 1.,,,gtzggcc44,Wa, ' 1 '' - --‘,.. ..t. -t--a---Ecric.ng<71(1. r --"2--0,--4",1 i -;.t.:" 1,1 ,!Lti 1Z' ttt: „„:.--s,-", 1.11,:crli 1 11-____- ",---- -L, - -::?"'.." ti:}M.:‘N .t\A1 1 a at; <7 1 F7rin .1 ;''.3<C1C,‘C‘-' 'S70.3&71:tr:rM V\ r1 :' ! ,I4' ( I.! Mt': 1"-- _ :f., eng'41.-\2t-'-: - ;-''',IV;, ,;1 .,& ;V;;N. :::;.44‘, , 44,11111, : -'; , --4+ ).. , ...; ) ),t, 1 ) 4. quzr-u)4uuukr ! 74-aku\kuuuuruX,.. rur,uur; u)-g!turru-r) ) • Jr Quuurrur.rr, ureruzu-u it! i ,.*:.uu -,v)uuuT-r,uukuNu?.ur-w„.,A•r4uu, 1 u,c•r*-u; P , . :,..4T;k0;,.. i,r J .2?..,, ii 71 I-\ ..e*,,,,:),).4„,1,1 ..7- I 1 l- 11:1- ;> L , " M; 1 0 dd.> ' s.-4 d e ,d<S,,, ,, ,;>-->e0 ,,,i • ,‘,k,;:...,:,.i-::::;<€.:, ci_ vi.cf: , T ' .6- :,4>Zkd.:\\ ‘v'''''\\ i'l 0 F, ,—,_,,fk,4:1,WN;Lk*.\1. 111' ' „f11cZik.1111:1111114 , itt4t,,:istzt4.41*.ig,kaA il 1 I El tb,11:, # 1, n 1\ferc5:1VI _ lliallatii AqllaU:51 :- Cg'''`.4 r GA a LIIII j■IMIN .,1::1:::.:egILN, 0 i ,......e< Q N ZMMI 0 :9 el ! ! IC"0:,i:',N*1‘;1 'LI 1 t■-•!') S LU :2 0 -LL-.‘ ' 4t — Cr ° Z w w \S"±: ” ' 1 i i 1 a << o ( I .--, 91 0 tre[A I r 11: , A er . U' -----dd >ddgex MS , dot--,,:d-k 1 , --- u.- twin kir -:I(r.•u ! • ! ku 1 i .., -uu t'W:5g,,ei a. •Sal I,1""" i r' 'SR 115 II. rt. 1 ct 111 .:<,;11 u, i. ',5."%r' 7 't.",'.',\;0":4C,":".''. tr 1 ' ';'I 1,43 . '''''"Nk'' rr o ,....‘,,.$1,4 ., =7,1 ‘ ‘" -----4-, 1 - , e # rd r 1! - i Ls4 Pg, tkyl 40 o 1 1 L-AO r-71 IT 1. f.M"\td-1 rd-1 Pr m 1‘. I 4,,1 ‘,"1-t". 1)/ h .47 111-12: ..,f01 a,J 1 i 4 , 8 , , 1 1 i,ra!,,li,:/ ; 'Eli <=1 ---- ! ., 1 LEI_ r plirqa7;1,j i zee' c.ell ma „.„ ,_, ---rrh.,- . , - m, , .----, iiilliffillw MO 11,4 -7r:\ i 2 t i = Nt4,1 4'1 4,?.S2'-' ' 1 Illt:Nt4,g;.;:' gEg-44fis(<14: 11 1 1 t-ii 1 %-c.:,- __,2,--at-A-------rey —n F7f,!Art;• :..,:uu-:„.•-, r-` :cuuur,,r-N, I cc --,tc.-!:±-i.);;; ‘.._-,--sl _.„=_ __4---...-fr. I ,---j,J:-. 01 0 L 1 ;: ,-- 1 , ,, 1 2"°- 1 Lfitd ' ,1 ' IL > , IN 4:1 '111\w . EXHIBIT E A & B 9 _.1 t y. .. q t i A a E '. i ; e t,` Oh 3 l 3:-Pi a E 4 s? 1 r`� + 1, 5g , 5(! MI i3 ma i s • S5 Y fr.; _ (. i cE- 5 r.(� # I ' 5 Li. i et 5t_ s 35 tt €:` O < F5 a: `Et t EI �'� ',.i}i 01 a "0c Y ° El e F E A g 9 re z g ? v t "ig g ' e 8 yip j �; f r � y S I e ,. _ 4 2, , w ° t rw �, 31;12.-: T d 1/ .r .. u a �u i p F i P.; j T s a 1. ii( 5 _ 5 i a I. E' _ i u i> a U t'• t .f H ° Ilk' .r _' qq s : .._ ' i t �' - a 9 ... 3t ! '.. t. t 5 ! . ® 4 r`_ 5K � it E `syy-fir�� y� 5 t- -r I' ,.. �i reeg Y -E grts`s t r 5 Ft, St t - .I! Y ptK,. Cr tE 344fPEs"...Aee 4 55; Ts I ric ,y e fY 9 y- ySe•4 1 t t=L Iea!: - , 1Je g� /�i6� t - c its € C € s nett y sx pp Z c CI vy, �..� P se• 4C s >, f @a Csc 1 11 < [ 1' pFn tlS J '_ m C� =k 1 'g2%Ii''..' a -}w-ei'4F '-"i•nii? ( Q J ■ Q V o rp A $s. 311j3 S4: > l98 teuC4$S:i C'cei b O m -' — I go3 n$ :b •tE a .........,..�.... D a I t 1 tt Q o F. s._ ,. a m _ ._ Z Q W Lp/Y�� Z Z c� - -- " m �e�:� i sresa�Cf:_eez eeea WCi Z 0 Q N a 311N3Atl VIDN31VA �, i �„� Q Q Q Q Q U W _ — __ _ �'_ — t 1L L T m e@ ,p1 Fp R� ZUI y' mU0 €ii 'r;LI AF °� 3 Ill o N - - 0 2 a z_.t \ } • y . -,..,`e 4 0 z K ^s .1-7,77: ::::::.) si t r PI I I I r i�a e r yi i t :1 sI 'ppp} '':::ii r ypIgyy�YY_e �f l;_ , ' I S + r ♦II�1 7 ' .-? 9 v s i _: 2� I in ' tA ri NI 5^ i5 + Ye .. Lf 5 65^. K I 4 9y� ' #:C:E:1llim B y e �i o- i z4e I. I p as e x e g l'd �-.r,3q5 ®� 11';• _ I s gts Ipi r$ s - g 8 g iri. pp(; glp� sJ , rt x,,.1 1 °- t'15 E". 3 `'` 5 1P ° '9 yOt3 .�I• L 9 tir sal q ; —' ,J,1'zu I. , �j 11 N ¢ e - 1g."5,n ) xr ..e i I r 1ru .�y 1{u�It J w o:i.i I �sI• S W � 5�� 1g CQ f' le 0, 1 Vu II i�tt�,� 5 . .�_. t n t' .r e"4 _t _I - [ 11 c:,k;" IY Ii F" C Hr C I�e � � `A33 — E \Q Ylr� I Li -II • G F3 ... .. \ iv!�I 9c( IC9 g f rI': ee I l ‘4,- S h. ilia I e A & B '° EXHIBIT F ''i_ I I i ,,Y • I 1 W ''On.. a°i 6 1 431 r. r. ::i • - I e III 1 B L I`t o V n =_- ® All, 1 ,11 I !1331n �IC!� _Q e ; a h 10-p S C � y a F H'' y9 d "v"4 b Wing Fv Fnt. w m n ek $' i4 igi _ree; n�(r t w ise ?s ge NO: 9:.Y a:..4 Y 111 il • r L0.+--- L___]--__ L___] \ 0 ii \ 11 a t B — .- i \ \ i :, . ' \ 0 HH 5; 1 \ _m==I it } p �rY i �\ I Z iI L+ T _, I r l 1: l ,. � Ei: I' L I s` I T fl a \ I� as / I I -_; -T \ ;'g a , N., L - — _7® • t , t ° EXHIBIT G A & B 11 C : : I: 1 1 I I ... : : HI ! n c:, .. _ ., 4 i 1' , 't -:4 1 : 1 ED w. ;:-... : 0-- ; : , 4 e..= ya. z,-- o -g -F 41 IIA I .tA I lit I i 1 5 i ' 15 ty ID 1 cc;!-- it si:1- 3 J11 1 111 111 : I 2 0 F < 2 ix 0 2 0 z gr---4 9.il- 14.= 0 Ili I \At: ' 11J-••, 1 • ii - • • .=- . \ -in in " . i „, .-, 5 ; • 1-i ' , . i g y..? . , ; g -.-. —7 -r . ; . : th-4.: :"..:.-2n , • _ fl " . . , . . : ■ - - ..,. ,.. . 11111111=•=1:01 :,' ; ' 2/ I pli ili v) Mk ill i --i-H- 41.4.44-1, 1 It II ION Ilit.Atk -': , ;-;-----‘- --i-i-l-±H-1 -i;r3-1_L__.: ,L_:■ , . . . , ' ' 4 -7 4-4 44- rfl i ,Th 4-1.; n• 1 : , 1 . . -tr h i—-I \ : ' ■ ..,... - last J 1 , I , 1 / ' “Cnc.% a ROMP 1±±- n I , 11 II 4.,— N. / it? / / / araisma III•/. • ■ 1 - ...--- / lull —_11 I L in / - ,,,,,__, .14--4-•"-"MEM.. / naHitri n wr_, , I .,.J. . ir / Cu..1 I—, ' ' ' h-) i ; , ■ d i DEED an /,ti II 2, / 0 _ , , 1111 hp---H-:- / : 7 IT './..ct 0 -Mr--Ir.- --TT R,icH .' 4 It r __1,-11" 1 -7- 0 1 I 0: ' ' ; .■ EHT;FED / / . jf-tittlThTh ofiJI, E -1 --1-7,:it' ‘.e- D L, . I' .,-;.-(- /1 • : F-t-H-1, 11; ; I :;.= : __ ,0000 I:31 ---- . - \ , - ", , i --",-,--4-, , H Li rnhn D • ,_",—_,, , ( ....___ _,Li ,, \ i, , '-j;■: 1 DEMO\11: _._;_. ':, _ °hi NI \ n li . ... I 1 u ■ r, ,13-- 41 ; 0 , vl -47,__ ,.1 — (. 1, ) g,- ÷÷,_:_, „-Liriono E ED qc,,,f,,,,,,,,,Iii - \i, ..,,,, , :, ,, --,----i-th, - - . LIDO r , il- , i , I 1 1 . , cc rz EXHIBIT H A & B 12 W r '� I: I r;i r y xl - ` j• i R f i s I '' in _ r R•T 'v x3 q III: 1. rd . y v, 3 a C@ •;'111 11 } !� �. 1 i5 ?° 6Ne2 : a & z 0 6 : g- 5 w F C 9 f y Q 93r tF pyle9k j ILL Z ppgg v. xeee eeee m eee iin 9 iiiII .. __ _ I�E� nal eI c i, m 3f4,.' i ill {ZI¢ ' i in• 4 i-Sit ' —,q Ant o Trgilt -P'' tbiL -I i �'F l e � —a I % . 4% J ate: Vp �� iti I , i3' �A4 e % U 0 I- i,, ° , \ mu �! RIP i I1 I� €L!1. - 7 aea , 1111 r rI +-- ids con-y�r- ft;'E e IL- II "} q--i H 'I ga=gs f3:r::• z z = y Er ® _ O O g c F- X y4 Ingung 8 w� is ri EXHIBIT I A & 813 _ _ . ) , Jil �i� J � I 1 1 ; 1 r .'Cit LUJ O ..1.__ b V , E A y t 0 Ln F• } 1 N i i� � 1 1 t R i Y I IF 9 E € ti = E1 ii ! z I ° l? i j ` R 9 g CC o e kF i Z 2 9 F Q w i ° dl b 6F it C r r. ip.'+.'s C a rit Ar 1k!5 Ill C ;l e e s e e e e LT e e e V1 - U''Mt 1 lf I Ea _, N slip e �� I I I I [tat 1 l A ;riiiil �F-1 'Itilt: ipe Ishii e os 14: e a € s' I Alti i 3 oiti{L i ( 7 min p.8 a.~ 0��rittin_ \` br w c F1 ti e . — e -I En ! % It inn III 8 raii E !gi 1 0 anZt 1 Rir r I `$= ed 44;3€ — tip^ ID O' _f gin ti w4 w3 • e e_ J Cy x `\ pl a z w A & B 14 •• %.- , H § i I j � . 3 ) ƒ W \ ! i ) , in E ( [ §[ t ( I [« ± e I; y? ` m\ ; / § i' ƒ / j ) : § |\ a u } \ \ / ,,g. r | ) ; ) ) ! F ! ; ! ; ! ! [ | & & \ | hi et _ z\ . . , (L' r { : , a ( u. R. : RE eeee®\ e e 5 § 7 \ ! { f ` t $ /( N / 1 � / \ 1 i � \• § ` } i : �� \ ' 4 El ° ` \ )2 \ § 7 I I 11E1 / \ \ I \ - / .1 \ ;I/:1.) ,} 1 _ I • ƒ ( � ~ 1. - ] \ 1 � - , / 1 ^ / x \ \ \ } % d I \ , . , � ! ! /z , S \ \ ` to to j II( ` LI: az \ ,. 5 ( ^ L a r \ EXHIBIT J A \ Be • u 0 > - Itli :1-. • un FT: $ `.= ._ S. TA U 1:! -1: E, Till a i = b. 2 l' 0 It = c i . ='a E ci 1 4i, i 'lig III:-.5 '4I,LIEI Rda 1,.6i Li.1 Xi II 1 I 11 I I, I I gl ' i.IV I 41:4 I •••k, I ti 1 I ; I I ri 1-,1"Jf J- 45r;r51? I I I ;IHAsii. io; 3 1 .. 4 o il ti. :.p t; •- t ; - f.• ; i if. 4 N I' 1 Kt E. F 2 i I ;: ; i 1; Eh J t4 1 t= ; *= • ; !.a ;!1 R g! t. ii!, J. ;”.. 2i- i ' i 1; li =gi li Ph ii t il ii! 1 gii2 i 1; 4 t?, 0 4 s gi ihf R 4 = i ir =- Iv '' tr, 1r, 54 qt, .N il:Z f 3 i?, 8 ii 14 : (lilt , ic : ; “ 'C._ lit •,1! "1 I' . ; rF CO q g; :1. ,.. z ii ..,■• 1. a ...” '1' !I '':- ;-• :e; h‘i 41 1!!: a tt, .t., TZ 1g 41 iiii iii nil 1 gl ii; ti, iF a;sf il.:Ii ge E h ,A. :i 4 i!I iiii 4;NI 4 1." e e 8 0 0 cosi Ts. 0 ,.--;?---7---:: ,i'. 3 „ ,., ...,---.----,--.. 1 i i T I 3'• • - • • :11-1A,PA& VienVJIPIA :, 7. 3 3 .; .; a ..: .4 ; ; ;/.4 4'.4 . . , ). 1 H : :‘..), : : .2 : : :, 1 ,,:"N : .: : , - , • O F g i 1 1 : •.: ; •: :'.4i":„if •:, .-: •:L: ..": •.: ; ; •.: l"\ ..7 ; 2- . gti. 2 il i ! I: t : : ; .‘ !t .7! r! .• .. 11129tT fl- .. 1 !- .. t!. - Ci-1—.-- i ti, a to o .' !r!, !:. *1 .' .! ....-711-..‘ ... 7. ... 7.. ... ?.! .. .: J : . ',. . ---- — !: 0 !I .: '''->Jt.!: 2! .,1 ; ., T., ir.^ ..; ;•,,;'." .: .; ?IT; . -— ; 2 - . ' •')V.; ? ? Kii ; _L._. . - • - 1 b . .. I i• + I i - :-- , . . .:-..-: : , , : : : : : : ■„rt , , 1 o , . ., 0..1 - I ' 12...i *,* ; : : ..., s .. • , - ta , - _ t I ! I . •;• a; ''' ''' .1 11•• ::.; .: : • Al . .1 .i 1 ic: , .. • . L, ; • ; ;;', ,t , i , ;,:,'', •,;.-,• ;, ; 1,..•r f 1--, il: ‘ ,: .,:," , , ' . •: i •I,l Li I' :1 Hi' l' _ ; ;, 117 - 1 •--, 2 ' ■ ''' 11„:1 a , ,, . - , re 1 1 1 I iii;1 - , , J ; LI ,, , • i - ,Y • : p., ""•' •it)1,., 1111 ;1.1' ,1 1 . 1'; • ; 01;.;,1?-; 1.; „:,,,,,'lc Itilli ti. 'lirt9,1:!tt It;tlit l■ ; - it L.i 1 ih“.tit! *•---- t 'tell/ H., 1; !' i ..— . I i 9 F; ! .t+4-. eg:in Al d:::._ 1-.: ,:i. V he ' 1 ' F? ; i 14 ii r• 1.I-:? 1 ,II'l L .. : ::; .;:;;;;;: :;.; uto 1 : r.,, ; - .1, • ,il 4.....,, - ,, ;.:;, I . ,... . I:, l'i,-,i--•:lip t.ts7111,,IH 1'7';',11-.1 0. 1- 'I 3 •3i ,F-7-1-7:ii 1 11,,1 1!I i :1 -i i,1..;■ , !/ 1 ! i, C• ij-•.. -2;L !, .1; i€0 i i, •,,! .1, )1d;.(1: ', :i--.1, 1. II .1 .' ." ' - 1. ,hlit IlLt.Th 0 , ! ' . EXHIBIT K A & B 16 ^„ mesons° vommvono im-mm i °von 32,ssm9 98901 = i +r )NV9 3SVHO 1— -'. -.-.; -' U-� Y ins 2 W1d WISLL011.90919 anoSa n NY7d 33111 9N/1SIX3 • 91e 099 ° @1 090 i ' Bip 09 . 779 � d9i i eek Z + iii i I. 2 ; 122222211 : 8 1 2212212 i 3iiiiiiiiek CC ¢ 737 .. 71579 : 5 : 2 . 7 . “ . 7 • s i . . . 92 vlril Fr I3 0 . a 272 . . 2 R I rz i ,gggii 772 Y • tF4P3i ¢ i , ; pj ( PP � PP EPPPPP2 Cr) 1. a4lig i a $ W3 ° l , d3 ' ii2 .1 i i a ad $ 02 2 $ + gags 7832 os ; 7 # ; r 0.u raiP2PP ? ; SY 997y 1 ,95 a e : e e ! 55 ; ; i i m 21 ?. m !9 !II O r�( Ir t?., _i9,f a i ti dg Y 1 u !1 J..M4 u r R_7 1,f�[IC A x�, Hmos :?-1 I 0 r' o o er (z) \ Et!I ) 0 ,00 trei ,tT . er tu .SnLF/P V V/ONS'7v1 J i oou ., ,,,„fin fr, w y n •rl a I a°cc L; s O. J:r.3 a: a e a 0.,13_, ., '.y 1�aG. `.� r l I iil ill ' I I _ e• 1� I1 p ti t-- 5 �yI` li I i i X11 Ili I1 1 1 J a 1 �_� - i ii ' e �� , 1 m L o 1 t;1 f9 r:.1 .x1 rcIit ..%;.ui. °13.4.1 n7...1� 1 �l CJ E. I Y Y JI I� .I -,,i lilt'I I TI__ Ic@.y it 7,07 2 li i I(J'r 4-;'lf�i I i w., i Y, , I 1. I I j I I j • EXHIBIT L A & 6 17 • .e _ t 15*i IlT 2 .e x ?S °` 111 I I I !II I i•111{1 4 c! w 11 .'1.. 'G' t,t N G tin _a l t i1 1 Qs IcF °� it a 1 I� a l ` a 11 I • ae I+ I 11 N t It II, 1�€11 1 ' z �G 33 dr 11111111 ' 11111111;i 1131 eeo I I; �' € a is w l ;1t1 11 1111!1,11 1!,! F-� °- 1.fiEa1 =i • ,es "' 77 i 7 Z I s p a i 09 a! F i iti{flIJ i,illhPII 1• f{ Q� :I m ae ie 1 7 1 , O_ 3Y g€ G Q 1 1.11„11 ll1,1�,1�t i - i •01 r 9 1`ea 11 g ( = 11h11111• -�f(71,►1FF,f Ih! > 1 i�o ;'i:i A a1 i p < 1..b 35 yg 2g i C111;!.11+ 1 611"lLiJltlth <V alli 1 !� al o ul1 7.71 g1 a ooc F! d e• AS 3Q Q t1I11i111 , !1 !• 1i Z @ . . Fa yl : na. ote d l jla Pil! O 1 i n ggg I V 11 1 1 , 1,1, 1 1 i— 1 11 1 ID 1 ° e 9 at7 C9 S 3 9 g9 a a€ 1g 6 o !�Ii1111d 6!1!11,11 11 I u a 4.. ! mild l 1 d a ! !cm t d z l ! 11 ,1 p7§ ggg5 ! a Z � 111,1111 1111111111111711 20 Afl1..,U. I1 iPIFIalLal 9[ 1 !!! !1 P1 1li; 5: i! S • o<D 5• g = 1asd, o-co In € g g °Oz 7p1,A,1 ��11 iqu€�gi',e� zs71 tiW — =€ $ u ou ad V s = $l ? ga e 1 !' 1 3 a a al 8 s� 261 s s 11 i ► r. T Yid 5 S :11 I ia 1231g�111�1� 2.. ;, ' kc . f —( h , �'�r i 'I ' Vii' 1 1 r, .1 6 1°e g§ ! ry S' •11 / W 31 i 9F I ld 'r-1`-; i.' n -++., ,<4,Fr lid td Ym � §�I�3 , - ' n n B o l ty, 1 -n 3 i•1 l ,emu lr .r ;� x,� G �l ,;1 a". a iA pgt j �_� / ,9 , :\ �S 4C'T .� , i.+-tip —�—yr1 I .111 ' isl€ e' a 1; ,. _ _,�^'t i.-).- d ,� . V ' I '14 ' I i MH ,II $ 5' ° i ' BE ��® I wn i °� g o 33 ggaE c E u3F r�1 4-:r "'f z li ti ;- -01g 5.1 A:�1 • ^\ 16(.:),414,?,` , voe 5 1 Hi r, 1 'j. '� \ PJL 11, aM. •4 tl Oil Il` xy d , r W e I '' 1 d 1 # 1..„„,.I IcLti 0141" 1:aP �t - +� Ir" ,`' it. ®J v 111f. rtl- ! .I I -4,..-„,.„4.-.L i I - ;57,:,1 N y a € 1 1, r w I O W e?fl 1 a P� se k )� --z I ' 'i < r 7 11C "'11 ,1 ' 1 a oc 1. gc Ia a4 18p ��.1 '^z ?I_9, Z toy „Ys II ,e, z 3 1 YS SE -, 0 d 9B V WZ p 1"' "z6 ae 3i 5�1 xQ� 9 . la 1 7-5J1'1°i9 oev�i iii p2 i- i1 m w d �i 1 .. I _� y1 7 If� J1 1 li Z 6 I! ! °e ,ii 4.: '� _l �_`I '3 j V y -•r J't7 it I { YYY % • EXHIBIT M A & B 18 • • TERRA VISTA VILLAGE Tenant Description Blockbuster Video 5,000 Video rental/sale Hair Phases International 3,775 Hair Salon Mail Center 1,000 Mail Box,Shipping,Copying,and Related supplies Red Persimmon Salon 1,200 Nail salon Embroldme 1,200 Embroidery,and personalization of apparel and gift items Petco 10,200 Pet suppies and Services H& R Block 1,620 Tax Preparation Jenny Craig 2,100 Weight Loss services and products Ralphs 36,660 Groceries Stuft Pizza 2,400 Pizza and Itailian Restaurant Donut Inn 1,400 Donut and bakery Products RC Optometric 1,120 Optometry and sale of eyewear Terra Vista Animal Hospital 3,192 Veterinary services Nail Salon 1,000 Nall Salon Candy store 1,000 Candy CitiBank 5,200 Banking Starbucks Coffee 1,982 Coffee and Bakery Items Salsitas Mexican Restaurant 3,800 Mexican full service restaurant Coco's • 5,967 Sit down Full service restaurant • Burger King 3,500 Burger Fast food Drive thru 1 • • EXHIBIT N A & B 19 • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Mike Smith August 16, 2011 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2011-00352 - GENSLER FOR CHASE BANK - A proposal to demolish an existing retail building of 6,600 square feet and construct a bank of 4,207 square feet with remote drive-thru ATM kiosks within an existing shopping center in the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) District, Terra Vista Community Plan (TVCP), located at 10598 Base Line Road at the northeast corner of Valencia Avenue and Base Line Road -. APN: 1076-481-35. Related file: Pre-Application Review DRC2011-00041, Tree Removal Permit DRC2011-00683, and Uniform Sign Program Amendment DRC2011-00668. This action is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15302 - Replacement or Reconstruction. Design Parameters: The project site is located within a shopping center of approximately 556,000 square feet (12.8 acres) that is approximately 884 feet (east to west) by approximately 884 feet (north to south). The shopping center is comprised of thirteen (13) buildings with a combined floor area of approximately 135,000 square feet. Of the 13 buildings, seven (7) of them are contiguous to each other and form a single `strip' that is generally located at the northeast corner of the site. The other five (5) buildings are single-tenant pad buildings or multi-tenant buildings which are located along the street frontage along the south and west sides of the site. The specific location of the project site is at the southeast corner of the shopping center near the intersection of Base Line Road and Valencia Avenue. • The area of work is presently developed with a 6,600-square foot retail building occupied by Terra Vista Animal Hospital and a medical office. With the exception of a daycare facility at the northeast corner of Haven Avenue and Valencia Avenue, the shopping center is bound on all sides by single-family residential development. The zoning of the center is Neighborhood Commercial (NC) District, Terra Vista Community Plan. The zoning of the properties to the north and east is Low-Medium (LM) Residential District, Terra Vista Community Plan. The zoning of the properties to the south is Medium and Low-Medium (LM) Residential District, Terra Vista Community Plan. The zoning of the properties to the west is Low (L) Residential District. The applicant, on behalf of Chase Bank, proposes to demolish the aforementioned building and construct a bank of 4,207 square feet (Exhibits D and G). The new building is proposed to be plotted near the west side of the project site. The bank will be conventional in design/layout with the exception of the location of the drive-thru automated teller machines (ATMs). Instead of having a conventional drive-thru lane that wraps around the building to a set of ATMs located at the side of the building, this proposal will have the ATMs located separate from the building at remote kiosks at the northeast corner of the parcel. The drive-thru lane will also serve as an alternate exit for customers. A set of ATMs for pedestrians will be provided inside a vestibule near the entrance of the building. The proposed building will generally match the other buildings within the shopping center. Key features include a raised tower element at the main entrance of the building, a series of projections with arches and columns on the south and north elevations, and a colonnade along the north side of the building. Details that will be incorporated into the design include exposed rafter tails, storefront glass on the north and south elevations, wainscots, and a combination of horizontal and curvilinear parapets with prominent cornices. In response to comments presented by staff and the discussion by the Planning Commission during a Pre-Application Review workshop held on March 9, 2011 (DRC2011-00041), the applicant has "'incorporated a quatrefoil vertical and vine trellises on the east elevation, and most significantly, a tower element at the east elevation that will serve as a focal point for the building. The architecture of the ATM EXHIBIT 0 A & B20 • DRC ACTION AGENDA DRC2011-00352 — GENSLER FOR CHASE BANK • August 16, 2011 Page 2 kiosk similarly incorporates the details/features, finish, and materials present in the shopping center including the use of columns that match those located throughout the shopping center. The southeast corner of the site (northwest corner of the intersection of Base Line Road and Valencia Avenue) will be reconstructed with new landscaping and decorative walls. A 6-foot high by 60-foot long wall will be constructed along the east side of the ATM drive aisle. This wall, along with proposed shrubbery, will serve to screen the drive aisle, ATM kiosk, and parking area as seen from Valencia Avenue and mitigate any potential glare caused by the headlights of customers' vehicles that utilize the drive aisle at night. Where it is not possible to preserve the existing landscaping, new landscaping, including trees will be installed following the completion of the project. Mature landscaping comprised of numerous trees, shrubs, and ground cover located in the public parkway and at the west side of the site will remain in place. Although access to the project site from within the shopping center will be revised, no new access points to the shopping center are proposed. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project. None. • Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues. Staff recommends the addition of decorative tile work within the arched area on the west elevation to match the decorative tile work applied on some of the other buildings within the shopping center. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion. 1. The light standards shall not exceed 15 feet in height. This height includes the base, pole, and the fixture and is measured from the adjacent finished surface or finished grade. 2. Any new groundmounted equipment and utility boxes, including transformers, back-flow devices, etc., shall be screened by a minimum of two rows of shrubs spaced a minimum of 18 inches on center. This equipment shall be painted forest green. 3. All downspouts on all elevations of the building shall be routed through the interior of the building. 4. The new trash enclosure proposed at the north side of the project site shall be constructed per City standard. 5. All signs shall comply with the applicable provisions of the City's Sign Ordinance and Uniform Sign Program #64. •• A & B 21 • • DRC ACTION AGENDA • DRC2011-00352 — GENSLER FOR CHASE BANK • August 16, 2011 Page 3 Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be approved and forwarded to the Planning Commission for review and action. Design Review Committee Action: The Committee reviewed and accepted the proposal as submitted. They concurred with Staff's recommendation to add decorative tile work `within' the arched area on the West Elevation to match the decorative tile work applied on some of the other buildings within the shopping center. The applicant agreed to do this and comply with all policy issues discussed in the Comments report. Members Present: Munoz, Wimberly, Granger Staff Planner: Mike Smith • • A & B 22 RESOLUTION NO. 11-46 • A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2011-00352, A PROPOSAL TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING RETAIL BUILDING OF 6,600 SQUARE FEET AND CONSTRUCT A BANK OF 4,207 SQUARE FEET WITH REMOTE DRIVE-THRU ATM KIOSKS WITHIN AN EXISTING SHOPPING CENTER IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (NC) DISTRICT, TERRA VISTA COMMUNITY PLAN (TVCP), LOCATED AT 10598 BASE LINE ROAD AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HAVEN AVENUE AND BASE LINE ROAD; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF—APN: 1076-481-35. A. Recitals. 1. Gensler, on behalf of Chase Bank,filed an application for the issuance of Development Review DRC2011-00352, 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 28th day of September 2011, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on said application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. • NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on September 28, 2011, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to a shopping center located at the northeast corner of Base Line Road and Haven Avenue; and b. The shopping center is approximately 556,159 square feet (12.77 acres) that is approximately 884 feet (east to west) by approximately 884 feet (north to south); and c. The shopping center is comprised of thirteen (13) buildings, with a combined floor area of approximately 135,000 square feet; and d. Seven (7) of the 13 buildings are contiguous to each other and form a single crescent-shaped strip. This strip is comprised of three (3) anchor tenant buildings-one of these is occupied by Ralphs Market. The remainder of the strip is comprised of four small tenant buildings. The other five (5) buildings are single- or multi-tenant pad buildings; and • e. The specific location of the project site is at the southeast corner of the shopping center near the intersection of Base Line Road and Valencia Avenue (APN: 1076-481-35). The A & B23 • PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 11-46 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2011-00352 — GENSLER FOR CHASE BANK September 28, 2011 Page 2 • area of work is a parcel of approximately 38,035 square feet(0.87 acre)that is presently developed with a 6,600-square foot retail building occupied by Terra Vista Animal Hospital and a medical office; and f. With the exception of the Montessori Academy day care/private school facility at the northeast corner of Haven Avenue and Valencia Avenue,the shopping center is bound on all sides by residential development; and g. The zoning of the center is Neighborhood Commercial (NC) District, Terra Vista Community Plan. The zoning of the properties.to the north and east is Low-Medium (LM) Residential District, Terra Vista Community Plan, The zoning of the properties to the south is Medium (M) and Low-Medium (LM) Residential District, Terra Vista Community Plan. The zoning of the properties to the west is Low (L) and Low-Medium (LM) Residential District; and h. The proposal is to demolish the 6,600-square foot retail building and construct a bank of 4,207 square feet. The proposal includes remote ATM kiosks with an overhead canopy of 500 square feet at the northeast corner of the parcel; and i. This application is in conjunction with Tree Removal Permit DRC2010-00683; and j. There are 710 parking stalls within the shopping center. The parking requirement for the shopping center is 608 parking stalls based on a calculation of 4.5 stalls per 1,000 square feet of floor area. Following the construction of a recently approved gas station (Ralphs Gas — Related files: Conditional Use Permit DRC2010-00348 and Development Review • DRC2010-00348D) and the proposed project, there will be a reduction in the floor area of the shopping center, therefore, 567 parking stalls will be required. Eighteen (18) parking stalls will be removed for construction of the gas station and there will be a net reduction of eleven (11) parking stalls following construction of the bank. This will result in a remainder of 681 parking stalls. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed development is in accord with the General Plan,the objectives of the Development Code and the Terra Vista Community Plan, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The proposed project is a bank of 4,207 square feet and remote drive-thru automated teller machine (ATM) kiosks with an overhead canopy of 500 square feet. The underlying General Plan designation is Neighborhood Commercial. b. The proposed development,together with the conditions applicable thereto,will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The project site is developed with a 6,600 square foot retail building (which will be demolished) and is part of a shopping center of 556,159 square feet(12.77 acres);the proposed land use is consistent with the land uses within the shopping center where it is located, and the expectations of the community. The zoning of the properties to the north and east is Low-Medium (LM) Residential District, Terra Vista Community Plan. The zoning of the properties to the south is Medium (M) and Low-Medium (LM) Residential District, Terra Vista Community Plan. The zoning of the properties to the west is Low (L) and Low-Medium (LM) Residential District. • c. The proposed development complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code and the Terra Vista Community Plan. The proposed development meets all A & B 24 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 11-46 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2011-00352 — GENSLER FOR CHASE BANK September 28, 2011 • Page 3 standards outlined in the Development Code and the Terra Vista Community Plan and the design and development standards and policies of the Planning Commission and the City. 4. The Planning Department staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines. The project qualifies as a Class 2 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15302 - Replacement or Reconstruction - as the proposal is to demolish an existing retail building of 6,600 square feet and construct a bank of 4,207 square feet and remote drive-thru ATM kiosks with an overhead canopy of 500 square feet. There is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Planning Department 1) Approval is for the construction of a bank of 4,207 square feet and remote drive-thru automated teller machine (ATM) kiosks with an overhead canopy of 500 square feet in the Neighborhood Commercial(NC) District, Terra Vista Community Plan (TVCP), located at the northeast corner of Haven Avenue and Base Line Road -APN: 1076-481-35. • 2) Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with any sections of the Development Code, Terra Vista Community Plan, State Fire Marshal's regulations, Uniform Building Code, or any other City Ordinances. 3) Decorative tile work shall be provided within the arched area on the west elevation to match the decorative tile work applied on some of the other buildings within the shopping center. 4) The new trash enclosure proposed at the north side of the project site shall be constructed per City standard. 5) All downspouts on all elevations of the building shall be routed through the interior. 6) The output surface (face) of all lamp heads on wall-mounted light fixtures and the light standards shall be parallel to the ground in order to eliminate glare and minimize lighting on the adjacent properties. The maximum height of light standards, including the base, measured from the finished surface is 15 feet. 7) New walls, including retaining walls, shall be constructed of decorative masonry block such as slumpstone or stackstone, or have a decorative finish such as stucco. • 8) The Landscape Plan shall comply with Ordinance No. 823 adopted by the City Council on December 2, 2010. All landscaping shall be A & B 25 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 11-46 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2011-00352— GENSLER FOR CHASE BANK September 28, 2011 Page 4 • installed prior to final acceptance of the building and/or project site as complete and release for occupancy. 9) Any new groundmounted equipment and utility boxes, including transformers, back-flow devices, etc., shall be screened by a minimum of two rows of shrubs spaced a minimum of 18 inches on center. This equipment shall be painted forest green. 10) Any new Double Detector Checks (DDC) and Fire Department Connections (FDC) that are required and/or proposed shall be screened behind a 4-foot high block wall. These walls shall have a decorative finish to match the architecture of the shopping center. 11) The applicant shall submit a final draft (incorporating any applicable technical corrections to the text, format, etc.) of the amendment to Uniform Sign Program No. 64 (Related file: DRC2011-00668) for the City's records prior to issuance of Building Permits. All signs shall require review and approval of a separate Sign Permit application by the Planning Director prior to installation. Engineering Department 1) CD-1 required if valuation is over $100,000.00 (please refer to fee handout for deposit and fee amounts). • 2) Removal of existing concrete steps shall be done under an Engineering Construction Permit(ROW2011-00289 fees apply)prior to occupancy release. 3) Landscaped planter walls located on the corner of the property shall remain on private property and not encroach into the public right-of-way. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2011. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA • BY: Luis Munoz, Jr., Chairman ATTEST: James R. Troyer, AICP, Secretary I, James R. Troyer, AICP, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, • do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and • A & B26 . PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 11-46 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2011-00352 — GENSLER FOR CHASE BANK September 28, 2011 • Page 5 adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 28th day of September 2011, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: • • A & B 27 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT atgi DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT#: DRC2011-00352 SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICANT: GENSLER FOR CHASE BANK 10598 BASE LINE ROAD, NWC OF BASE LINE ROAD AND VALENCIA AVENUE - APN: LOCATION: 1076-481-35. ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Completion Date libGeneral Requirements 1. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its _/_/_ agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. 2. Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval No. 11-46, Standard _/_/_ Conditions, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet(s) are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect. 3. The applicant shall be required to pay any applicable Fish and Game fees as shown below. The _/_/_ project planner will confirm which fees apply to this project. All checks are to be made payable to the Clerk of the Board Supervisors and submitted to the Planning Commission Secretary prior to the Planning Commission or Planning Director hearing: a) Notice of Exemption - $50 X B. Time Limits 1. Development/Design Review approval shall expire if building permits are not issued or approved / /_ use has not commenced within 5 years from the date of approval. No extensions are allowed. • SC-12-08 1 I:\PLANNINGIFINALIPLNGCOMM\2011 Res & Stf Rpt\DRC2011-00352StdCond 9-28.doc A & B 28 Project No. DRC2011-00352 • Completion Dale C. Site Development • 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include _/_/_ • site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping,sign program,and grading on file in the Planning Department,the conditions contained herein, Development Code regulations, and the Terra Vista Community Plan. 2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions / /_ of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. 3. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and _/_/_ State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Department to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. 4. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be /_/_ submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for /_/_ consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.)or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code,all /_/_ other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 7. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be _/_/_ located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. For • single-family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults. 8. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, /_/_ including proper illumination. • D. Shopping Centers 1. Provide for the following design features in each trash enclosure, to the satisfaction of the /_/_ Planning Director: a. Architecturally integrated into the design of(the shopping center/the project). _/_/_ b. 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. _/ / g. Chain link screen on top to prevent trash from blowing out of the enclosure and designed _/_/_ to be hidden from view. 2 • I:\PLANNING\FINAL\PLNGCOMM\2011 Res & Stf Rpt\DRC2011-00352StdCond 9-28.doc A & B 29 Project No. DRC2011-00352 Completion Date 2. Graffiti shall be removed within 72 hours. / /_ • 3. 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. 4. Signs shall be conveniently posted for"no overnight parking"and for"employee parking only." _/_/_ 5. All operations and businesses shall be conducted to comply with the following standards which shall be incorporated into the lease agreements for all tenants: a. Noise Level - All commercial activities shall not create any noise that would exceed an /_/_ exterior noise level of 60 dB during the hours of 10 p.m. until 7 a.m. and 65 dB during the hours of 7 a.m. until 10 p.m. b. Loading and Unloading-No person shall cause the loading, unloading,opening, closing,or _/_/_ other handling of boxes, crates, containers, building materials, garbage cans, or other similar objects between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. unless otherwise specified herein, in a manner which would cause a noise disturbance to a residential area. E. Building Design 1. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or _/_/_ projections shall be screened from all sides and the sound shall be buffered from adjacent properties and streets as required by the Planning Department. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. Any roof-mounted mechanical equipment and/or ductwork, that projects vertically more than 18 inches above the roof or roof parapet, shall be screened by an architecturally designed enclosure which exhibits a permanent nature with the building design and is detailed consistent with the building. Any roof-mounted mechanical equipment and/or ductwork, that projects vertically less than 18 inches above the roof or roof parapet shall be • painted consistent with the color scheme of the building. Details shall be included in building plans. 2. For commercial and industrial projects, paint roll-up doors and service doors to match main _/ /_ building colors. F. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans) 1. All parking spaces shall be 9 feet wide by 18 feet long. When a side of any parking space abuts /_/_ a building, wall, support column, or other obstruction, the space shall be a minimum of 11 feet wide. 2. All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet and shall _/_/_ contain a 12-inch walk adjacent to the parking stall (including curb). 3. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances, /_/_ and exits shall be striped per City standards. • 3 (:\PLANNING\FINAL\PLNGCOMM\2011 Res & Stf Rpt\DRC2011-00352StdCond 9-28.doc A & B 30 Project No. DRC2011-00352 Completion Date G. Trip Reduction 1. Bicycle storage spaces shall be provided in all commercial, office, industrial, and multifamily /_/_ • residential projects of more than 10 units. Minimum spaces equal to five percent of the required automobile parking spaces or three bicycle storage spaces, whichever is greater. After the first 50 bicycle storage spaces are provided, additional storage spaces required are 2.5 percent of the required automobile parking spaces. Warehouse distribution uses shall provide bicycle storage spaces at a rate of 2.5 percent of the required automobile parking spaces with a minimum of a 3-bike rack. In no case shall the total number of bicycle parking spaces required exceed 100. Where this results in a fraction of 0.5 or greater, the number shall be rounded off to the higher whole number. 2. Carpool and vanpool designated off-street parking close to the building shall be provided for /_/_ commercial, office, and industrial facilities at the rate of 10 percent of the total parking area. If covered, the vertical clearance shall be no less than 9 feet. H. Landscaping 1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in / /_ the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance'of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. 2. A minimum of 20% of trees planted within industrial projects, and a minimum of 30% within /_/_ commercial and office projects, shall be specimen size trees -24-inch box or larger. 3. Within parking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-gallon tree for every three parking / /_ stalls. 4. Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent to and along structures at a rate of one / /_ • tree per 30 linear feet of building. I. Other Agencies 1. The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location _/ /_ of mailboxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for mailboxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mailboxes and the design of the overhead structure shall be subject to Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT, (909)477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: NOTE: ANY REVISIONS MAY VOID THESE REQUIREMENTS AND NECESSITATE ADDITIONAL REVIEW(S) J. General Requirements 1. Submit five complete sets of plans including the following: / /_ a. Site/Plot Plan; b. Foundation Plan; c. Floor Plan; d. Ceiling and Roof Framing Plan; 4 • I:\PLANNING\FINAL\PLNGCOMM\2011 Res & Stf Rpt\DRC2011-00352StdCond 9-28.doc A & B 31 Project No. DRC2011-00352 •• Completion Date e. Electrical Plans(2 sets, detached) including the size of the main switch, number and size of service entrance conductors, panel schedules, and single line diagrams; • • f. Plumbing and Sewer Plans, including isometrics, underground diagrams,water and waste diagram, sewer or septic system location;fixture units, gas piping, and heating and air conditioning; and g. Planning Department Project Number(DRC2011-00352)clearly identified on the outside of all plans. 2. Submit two sets of structural calculations, energy conservation calculations, and a soils report. _/_/_ Architect's/Engineer's stamp and "wet" signature are required prior to plan check submittal. 3. Contractors must show proof of State and City licenses and Workers'Compensation coverage to _/_/_ the City prior to permit issuance. 4. Separate permits are required for fencing and/or walls. / /_ 5. Business shall not open for operation prior to posting the Certificate of Occupancy issued by the l /_ Building and Safety Department. K. Site Development 1. Plans shall be submitted for plan check and approved prior to construction. All plans shall be _/_/_ marked with the project file number(i.e., DRC2011-00352). The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted California Codes, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of permit application. Contact the Building and Safety Department for availability of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new commercial or industrial development project or _/_/_ • major addition,the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include but are not limited to: City Beautification Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Transportation Development Fee, Permit and Plan Check Fees,Construction and Demolition Diversion Program deposit and fees and School Fees. Applicant shall provide a copy of the school fees receipt to the Building and Safety Department prior to permits issuance. 3. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building and Safety Official after tract/parcel map • _/_/_ recordation and prior to issuance of building permits. 4. Construction activity shall not occur between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. Monday _/_/_ through Saturday, with no construction on Sunday or holidays. 5. Construct trash enclosure(s) per City Standard (available at the Planning Departments public _/_/_ counter). L. New Structures 1. Provide compliance with the California Building Code (CBC) for property line clearances _/_/_ considering use, area, fire-resistiveness, for California Building Energy Efficient Standards and accessibility to public buildings. 2. Provide compliance with the California Building Code for required occupancy separations. / /_ 3. Provide draft stops in attic areas. / /_ 4. Exterior walls shall be constructed of the required fire rating in accordance with CBC. / /_ • 5 I:\PLANNING\FINAL\PLNGCOMM\2011 Res & Stf Rpt\DRC2011-00352StdCond 9-28.doc A & 8 32 Project No. DRC2011-00352 Completion Date • 5. Openings in exterior walls shall be protected in accordance with the CBC. _/ /_ 6. Upon tenant improvement plan check submittal, additional requirements may be needed. / /_ 7. Exterior walls shall be constructed of the required Fire rating in accordance with the CBC. / /_ • M. Grading 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with California Building Code,City Grading _/_/_ Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to / /_ perform such work. 3. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the / /_ time of application for grading plan check. 4. The final grading plan, appropriate certifications and compaction reports shall be completed, / /_ submitted, and approved by the Building and Safety Official prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. A separate grading plan check submittal is required for all new construction projects and for /_/_ existing buildings where improvements being proposed will generate 50 cubic yards or more of combined cut and fill. The grading plan shall be prepared, stamped, and signed by a California registered Civil Engineer. SEE ATTACHED GRADING RECOMMENDED STANDARD CONDITIONS APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT,(909)477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: • N. Street Improvements 1. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 16.37.010, no person shall make connections from a source / /_ of energy, fuel or power to any building or structure which is regulated by technical codes and for which a permit is required unless, in addition to any and all other codes, regulations and ordinances, all improvements required by these conditions of development approval have been completed and accepted by the City Council, except:that in developments containing more than one building, structure or unit, the development may have energy connections made in equal proportion to the percentage of completion of all improvements required by these conditions of development approval, as determined by the City Engineer, provided that reasonable, safe and maintainable access to the property exists. In no case shall more than 95 percent of the buildings, structures or units be connected to energy sources prior to completion and acceptance of all improvements required by these conditions of development approval. 2. Improvement Plans and Construction: a. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a _/_/_ construction permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Services Department in addition to any other permits required. 6 • I:\PLANNING\FINAL\PLNGCOMM\2011 Res & Stf Rpt\DRC2011-00352StdCond 9-28.doc A & B 33 .. Project No. DRC2011-00352 Completion Date O. Drainage and Flood Control • 1. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the / /_ property from adjacent areas. P. Utilities • 1. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. _/_/_ Q. General Requirements and Approvals 1. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a Diversion Deposit and related administrative fees shall _/_/_ be paid for the Construction and Demolition Diversion Program. The deposit is fully refundable if at least 50% of all-wastes generated during construction and demolition are diverted from landfills, and appropriate documentation is provided to the City. Form CD-1 shall be submitted to the Engineering Services Department when the first building permit application is submitted to Building and Safety. Form CD-2 shall be submitted to the Engineering Services Department within 60 days following the completion of the construction and/or demolition project. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: R. Security Lighting 1. All parking, common, and storage areas shall have minimum maintained 1-foot candle power. /_/_ These areas should be lighted from sunset to sunrise and on photo sensored cell. 2. All buildings shall have minimal security lighting to eliminate dark areas around the buildings,with _/_/ • _ direct lighting to be provided by all entryways. Lighting shall be consistent around the entire development. 3. Lighting in exterior areas shall be in vandal-resistant fixtures. / — S. 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. T. Windows 1. All sliding glass windows shall have secondary locking devices and should not be able to be lifted _/_/_ from frame or track in any manner. 2. Storefront windows shall be visible to passing pedestrians and traffic. _/_/_ 3. Security glazing is recommended on storefront windows to resist window smashes and impede / /_ entry to burglars. • • 7 I:\PLANNING\FINAL\PLNGCOMM\2011 Res & Stf Rpt\DRC2011-00352StdCond 9-28.doc A & B 34 • Project No.DRC2011-00352 • Completion Date U. Building Numbering 1. Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime _/_/_ • visibility. V. 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. 2. Alarm companies shall be provided with the 24-hour Sheriffs dispatch number: (909) 941-1488. _!_/_ APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE SAFETY DEPARTMENT, FIRE PROTECTION PLANNING SERVICES AT, (909) 477-2770, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: SEE ATTACHED • 8 • I:\PLANNING\FINAL\PLNGCOMM\2011 Res & Stf Rpt\DRC2011-00352StdCond 9-28.doc A & B 35 „- t: -_.� City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC2011-00352 - •i Building & Safety Department R y. 10500 Civic Center Dr. . • sips Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 T: (909)477-2710 F: (909) 477-2711 GRADING COMMITTEE PROJECT REPORT& RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS Project No.: DRC2011-00352 Type: Commercial — Bank 1 Location: 10598 Baseline Road (Northeast corner w/ Haven Avenue) Planning Department: MICHAEL SMITH APN: Meeting Date: August 16, 2011 By: Matthew Addington Acceptable for Planning Commission: Yes: xxx No: . If NO, see COMMENTS below: PRELIMINARY: GRC: August 16, 2011 By: Matthew Addin•ton �� ` , ) FINAL: { Z-----1 `1 PC Meeting: $frttit t 2Fr?CI By: S Note: Building and Safety — Grading will review and cafrlment on future submittals for this project. A) STANDARD CONDITIONS - Standard Building and Safety - Grading and Planning Department standard conditions for Grading and Drainage Plans. • 1) Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with current adopted California Building Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The Grading and Drainage Plan(s) shall be in substantial conformance with the approved conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan. 2) A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified Engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. Two copies will be provided at grading and drainage plan submittal for review. Plans shall implement design recommendations per said report. 3) The final Grading and Drainage Plan, appropriate certifications and compaction reports shall be completed, submitted, and approved by the Building and Safety Official prior to the issuance of building permits. 4) A separate Grading and Drainage Plan check submittal is required for all new construction projects and for existing buildings where improvements being proposed will generate 50 cubic yards or more of combined cut and fill. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall be prepared, stamped, and wet signed by a California licensed Civil Engineer. 5) The applicant shall comply with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Dust Control Measures and place a dust control sign on the project site prior to the issuance of a grading permit. • I:\BUILDING\PERMITS\DRC2011-00352 Chase Bank 1DRC2011-00352 Grading Committee Project Report 20110816.doc 1 of 4 A & B 36 _ _ :% a±,7, City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC2011-00352 " '.,:g Building & Safety Department 10500 Civic Center Dr. ;. Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 i~: T: (909)477-2710 F: (909)477-2711 • 6) If a Rough Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit are submitted to the Building and Safety Official for review, that plan shall be a separate plan/permit from Precise Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit. 7) A drainage study showing a 100-year, AMC 3 design storm event for on-site drainage shall be prepared and submitted to the Building and Safety Official, or his designee, for review and approval for on-site storm water drainage prior to issuance of a grading permit. All reports shall be wet signed and sealed by the Engineer of Record. 8) It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to acquire any required off-site drainage easements prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 9) It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to acquire any required off-site drainage acceptance letter(s) from adjacent downstream property owner(s) or discharge flows in a natural condition (concentrated flows are not accepted) and shall provide the Building and Safety Official a drainage study showing the proposed flows do not exceed the existing flows prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 10) It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to obtain written permission from the adjacent property owner(s) to construct wall on property line or provide a detail(s) showing the perimeter wall(s) to be constructed offset from the property line. 11) The Final Grading and Drainage Plan shall show the accessibility path from the • public right of way and the accessibility parking stalls to the building doors in conformance with the current adopted California Building Code. All accessibility ramps shall show sufficient detail including gradients, elevations, and dimensions and comply with the current adopted California Building Code. 12) The Grading and Drainage Plan shall Implement City Standards for on-site construction where possible, and provide details for all work not covered by City • Standard Drawings. 13) All slopes shall be a minimum 2-foot offset from the public right of way or adjacent private property. 14) Private sewer, water, and storm drain improvements will be designed per the, latest adopted California Plumbing Code. 15) The maximum parking stall gradient is 5 percent. Accessibility parking stall grades shall be constructed per the, current adopted California Building Code. 16) Roof storm water is not permitted to flow over the public parkway and shall be directed to an under parkway culvert per City of Rancho Cucamonga requirements prior to issuance of a grading permit. 17) The final grading and drainage plan shall show existing topography a minimum of 100-feet beyond project boundary. I:\BUILDING\PERMITS\DRC2011-00352 Chase Bank 1DRC2011-00352 Grading Committee Project Report 20110816.doc 2 of 4 : 37 • • -rr V;, City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC2011-00352 "t f ° Building & Safety Department it . 10500 Civic Center Dr. Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 • ':; 5i. T: (909) 477-2710 F: (909) 477-2711 18) The applicant shall provide a grading agreement and grading bond for all cut and fill combined exceeding 5,000 cubic yards prior to issuance of a grading permit. The grading agreement and bond shall be approved by the Building and Safety Official. • 19) This project shall comply with the accessibility requirements of the current adopted California Building Code. 20) The precise grading and drainage plan shall follow the format provided in the City of Rancho Cucamonga handout "Information for Grading Plans and Permit". 21) Grading Inspections: a) Prior to the start of grading operations the owner and grading contractor shall request a pre-grading meeting. The meeting shall be attended by the project owner/representative, the grading contractor and the Building Inspector to discuss about grading requirements and • preventive measures, etc. if a pre-grading meeting is not held within 24 hours from the start of grading operations, the grading permit may be subject to suspension by the Building Inspector; b) The grading contractor shall call into the City of Rancho Cucamonga Building and Safety Department at least 1 working day in advance to • request the following grading inspections prior to continuing grading operations: i) The bottom of the over-excavation ii) Completion of Rough Grading, prior to issuance of the building permit; iii) At the completion of Rough Grading, the grading contractor or owner shall submit to the Permit Technicians (Building and Safety Front Counter) an original and a copy of the Pad Certifications to be prepared by and properly wet signed and sealed by the Civil Engineer and Soils Engineer of Record; iv) The rough grading certificates and the compaction reports will be reviewed by the Associate Engineer or a designated person and • approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. 22) Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy the engineer of record shall • certify the functionality of the storm water quality management plan (WQMP) best management practices (BMP) devices. B) COMMENTS - The following items shall be corrected / completed, submitted to, reviewed and approved by staff prior to scheduling the project for a Planning Commission hearing. • Copies of required easement/right-of-way documents, including legal descriptions, shall be submitted for review prior to obtaining final signatures. The review period for the above I:\BUILDING\PERMITS\DRC2011-00352 Chase Bank\DRC2011-00352 Grading Committee Project Report 20110816.doc 3 of 4 A & B 38 I . r+rs-, City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC2011-00352 • te`'4s' Building & Safety Department W10500 Civic Center Dr. Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 T: (909)477-2710 F: (909)477-2711 • will generally be a minimum of two weeks or longer depending upon the adequacy and complexity of the submittal: 1) Please note that at this conceptual level a review of the accessibility access is not performed. It is the responsibility of the applicant to meet all accessibility requirements. 2) Through email correspondence with the Regional Water Quality Control Board, this project is a "Category" project. The following is excerpted from the email from Nan Nguyen: "1. If the bank is redeveloping surface is 5000 sqft from a pervious suface (not existing impervious), or removing existing impervious surface to expose and disturb native soil below, then the 5000 sgft or greater clause comes into play in the WQMP. Thus, this flags a WQMP development and review. 2. If the construction site is part of the greater plan of development, which it happens to be since it's a part of a larger existing commercial development project, it's required to be both under the Construction General Permit as well as to evaluate any possible future LIP and post construction treatment system, depending on how strict the City wants the site to enforce its MS4 permit 3. The project is technically a New/Redevelopment category under the current, as well as the new template WQMP," C) SPECIAL CONDITIONS • 1) If more than 5,000 square feet of combined asphalt concrete and PCC parking and driveway surface area are removed, a category project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) will be required for this project. Contact the Building and Safety Department for additional direction/information. 2) Prior to the issuance of a grading permit the applicant shall provide to Building and Safety Services Director a copy.of the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Memorandum of Agreement for Storm Water Quality Management Plan for review prior to recordation of the document. The Memorandum of Agreement for Storm Water Quality Management Plan shall be recorded prior to issuance of a grading permit. 3) D) WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN 1) A category project Storm Water Quality Management Plan shall be approved by the Building and Safety Official, or his designee, and the City of Rancho Cucamonga's "Memorandum of Storm Water Quality Management Plan" shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a grading permit. • I:\BUILDING\PERMITS\DRC2011-00352 Chase Bank\DRC2011-00352 Grading Committee Project Report 20110816.doc 4of4 A :. 1 39 RESOLUTION NO. 11-47 • A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TREE REMOVAL PERMIT DRC2011-00683, A REQUEST TO REMOVE 22 TREES IN CONJUNCTION WITH A PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT A BANK OF 4,207 SQUARE FEET WITH REMOTE DRIVE-THRU ATM KIOSKS WITHIN AN EXISTING SHOPPING CENTER IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (NC) DISTRICT, TERRA VISTA COMMUNITY PLAN (TVCP), LOCATED AT 10598 BASE LINE ROAD AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HAVEN AVENUE AND BASE LINE ROAD; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF—APN: 1076-481-35. A. Recitals. 1. Gensler, on behalf of Chase Bank, filed an application for the approval of Tree Removal Permit DRC2011-00683 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Tree Removal Permit request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 28th day of September 2011 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 September 28,2011, including written and oral staff reports,together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to a shopping center located at the northeast corner of Base Line Road and Haven Avenue; and b. The shopping center is approximately 556,159 square feet (12.77 acres) that is approximately 884 feet (east to west) by approximately 884 feet (north to south); c. The shopping center is comprised of thirteen(13) buildings with a combined floor area of approximately 135,000 square feet; and d. Seven (7) of the 13 buildings are contiguous to each other and form a single crescent-shaped strip. This strip is comprised of three (3) anchor tenant buildings - one of these is occupied by Ralphs Market. The remainder of the strip is comprised of four small tenant buildings. The other five (5) buildings are single- or multi-tenant pad buildings; and e. This application is in conjunction with Development Review DRC2011-00352; and • f. The specific location of the project site is at the southeast corner of the shopping center near the intersection of Base Line Road and Valencia Avenue(APN: 1076-481-35). The area of work is A & B 40 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 11-47 • • TREE REMOVAL PERMIT DRC2011-00683 — GENSLER FOR CHASE BANK September 28, 2011 Page 2 a parcel of approximately 38,035 square feet(0.87 acre)that is presently developed with a 6,600-square • foot retail building occupied by Terra Vista Animal Hospital and a medical office; and g. With the exception of the Montessori Academy day care/private school facility at the northeast corner of Haven Avenue and Valencia Avenue, the shopping center is bound on all sides by residential development; and h. The zoning of the center is Neighborhood Commercial (NC) District, Terra Vista Community Plan. The zoning of the properties to the north and east is Low-Medium (LM) Residential District, Terra Vista Community Plan. The zoning of the properties to the south is Medium (M) and Low-Medium (LM) Residential District,Terra Vista Community Plan. The zoning of the properties to the west is Low (L) and Low-Medium (LM) Residential District; and i. The trees are not designated as historically significant; and j. The trees are not noted in the Terra Vista Community Plan; and k. The applicant has submitted an arborist report assessing the health of the individual trees. The report observes that the trees are in generally average or good condition; and I. It is necessary to remove the trees in order to construct the new bank building and parking lot which will allow economic enjoyment of the property; and m. It is not necessary to remove trees to construct required improvements within the public street right-of-way or within a flood control or utility right-of-way; and n. There are a significant number of mature trees within, and at the perimeter of, the • shopping center and the surrounding residential neighborhoods; the removal does not affect the established character of the area and the property values; and o. The trees cannot be preserved by pruning and proper maintenance or by relocation rather than removal; and p. The trees do not constitute a significant natural resource of the City. 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 project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and b. The proposed project is in accord with the objectives of the Municipal Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and c. The proposed project is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code; and d. The proposed project, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health,safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4. The Planning Department staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt from • the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines. A & B 41 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 11-47 TREE REMOVAL PERMIT DRC2011-00683— GENSLER FOR CHASE BANK September 28, 2011 Page 3 • The project qualifies as a Class 2 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15302-Replacement or Reconstruction - as the proposal is to demolish an existing retail building of 6,600 square feet and construct a bank of 4,207 square feet and remote drive-thru ATM kiosks with an overhead canopy of 500 square feet. There is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. 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. Planning Department 1) Approval is for the removal of twenty-two (22) trees in conjunction with a • proposal to construct a bank of 4,207 square feet with remote drive-thru ATM kiosks within an existing shopping center in the Neighborhood Commercial(NC) District,Terra Vista Community Plan (TVCP), located at 10598 Base Line Road at the northeast corner of Haven Avenue and Base Line Road -APN: 1076-481-35. 2) Section 19.08.100 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code requires that all heritage trees be replaced on a one-for-one basis, not less than 15 gallon size. 3) The replacement trees shall be planted on the same lot as the trees that are being removed. • 4) This permit shall be valid for a period of 90 days, unless an extension is requested in writing at least 14 days prior to the expiration date. Where this permit is associated with development, the effective date begins, and the 90 days shall start from the date of final map recordation or Building Permit issuance, whichever occurs first. 5) All Conditions of Approval for Development Review DRC2011-00352 shall apply. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2011. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Luis Munoz, Jr., Chairman ATTEST: James R. Troyer, AICP, Secretary • I, James R. Troyer, AICP, Secretay 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 28th day of September 2011, by the following vote-to-wit: . A & B 42 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 11-47 TREE REMOVAL PERMIT DRC2011-00683 — GENSLER FOR CHASE BANK September 28, 2011 Page 4 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: • NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: • • • A & B 43 SIGN-IN SHEET PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING September 28, 2011 ' NAME COMPANY ` ADDRESS �p/J!L C e/), o'cA �e c 47-64 .1f els