Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995/09/27 - Agenda Packet_~ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION ; AGENDA WEDNESDAY SEPTEMBER 27, 1995 7:00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA IlL IV. Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call Chairman Barker Commissioner Melther Vice Chairman McNiel Commissioner Tolstoy Commissioner Lurnpp Announcements Approval of Minutes July 26, 1995 August 9, 1995 Adjourned Meeting regarding Conditional Use Permit 95-11 September 6, 1995, Special Joint Meeting with City Council September 13, 1995 Public Hearings The following items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may. voice their opinion of the related project. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address the Commission by statingyour name and address. AH such opinions shah be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. Please sign in after speaking. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 95-01B - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO. - A request to change the land use designation from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Community Commercial for 47.3 acres bounded by Foothill Boulevard on the south, Rochester Avenue on the east, the future Poplar Drive and future Church Street on the north, and the future Orchard Avenue on the west and to High Residential (24-30 dwelling units per acre) for 19.2 acres bounded by the future Poplar Drive and future Church Street on the north, the future Orchard Avenue on the west, and the proposed Community Commercial designation on the south. The City will also consider Commercial, Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre), and Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) - APN: 0227-151-18 and 24. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Related Files: Terra Vista Community Plan Amendment 95-01, Conditional Use Permit 95-11, and Parcel Map 14022. (Continued from September 13, 1995) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TERRA VISTA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 95-01 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO. - A request to change the land use district from "MOC" (Mixed Use Office/Commercial/Residential) to "CC" (Community Commercial) for 47.3 acres bounded by Foothill Boulevard on the south, Rochester Avenue on the east, the future Poplar Drive and future Church Street on the north, and the future Orchard Avenue on the west and to "H" (High, 24-30 dwelling units per acre) for 19.2 acres of land bounded by the future Poplar Drive and future Church Street on the north, the future Orchard Avenue on the west, and the proposed Community Commercial designation on the south. The City will also consider "C" (Commercial), "M" (Medium, 8-14 dwelling units per acre), and MH (Medium High, 14-24 dwelling units per acre). The changes include amending portions of the text and various tables and graphic exhibits of the community plan to implement design features of the proposed land use designations - APN: 0227-151-18 and 24. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Related Files: General Plan Amendment 95-01B, Conditional Use Permit 95-11, and Parcel Map 14022. (Continued from September 13, 1995) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-11 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO. - The proposed ~development of an integrated shopping center totaling 495,736 square feet on 47.33 acres of land with proposed phase one consisting of a 132,065 square foot Home Depot home improvement center in the Mixed Use (Commercial, Office, Residential) District of the Terra Vista Community Plan, located at the northwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue - APN: 227-151-18 and 24. Staff recommends issuance of aNegative Declaration. Related Files: General Plan Amendment 95-01B, Tetra Vista Community Plan Amendment 95-01, and Parcel Map 14022. (Continued from September 13, 1995) VI. VII. VIII. IX. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 14022 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO. - A subdivision of 66.5 acres of land into 12 parcels in the Mixed Use Development District of the Terra Vista Community Plan, located at the northwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue - APN: 227-151 - 18 and 24. Staff recommends issuance of aNegative Declaration. Related files: General Plan Amendment 95-01B, Terra Vista Community Plan Amendment 95-01, and Conditional Use Permit 95-11. (Continued from September 13, 1995) MODIFICATIONS TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PARCEL MAP 12959 - CAPELLINO - A request to modify certain conditions of approval for a previously approyed subdivision in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southeast comer of Arrow Route and White Oak Avenue - APN: 209-461-01, 02, and 06 through 10 and 209-471-03 through 10. Director's Reports GRUBB & ELLIS - A request to consider initiation of text changes to add thrift stores as a Community Commercial use within Subarea 3 of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. Public Comments This is the time andplace for the general public to address the Commission. Items to be discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda. Commission Business Adjournment The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11:00 Z M. adjournment time. lfitems go beyond that time, they shah be heard only with the consent of the Commission. 1, Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certbS? that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on September 21, 1995, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. VICINITY MAP i-J ul I .,~ CITY HALL CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY OF RANCHO CUCAIVIONGA -- STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: September 27, 1995 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Alan Warren, AICP, Associate Planner ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 95-01B - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO, - A request to change the land use designation from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Community Commercial for 47.3 acres bounded by Foothill Boulevard on the south, Rochester Avenue on the east, the future Poplar Ddve and future Church Street on the north, and the future Orchard Avenue on the west and to High Residential (24-30 dwelling units per acre) for 19.2 acres bounded by the future Poplar Ddve and future Church Street on the north, the future Orchard Avenue on the west, and the proposed Community Commercial designation on the south. The City will also consider Commercial, Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre), and Medium-High Residential ('14-24 dwelling units per acre) -APN: 0227-151-18 and 24. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Related Files: Terra Vista Community Plan Amendment 95-01, Conditional Use Permit 95-11, and Parcel Map 14022. (Continued from September 13, 1995) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TERRA VISTA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 95-01 - LEVVIS DEVELOPMENT CO. - A request to change the land use distdct from "MOC" (Mixed Use Office/Commercial/Residential) to "CC" (Community Commercia{) for47.3 acres bounded by Foothill Boulevard on the south, Rochester Avenue on the east, the future Poplar Ddve and future Church Street on the north, and the future Orchard Avenue on the west and to "H" (High, :24-30 dwelling units per acre) for 19.2 acres of land bounded by the future Poplar Drive and future Church Street on the north, the future Orchard Avenue on the west, and the proposed Community Commercial designation on the south. The City will also consider "C" (Commercial), "M" (Medium, 8-14 dwelling units per acre), and MH (Medium High, 14-24 dwelling units per acre). The changes include amending portions of the text and vadous tables and graphic exhibits of the community plan to implement design features of the proposed land use designations APN: 0227-151-18 and 24. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Related Files: General Plan Amendment 95-01 B, Conditional Use Permit 95-11, and Parcel Map 14022. (Continued from September 13, 1995) This item was continued from the September 13, 1995, meeting due to the incompleteness of the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) which forms a significant part of the environmental documentation. As of the writing of this report, the final TIA has been submitted for review but its evaluation has not been completed at SANBAG. If SANBAG's completed review becomes available prior to the meeting, staff will give an oral presentation as to the findings and recommendations of the TIA. .j ITEMS A & B PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 95-01BfTVCPA 95-01 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO. September 27, 1995 Page 2 Staff anticipates the study may identify only minor impacts that should allow for the issuance of a mitigated Negative Declaration. Alternatively, if the information is not available, then the Planning Commission may fonNard all applications and their environmental assessments to the City Council for initial and final determinations. Please refer to the staff report of September 13, 1995, for specifics of the project analysis. A proposed revision to the Terra Vista Community Plan text regarding buffedng between Residential and Commercial uses is included on Pages IV-12 and IV-13 attached to the proposed Ordinance. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolutions, thereby recommending that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment No. 95-01B and Terra Vista Community Plan Amendment 95-01 upon the City Council's determination of a Negative Declaration for environmental impacts. Respectfully submitted, City Planner BB:AW:gs Attachments: September 13, 1995, Staff Report Resolution Recommending Approval of GPA 95-01B Resolution Recommending Approval of 'I'VCPA 95-01 (with draft Ordinance and Text Changes) CITY OF RANCHO CUCAIVlONGA _ STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: September 13, 1995 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Alan Warren, AICP, Associate Planner ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 95-01B - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO. - A request to change the land use designation from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Community Commercial for 47.3 acres bounded by Foothill Boulevard on the south, Rochester Avenue on the east, the future Poplar Ddve and future Church Street on the north, and the future Orchard Avenue on the west and to High Residential (24-30 dwelling units per acre) for 19.2 acres bounded by the future Poplar Drive and future Church Street on the north, the future Orchard Avenue on the west, and the proposed Community Commercial designation on the south. The City will also consider Commercial, Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre), and Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) APN: 0227-151-18 and 24. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TERRA VISTA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 95-01 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO. - A request to change the land use district from "MOC" (Mixed Use Office/Commercial/Residential) to "CC" (Community Commercial) for 47.3 acres bounded by Foothill Boulevard on the south, Rochester Avenue on the east, the future Poplar Ddve and future Church Street on the north, and the future Orchard Avenue on the west and to "H" (High, 24-30 dwelling units per acre) for 19.2 acres bounded by the future Poplar Ddve and future Church Street on the north, the future Orchard Avenue on the west, and the proposed Community Commercial designation on the south. The City will also consider "C" (Commercial), "M" (Medium, 8-14 dwelling units per acre), and "MH" · (Medium-High, 14-24 .dwelling units per acre). The changes include amending portions of the text, and vadous tables and graphic exhibits of the community plan to implement design features of the proposed land use designations. APN: 0227- 151-18 and 24. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Vacant/Terra Vista Planned Community - Low Medium (LM), Medium (M) and High (H) South - Vacant (future Masi Center)/Industdal Area Specific Plan - Industrial Park East - Single family neighborhood, vacant/Low (L), Foothill Blvd. Specific Plan - Office West - Partially developed with medical offices, vacant/Terra Vista Planned Community - Hospital & Related Facilities, Office (MHO) PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 95-01B - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO. September 13, 1995 Page 2 General Plan Designations: Project Site - Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) North Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) South - Industrial Park East - Office, Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) West - Commercial, Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) Site Characteristics: The site encompasses approximately 66.5 acres of undeveloped land bounded on the south by Foothill Boulevard and on the east by Rochester Avenue. The northern and western boundaries are contiguous undeveloped land. The site is generally level and slopes from north to south at approximately 2 percent. The soil conditions are stable and the site is covered with grasses, shrubs and mature Eucalyptus trees along Foothill Boulevard. A small earthen swale exists along Foothill Boulevard and another crosses the site west to east collecting site runoff and depositing it in a basin at the southeast comer of the property. There are no structures on the site or any apparent use taking place. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Staff has reviewed the Initial Study, Part I and completed the Environmental Checklist, Part II of the Initial Study, and has found no significant adverse environmental impacts will occur because of the proposed land use amendments. Potential impacts, determined not to be significant, include the following: Traffic: A traffic impact analysis (TIA) was developed by the applicant's traffic consultant and reviewed by the City's Traffic Section and the San Bemardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) for conformity with the County Congestion Management Plan. SANBAG com. pleted the initial review and has forwarded correction comments to the applicant's traffic consultant. As of the wdting of this report, the amended study was not available for SANBAG and City review. Staff recommendation on the environmental analysis cannot, therefore, be offered until the study is completed and approved by City Traffic and SANBAG staff. Air Quality: The land use change was expected to increase the air emissions (from vehicle trips) due to development of the site for total retail activities above that expected from the approved office/retail mix. However, because of a high emissions baseline resulting from automobile sales, as currently authorized on part of the site, the proposed retail commercial center, without auto sales, actually lowers the anticipated emission levels. LAND USE ANALYSIS: AoDroodateness of the existing designation: There is little existing commercial development in this area of Foothill Boulevard. The MOC (Mixed uses, commercial, office, residential) designation calls for the combination of listed uses with office to the western portion, multiple family residential in the northern part, and commercial activities in the eastern portion. These uses relate well, as provided for in the Terra Vista Community Plan text, to the remainder of the plan area and generally to the surrounding areas outside the planned community, Staff foresees no inherent problems with allowing the existing land use designation to remain as currently adopted. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 95-01B - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO. September 13, 1995 Page 3 Need and appropriateness of additional retail commercial uses in the area and within the SPecific site: The request to significantly increase the amount of commercial development on the site over what is presently authorized (MOC) requires a general plan amendment. Locationally, with the approved Masi project across the street, the vacant commercial designated land east of Rochester, and the relative location to the nearby residential development, staff concurs with the applicant that the site is generally well suited for the intended uses. The General Plan provides, "Community shopping centers shall be encouraged to provide residents with a greater range of services and merchandise than found in the neighborhood commercial level." Although the proposed commercial portion, at 47 acres, is under the limit of the area (50 acres) criterion established in the General Plan for community commercial, the proposed center does exceed the suggested upper building area limitation of 300,000 square feet for community commercial sites. However, the anticipated uses at this location conform with those listed in the community commercial provisions. As with General Plan Amendment 94-01A, which was approved last year at the northeast comer of Foothill and Spruce, the question of the need for additional commercial land in the City has been addressed. The market and economic study provided for General Plan Amendment 94-01A included the analysis of this site and the recommendations for the Foothill/Spruce site were applicable to the Foothill/Rochester site. The conclusions of that report provided sufficient information to recommend additional commercial acreage as requested. The applicant requested that the study, as it did include the site in question, be applied to the review market analysis questions in this application. Since the study is over a year old, staff requested that it be revisited by the consultant and updated as appropriate to reflect the most current trends. An updated evaluation was submitted that contained the more current economic data (1992, 1994, & 1995 figures) from SCAG, US Government, and private data vendors. This new review provides the following information: Because of the Ontario Mills Centers significantly greater market 'area, it is believed "that at most 10 percent of the facility's space - or 200,000 square feet - will be effective within Rancho Cucamonga itself." In the Terra Vista area the vacancy rate has increased to 7.7 percent (up from 4.9 per cent in 1994) for the DSTM (department stores, apparel, furniture, home furnishing, appliance, etc.) square footage. "Much of this vacant space... was either leased-or in the lease negotiation stage although it appeared vacant." The consultant states that the increased vacancy rate merely reflects the "new additions of space" in the Ten'a Vista area. In addition, the consultant had a strong belief that the Kinart site will be recycled to a non retail commercial use (possibly governmental) and therefore its vacancy need not be viewed as added commercial space inventory. Staff believes that retail use for the building is still more viable that other use altematives. Based on trade area population and expenditure per capita, the DSTM and Home Center expenditure potentials are expected to continue to grow significantly (60 percent for DSTM - 2010). Updated data indicates that the net leakage in the DSTM category pLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 95-01B - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO. September 13, 1995 Page 4 has been reduced to about $184.5 ($191.6 million -1994) million and increased in the Home Centers to about $55 million ($11.9 million -1994) from the 1994 report. Much of this change can be attributed to significantly updated information. Staff does believe that the trade area population estimate of 280,000 is high and therefore might present a bdghter economic picture that really exists. The study concludes 'q'he population growth taking place in the Rancho Cucamonga area has produced a market which is increasingly regional in scale." Further, the "current evaluation shows on a very conservative basis the continuing need for significant additional DSTM and Home Center Space in Rancho Cucamonga." This updated analysis is consistent with the economic study provided for the "Best Buy" application (General Plan Amendment 94-01A) last year which essentially vedfies the current need for additional commercial development in the community. ADDroodateness of high density residential uses in the area and within the specific site: The current Terra Vista Community Plan allows for 342 to 589 units on 28.7 acres on this site. An estimate of 460 to 576 units is provided for the remaining portion of the site not allocated for the shopping center. While the density increases, the total unit count will remain essentially the same or be reduced because of less land allocated for residential use. The residential complex, when proposed, will undoubtedly exhibit a more compact and dense urban design than would be expected under the present land use allowances. A High density area is provided to the northwest of the site that would provides for continuation of density and design charactedstice in the immediate area (see Exhibit "B"). D. Alternate land uses: Commercial (General) - This designation, provides a wide range of use activities odented to provide more local commercial services. While no size limitation is listed in the General Plan, those areas so designated to date are not of the size and scope of the proposed retail center. Medium (8-14 dwelling units/acre) - At the medium designation the site could only be authorized 130 to 270 units, a substantial decrease in the current provisions, A significantly less dense and more open design would result. Medium-High (14-24 dwelling units/acre) - This designation would allow for a range between 231 and 463 units. Again a less dense and more open design would result when compared to the proposed land use density. With existing and proposed community plan development standards, both Medium and Medium-High projects could be designed to be compatible with the proposed shopping center. COMMUNITY PLAN TEXT CHANGES: Because of the changes in the land use, vadous graphics and text need to be modified as they pertain to the site. Many of the changes proposed are based on the discussions and directions from previous Commission's design workshops on the Conditional Use Permit. The proposed graphics and text changes are summarized below: PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 95-01B - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO. September 13, 1995 Page 5 A. Add buffering criteda between residential and commercial uses in Chapter III as shown in Exhibit "A" of the attached proposed Ordinance. Modify Figure IV-23, Greenway System Design Features, where the Type E trail is moved to the north side of Poplar Drive and a Type B trail is proposed along Rochester Avenue between Poplar Ddve and Foothill Boulevard. C, Add design guidelines, consisting of text and graphics, in areas of Site Planning and Pedestrian Network, Landscape Treatment, and Foothill Boulevard Centers Concept as shown in Exhibit "A" of the attached proposed Ordinance. D= Various graphics changes to reflect the change in land use as shown in Exhibit "A" of the attached proposed Ordinance. Corrections to the text, as provided, should include the following: All of the Gateways indicated on Church Street, with the exceptions of those on Haven and Rochester, should be moved to Foothill Boulevard on the respective cross streets. (Figure IV-64, Page IV-49). These locations are consistent with the current Terra Vista Community Plan dated Apd11990 and including the most recently approved Terra Vista Community Plan Amendment dated July 1994. The Gateways description on Page IV-50 should remain essentially as written in the current-Terra Vista Community Plan. Type II gateways should only be referenced for Church Street at Haven and at Rochester (as indicated on Figure tV-64). 3. Figure 111-16 and Figure 111-17 should be amended to include regional as well as Citywide bds stop locations. FACTS FOR FINDING: Based on the facts and conclusions listed above, staff believes the Planning Commission can make the following facts for findings regarding these applications: The properties are suitable for the uses allowed in the proposed land use and development district designation in terms of access and size, as evidenced by the site's location within the boundaries of an existing mixed use community plan, on Foothill Boulevard, the City's primary commercial arterial, and in near proximity to existing and proposed commercial recreation development; and, The proposed amendments would not have significant impacts on the environment nor the surrounding properties as evidenced by the findings and conclusions of the Initial Environmental Study that indicated that no significant impacts would be expected as a result of this land use change; and, The proposed amendments are in conformance with the General Plan and Development Code due to the site's capacity to promote the goals and objectives for community commercial development. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 95-01B - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO. September 13, 1995 Page 6 CORRESPONDENCE: These items have been advertised as a public headng in the Inland Valley Dailv Bulletin newspaper, the property has been posted, and notices were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the project site. RECOMMENDATION: Because of the lack of a completed traffic impact analysis, staff cannot, at this time, recommend approval of a Negative Declaration for these applications. Therefore, it is recommended that the items be continued to the next regularly schedule meeting, 1995, in anticipation of the completion of the environmental analysis. If the TIA is satisfactorily completed, indicating no significant traffic impacts, then the issuance of a Negative Declaration would be appropriate. With such a finding, staff could recommend approval of these applications through adoption of the attached Resolutions. Respec y submitted / Br BB:AW:gs Attachments: Exhibit 'W' General Plan Land Use Map Exhibit "B" Terra Vista Community Plan Land Use Map Exhibit "C" Research Update; Market Support For New Retail Space Resolution Recommending Approval of GPA 95-01B Resolution Recommending Approval of TVCPA 95-01 (with draft Ordinance and Text Changes) ~:~f/ll,,l ~27///7///////////J.,r///////////ztl COMMERCIAL COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD COMM. REGIONAL COMMERCIAL OFFICE :::::::::::::::::::::: LOW 2-4DU's/AC I;.i!;::;!i,::'.:l LOW-MEDIUM 4-8DU's/AC ~ MEDIUM 8-14 DU's/AC ~ MEDIUM-HIGH 14-24 DU's/AC ~ HIGH 24-30 DU's/AC INDUSTRIAL P7//~ INDUSTRIAL PARK F~"//~ GENERAL INDUSTRIAL CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING DMSION ITEM: GPA 95-01B and TVCPA 95-01 TITLE: General Plan Land Use Map EXHIBIT:"A" SCALE m I i-- M:': /7 ' :, /~ M LM, M i CC FIGURE 111-17 CC Land Use Plan CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA P~41NG DIVISION LM P CC M LM TVCPA 9501 MOC to Community Commefcld and I. Igh~..~,~.~ :! - LM i 1if' Densit Ran es of Approved Projects may vary sli hlly from the Plan; See "~s Bui?t Land Use Progress Plan' - Figure ~11-3 on page V1-11. ITEIVI: GPA 95-01B and TVCPA 95-01 TITLE: Community Plan Land Use Map EXHIBIT: "B" SCALE: i~realty aevelopment research, ~nc~ ~21663'9~36 542 s SearDarn street chicago Hhnols 60605 '~508 3t2/6'63 5t~I ' "f x RECEIVED June 22, 1995 Mr. Gregory N. Hoxworth Executive Oirector of Commercial Development Lewis Homes Management Corp. 1156 N. Mountain Ave. Upland, California 91785 JUN 27 1995 City of Rancho Cucamonga planning Division Re,' Research Update; Market Support For New Retail Space; Rancho Cucamonga, California Dear Mr. Hoxworth: Pursuant with your recent request, our group has reviewed our pdor analyses regarding the extent of market support in Rancho Cucamonga (prepared in 1993 and 1994) to develop a current indication of the market area's need for additional retail space. This new evaluation has become necessary as a result of your rezoning request for the site of the planned Terre Vista Promenade at the N/WIC of Rochester Avenue and Foothill Boulevard in Rancho Cucamonga. This center will be of the strip WPe and include an estimated 450,000 square feet of leasable area. Key tenants will include Kinart and Home Depot. A major portion of the space will be of the DSTM* WPe while the Home Depot outlet will primarily merchandise home center goods, This evaluation has, accordingly, been focused on these two key retail categories, The present evaluation included the preparation of updated population projection data based on 1994 and 1995 information supplied by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and 1994 income estimates by census tract from Clarites/NPDC - a private data vendor. This data afforded an indication of the present level of retail demand in the market area. Similsdy, development of additional retail space since the last studies were completed -- including the planned Ontario Mills shopping facility - were also factored into the updated retail supply calculations, Background. RDR'S most recent Rancho Cucamonga market evaluation was completed in March, 1994. The evaluation indicated that Rancho Cucamonga's retail facilities continued to be not able to meet the retail demands created by the community's relatively rapid rate of population growth. This growth pace is reflected by a projected population gain of nsady 55,000 persons in the immediate Rancho Cucamonga vicinity alone during the ten year time frame between 1990 and 2000. The last evaluation indicated that locally generated expenditure potential exceeded sales in all key retail categories with especially significant variances in those categories oriented to comparison shopping, In particular, the important DSTM category lost *DSTM includes department and discount store facilities; catalog outlets; apparel and accessories operators; furniture, home furnishings, floor coverings, and appliance stores; and miscellaneous shopping goods (toy, hobby, card, gift, book, office supply, sporting good, luggage, jewelry, and the like) facilities. j~realhl development research, inc. Mr. Gregory N. Hoxworth Page 2 June 22, 1995 a very significant 65% of its expenditure potential to locations outside the immediate Rancho Cucamonga area, DSTM facilities are especially significant to shopping center facilities because of the presence of sto~es of this type in all types of shopping facilities -- including both the Ontario Mills complex and the subject Tetra Vista Promenade center currently planned by Lewis Homes. The lesser representation of DSTM facilities in Rancho Cucamonga and the consequent loss of a significant portion of the locally generated DSTM expenditure potential results in a variety of costs to the community including a lower level of collected real estate taxes, greater required driving distances for the purebase of goods and services, and lower levels of local employment. It is noted that the type of employment most often connected with retail facilities typically augments a family's income and/or provides work for younger persons who are often underemployed. For these reasons, an adequate retail space inventory is important as an enhancer of the quality of life in a Community. Changes in the Rancho CucamoncJa Market Araa's Competitive Alignment. Since the last evaluation a number of developments have occurred or been announced which will impact the area's competitive make-up. The most significant event since the last report was completed was the announcement of the planned opening of the near 2.0 million square foot Ontario Mills project to be situated at the N/W/C of the intersection of 1-15 and 1-10 in Ontado. This promotional enclosed mall facility has been granted all its necessary public approvals and is scheduled to begin operation in late 1996. The market area for a Mills-type center is geographically very extensive -- far larger than the immediate Rancho Cucamonga area. On this basis, it is believed That at most 10% of the faciliW's space _ or 200,000 square feet -- will be effective within Rancho Cucamonga itself. The market area also includes 145,000 square feet of space connected with the new Tetra Vista Square facility - the property evaluated in RDR's last study of this market. If additions to other centers in Rancho Cucamonga are accounted for, including Central Park Plaza and Tetra Vista Town Center, a total of 185,000 square feet has been added to the space inventory since the last study was completed. Approximately 100,000 square feet of space, moreover, are planned to be added to these existing centers, It is noted that this area does not include pad space which is most often geared to restaurant and automotive users, The only other known change in the araa's retail alignment is the planned relocation of a Kmart outlet from Haven Avenue south of Foothill to The property under consideration in this evaluation. The existing Kmart space will probably be utilized for a non-retail use based on its proximity to an area of governmental and office use. Thus, only about 30,000 square feet of new space will be added to the space inventory. Thus, an additional estimated 330,000 square feet are planned in the near future including the Ontario Mills and the incremental Kinart space outlined above. See Table 1 for details. qrealty cleveloDment research, inc. Mr. Gregory N. Hoxworth Page 3 June 22, 1995 As a result of the recent addition of new space to existing facilities, the level of vacancy has increased by about 20,000 square feet since our last evaluation. This change has resulted in a somewhat higher vacancy percentage - 7.7% at the present time versus about 4.9% in the last evaluation. The current level is still relatively low and when the newness of the recently built space is taken into account, it is a very acceptable level since much of it will be absorbed in the near term future. Table 1 provides further details regarding the above discussed vacancy changes, Rancho Cucamonga Trade Area Definition and Population Trend. The Rancho Cucamonga trade area is made up of a Pdman/zone which is roughly corerruinous with the City of Rancho Cucamonga as well as a Secondan/zone which includes primarily the Fontana area to the east of Rancho Cucamonga and 1-15. The attached map highlights the Rancho Cucamonga trade area definition, The latest SCAG population estimates and projections indicate that the defined trade area has a 1995 population of somewhat less than 280,000 persons. By the year 2000 this level is expected to increase to just under 315,000. Further, these levels are projected to increase to about 356,000 and needy 400,000 in 2005 and 2010, respectively. Thus, during the fifteen year planning pedod, a trade area increase of about 120,000 persons can be anticipated. Population gain in the Primary zone will also be significant. 1995 population is nearly 200,000. These levels are expected to increase to about 225,000, 258,000, and 292,000, respectively. Of the total population increase, over 90,000 persons will reside in the Priman/zone. While these levels of increase are substantial, they, nevertheless, represent a small decline from the projections used in our earlier assessments. Table 2 provides detail regarding the updated population projections. Future Trade Area Expenditure Potential. Expenditure potential is an expression that represents the total number of dollars available within an area for various store types. it is the product of Trade area population and the expenditure per capita in particular study years. The level of expenditure per Capita represents a portion of per capita income based on historical spending pattems in particular ~egions of the U.S. Table 3 outlines the updated expenditure potential indications in the Primary zone for all the store categories - including the important DSTM and Home Center categories - in the 1995 to 2010 study period. These estimates are expressed in 1994 constam dollars which eliminate any future inflation which may occur. RDR has evaluated only the Priman/zone since the expenditure potential in this zone most directly relates to Rancho Cucamonga's retail inventory. As shown, DSTM and Home Center expenditure potential will grow rapidly in the Priman/zone during the study period with the former increasing from needy $398.0 million in 1995 to about $632.0 million in 2010 while the latter will increase from about $79.0 million to over $125.0 million, respectively. The gain in DSTM expenditure potential is especially impressive with an indicated increase of about $234 million or close to 60%. qreally aevelopment research, inc. Mr. Gregor'/N. Hoxwonh Page 4 June 22, 1995 1992 DSTM Expenditure Potential and Update of 1992 DSTM Sales Based on U.S. Census of Retail Trade. Since the 1992 U.S. Census of Retail Trade was not available at the time of RDR's research in 1994, this now available information was incorDorated in this study to afford a more definitive indication of the true level of sales in Rancho Cucamonga. Table 4 provides a comparison of the 1987 and 1992 U.S. Censuses of Retail Trade with state sales tax information. The trend in the growth of sales tax revenues was utilized in our prior study to update the 1987 sales data according to the U.S. Census. Comparing the prior estimates with the actual census data indicates that the actual sales pattern varied by store type. For example, in the DSTM category actual sales exceeded the RDR estimate by somewhat more than $10.0 million with nearly $187.0 million recorded in the census. Conversely in the home improvement category, RDR's estimate substantially exceeded actual sales -- nearly $50.0 million versus about $15.0 million, respectively, Accordingly, in these two important retail categories net leakage - on the basis of the Primary zone alone -- was reduced in the former to about $184.5 million and increased in the latter to about $55.0 million. 1992 Expenditure Potential Leakage Assuming the Addition of New Space. RDR has updated the current indication of expenditure potential leakage in the Pdmary zone alone in the key DSTM and home center retail categories. Since no home center space was added during this time, RDR has made the assumption that all of the new space which was added since 1992 was of the DSTM type. This evaluation is, accordingly, extremely conservative since only the Primary zone is considered in the calculations and secondly all the new space has ben considered to be of the DSTM type. If the new square footage which is now in place is accounted for in the 1992 base year normally associated with this type of space - assuming it produces the average level of sales productivity of $200 per square foot, new DSTM sales of about $37.0 million are yielded. Thus, total 1992 DSTM sales would have been about $204.0 million with the inclusion of this space. Contrasting this level against The 1992 sales potential of $351.3 million* indicates that DSTM expenditure potential leakage would have been in excess of $148.2 million. While this level is lower Than the near $290.0 million indicated in RDR's earlier evaluation, it is nevertheless still a very significant level of expenditure potential leakage. If the trade area's Secondary zone is also included, the level of expenditure potential loss is considerably higher. Table 6 provides details regarding the above calculations. Home Center expenditure potential leakage was actually considerably higher in 1992. At the same time, the census indicated that sales in stores of this type actually declined between 1987 and 1992 with a level of about $14.7 million produced in the latter year. * This level of expenditure potential has been recalculated on the basis of the revised population projections from SCAG and lower levels of income indicated by Claritas/NPDC. qlF realfY ClevelopmenT research. inc. Mr. are~org N. Xoxworth Page 5 June 22, 1995 When contrasted with the level of expenditure potential in 1992, a leakage of about $55.0 million is indicated -- a level in excess of 78% of expenditure potential. See Table 4 for additional detail. Overall, the 1992 U.S, Census of Retail Trade data in conjunction with the inclusion of new space built since our last evaluation clearly substantiates that a significant loss of expenditure potential continues to take place in the trade area -- in particular, from the Primary zone -- in spite of these changes. In the next section, RDR has updated the Primary zone expenditure potential projections on the basis of the most recent population and income data. In addition, sales have been further adjusted to reflect space planned in the future as well as sales growth. Accordingly, a more accurate indication of future expenditure potential loss is provided. Future Expenditure Potential Leakage Indication for DSTM and Home Center Facilities. While sales in all the store categories will no doubt increase, growth in the DSTM and home center groupings will be constrained by the capacity limits of the existing space inventory if no additional space is added. Sales levels in the DSTM and Home Center categories have been increased at 4% per annum compounded between 1992 and 1995 to yield essentially inflation adjusted sales. Accordingly, as shown in Tables 7 and 8, sales increase in the latter year to about $228.5 million and $16.5 million, respectively. Finally, 1995 sales have been adjusted to include space planned to be added to the space inventory. Again ROR has made the conservative assumption that all of this space will be of the DSTM type and will produce an average level of productivity per square foot of $250. It is believed that a higher productivity level is appropriate for this square footage given the higher sales productivities associated with Mills-type facilities. As outlined above, there is about 100,000 square feet of new space planned at Rancho Cucamonga's existing centers which when combined with the portion of space related to Ontario Mills estimated to be effective in Rancho Cucamonga and incremental Kman space yields a total planned area of 330,000 square feet. Applying the $250 per square foot productivity level to the planned square footage yields an additional $82.5 million in DSTM sales. Thus, total adjusted 1995 DSTM sales in Rancho Cucamonga are estimated at nearly $311.0 million. Table 7 highlights details of the above calculations. When the levels of expenditure potential in the Pdmary zone of the trade area are contrasted with the updated sales indications, it is clear that the level of expenditure potential loss will grow quickly over the study period. By the year 2000 the loss of DSTM expenditure potential out of the Primary trade area will total well over $152.0 million in 1994 constant dollars while the Home Center leakage will be about $75.0 million. By 2010 these levels of leakage increase further to over $321.0 million and about $109.0 million, respectively. i~realt'y' development research, inc, Mr. Gregory N. Hoxworth Page 6 June 22, 1995 Conclusion. The population growth taking place in the Rancho Cucamonga area has produced a market which is increasingly regional in scale. Thus, a growing variety of new retailers are considering locations in this area. Furthermore, RDR's current evaluation shows on a very conservative basis the continuing need for significant additional DSTM and Home Center space in Rancho Cucamonga. The subject Tetra Vista Promenade is especially well situated to meet a significant portion of the unmet market. In particular, its Home Depot and Kinart outlets will provide especially appropriate store formats to address this growing market. Sincerely, REALTY DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH, INC. A~. Via Fax (909) 949-6740 and UPS Nex~ Day RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, TRADE AREA Rancho Cucamonga, California Realty Development Research, Inc. D City of Rancho Cucamonga Table 1 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA TERRA VISTA PLANNED COMMUNITY SHOPPING CENTER VACANCY/NEW AND PLANNED SQUARE FOOTAGE 1994 Current Space In-place GLA In-place GLA Vacancy Available Central Park Plaza 66,000 89,000* 12.41 11,000 Terra Vista Village 135,000 135,000 7.4~ 10,000 Terra Vista Town Center 504,000 521,000** 6.4t 33,000 Terra Vista Square ... 145,000'** ...... Total 705,000 890,000 7.7~ 54,000 Total new space added: Total space planned: Total additional space: 185,000 S.F. 96,400 S.F. 281,400 S.F. Additional 10,000 5.F. planned plus pads. ** Additional 41,400 S.F. planned. *** 45,000 S.F. additional planned plus pads. Table 2 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA TREND IN TRADE AREA POPULATION. 1980-2010 Zone 1980 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Primary 93,400 170,900 - 197,700 224,500 258,050 291,600 Secondary 37,900 72,400 80,900 89,400 98,050 106,700 Total 131,300 243,300 278,680 313,900 356,100 398,300 Zone Primary Secondary Total 1980-1990 Change 1990-2000 Change 2000-2010 Change 77,500 83.0~ 53,600 31.4~ 67,100 29.99~ 34,500 91.01 17,000 23.5~ 17,300 19.4l 112,000 85.3 70,600 29.~ 84,400 26.9~ Source: Lewis Homes ~nagement Corp.; 1980 and 1990 U.S. Censusess of Population; SOuthern California Association of Gove.r,,~nts (SCAG) - 1994; Claritas/NPOC inc.; Realty Developmnent Research, Inc., June, 1995. realty development research, inc. Table 3 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA PRIMARY ZONE SALES POTENTIAL. 1995-2010 (O00s) 1995 2000 2005 2010 TyDe of Business Potential Potential Potentta] Potential DSTM $397,708 S463,027 $545,663 $632,167 Building materials $78,856 $91,807 $108,192 $125,343 Food stores $325,709 $379,203 $446,879 $517,723 Autcn~ttve $305,138 $355,253 $418,655 $485,024 Gasoline service $123,426 $143,698 $169,344 $196,190 Eating & drinking $147,426 $171,639 $202,272 $234,338 Drug stores $61,713 $71,849 $84,672 $98,095 Rtscellaneous retail $109,712 $127,732 $150,528 $174,391 Total retatl $1,549,688 $1,804,208 $2,126,205 $2,463,271 Table 4 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA PRIMARY ZONE 1992 SALES LEAKAGE (O00s) TyOe of Business DSTM Building materials Food Stores Automotive Gasoline service Eating & drinking Drug stores Miscellaneous retail Total retail 1992 1992 Net Export Potential Sales # ~ $351,339 $166,839 $1840500 52.5t $69,662 $14,648 $55,014 79.0t $287,735 $156,431 $131,304 45.6t $269,562 $14,087 $255,475 94.8~ S109,036 S35,344 $73,692 67.69~ $130,238 $76,735 $53,503 41.1t $54,518 $31,546 $22,972 42.1~ $96,921 $29,110 $67,811 70.01 $1,369,011 $655,925 $713,086 52.1~ Source: 1992 Census of Retail Trade; Clarttas/NPOC Inc.; Southern California Association of Govermnents (SCAG); Realty Development Research, Inc., June, 1995. Table 5 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA U.S. CENSUS OF RETAIL TRADE VS. TAXABLE SALES (000s) 1987 1992 1987 Taxable (Census- 1992 Taxable Census Sales Tax Sales) Census Sales (Census- Tax Sales) DSTN $47,968 $48,485 ($517) $166,839 $156,146 $10,593 Building materials $33,193 $20,715 $12,477 $14,648 $29,007 ($14,360) General merchandise * $19,438 $21,341 ... $96,263 $86,515 $9,748 Fond $90,310 $50,069 $40,241 $156,431 $81,276 $75,155 Auto dealers $12,632 $14,299 ($1,667) $14,087 $13,363 $724 Apparel/Accesorles = $g,039 $8,706 $333 $17,880 $16,540 $1,340 Furniture/Appliances * $7,349 $3,471 $3.878 $14,701 $5,484 $9,217 Misc.* $11,849 $19,674 ($7,825) $29,110 $61,665 ($32,555) Gasoline $21,910 $23,357 ($1,447) $35,344 $35,347 ($3) Drug $13,475 $8,371 $5,104 $31,546 $16,535 $15,011 Eating & drinking $52,524 $49,079 $3,445 $76,735 $73,620 $3,115 Total $272;011 $214,375 S57,635 $495,629 $405,294 $90,334 * 1987 figures represent Rancho Cucamonga only while the DSTH total has been multiplied by the appreprtate factor in order to estimate the Primary zone's sales. Table 6 1992 RANCHO CUCAMONGA DSTM-SALES WITH NEW SPACE ACCOUNTED FOR AT $200 PER SQUARE FOOT (O00s) 1992 0511~ Sales $166,839 New space: 85,000 square feet 0 $200 PSF $37,000 Total adjusted 1992 sales: $203,089 1992 OSTN expenditure potentia]: Adjusted 1992 OSTM sale~ leakage $351,339 $148,250 Source: 1992 Census of Retail Trade; Realty Developeent Research, Inc., June, 1995. realty development research, inc. Table 7 ESTIMATED 1995 RANCHO CUCAMONGA DSTM SALES (000s) Adjusted 1992 OSTR sales $203,089 Estimated 1995 OSTM sales (1992 sales increased e 4~ per annl) $228,44~ Addition of sales at planned space: 330,000 square feet e $250 PSF $82,500 Total adjusted lggS DSTM sales $310,940 Table 8 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA ESTIMATED DSTM AND HOME CENTER SALES IN 1995 CONTRASTED WITH PRIMARY ZONE EXPENDITURE POTENTIAL. 1995-2010 Sales Expenditure Potential (O00s) 1995 1995 2000 2005 2010 DSTR $310,940* $397,708 $463,027 $545,663 $632,167 Here Center $'16,477 $78,856 $91,807 $108,192 $125,343 Sales/Exl~endtture Potential Difference DSTM $86,7~ $152,087 $234,723 $321,227 Home Center S62,379 $75,330 $91,715 $108,8ra~ * Total adjusted 1995 DSTN sales Note: Expenditure potential expressed in 1994 constant dollars. Source: 1992 Census of Retail Trade; Realty Development Research, Inc., June, 1995. ~ ) ~'~ ~Z i realty development research. inc. j~real~ developmenf research, inc. 542 s dearborn street chicago illinois 60605-t508 312/63-511t ' ' fax: 312/663-9'~36 August15,1995 Mr. Alan Warren, AICP Associate Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729 Re: Questions Regarding Research Update; Market Support For New Retail Space; Rancho Cucamonga, California Dear Mr. Warren: Mr. Gary Luque of Lewis Homes Management Corp. forwarded a copy of your recent memorandum and asked that I address your questions directly to expedite the review process. Our organization prepared the report document which evaluated the extent of the market available for the shopping center facility planned to be developed by Lewis Homes in Rancho Cucamongao I apologize about the difficulty you encountered in reviewing our report. Unfortunately it had to be prepared quickly and appropriate detailing obviously suffered. I believe this memorandum and attachments will better detail the issues with which you have concern. Each of your concerns has been reviewed in the order outlined in your memorandum. 1. Retail Space Built in Rancho Cucamonge Since Last Mmket Review end Planned New Space. An important purpose of the research connected' with this update was to account for space built since completion of our last review of the market in 1994. This step allows a more accurate indication of the sales requirements of the currently existing space inventory. Data in this report reflected the year 1993 -- the last full year which was available in 1994. As you know the 1993 to 1995 period was at the tail end of a national recession '- one more deeply expedenced in southern California. These recessionary conditions negatively impacted the amount of new retail space added to the retail inventory during this period nationally, in California, and in Rancho Cucamonga. Due to the focus of development in the Terra Vista area in eastern Rancho Cucamonga, RDR made the assumption in this most recent evaluation that retail development activity was also oriented to this portion of the community *- especially given the market's recessionan/condition. Our group, however, has again revisited this issue since receiving your memorandum. On the basis of discussions with knowledgeable persons in the area's retail brokerage community, it i~realty development research, inc Mr. Alan Warren, AICP Page 2 August15,1995 was determined that an additional 80,000 square feet of DSTM space -o in excess of that previously indicated -- was added to the marketplace since 1993. Accordingly, RDR's current review of the Rancho Cucamonga area indicates that approximately 265,000 square feat of new DSTM space, instead of the 185,000 square feet indicated in our memorandum of June 22, was built in the Rancho Cucamonga area since 1993. A major portion of this space is represented by the recently completed Terra Vista Square -- the subject of RDR's last evaluation. This change has been incorporated in the space demand calculations outlined below. I apologize about your problems with Table 1: it should have been clearer. I have attached a revised Table 1 to this memorandum that more clearly presents information regarding new square footage, planned square footage and changes in vacancy. Essentially new square footage built since 1993 and indicated in the table represents the difference between that indicated as operative by a 1993 Grubb & Ellis market survey (used in our 1994 report) and that indicated as operative at the present time. This figure *- 265,000 square feet -- is shown in the third column from the left in the first part of revised Table 1. Table 1 should have also shown planned new square footage and this has, accordingly, been included in revised Table 1 in a new section at the bottom. The planned new DSTM square footage either in or effective in the Rancho Cucamonga market area totals heady 330,000 square feet as outlined in the table. New square footage planned in Rancho Cucamonga market area is again oriented to the growing Terra Vista area or its immediate vicinity. Vacant Space. Your comments regarding the treatment of vacancy in our report are correct. Discussion about the general level of retail vacancy in Rancho Cucamonga was not included in this report. It should have been. Nevertheless, RDR's research did include conversations with knowledgeable persons vis-a-vis the general level of vacancy in Rancho Cucamonga's retail centers. This information was designed to update the comprehensive inventory of space vacant throughout Rancho Cucamonga as well as in the Tetra Vista community which was included in our 1994 study -- a copy of which should be in your files. This latter inventory was prepared as part of the above mentioned Grubb & Ellis market Survey. To briefly recapitulate, the survey indicated, firstly, that Rancho Cucamonga's retail vacancy rate compared very favorably with other communities in the Inland Empire, and secondly, that the vacancy rate of those centers in the Tetra Vista area were very much in line with those in the rest of the community. Terra Vista's vacancy rate was 4.9% while neighborhood and specialty/promotional centers elsewhere in the community had a combined 4.7% rate. Separately q~r realfy Cfeveiopment research, inc. Mr. Alan Warren, AICP Page 3 August15,1995 neighborhood centers had a 5.8% rate while specialty/promotional centers had a 3.8% rate, Our recent conversations with retail brokerage professionals indicated that vacancy in the community overall has increased somewhat since the 1994 report was prepared. Nevertheless, much of this vacant space was related to Tetra Vista Square. This space was either leased or in the lease negotiation stage although it appeared vacant. Accordingly, this perspective corroborates the appropriateness of our focus on changes which have occurred in the Terra Vista area. It is the area which has consistently experienced nearly all the net new additions of space. 2 and 3. Table Reference. The report should have referred to Table 5 rather than Table 4. Original Table 5 does provide the comparison between the 1987 and 1992 years. Original Table 4 is also included. It is also noted that Table 6 has been adjusted to reflect space added between 1993 and 1995. Revised Table 6 is attached. 4. Missing Tables. Tables 7 and 8 were supplied to Lewis Homes. They are attached in revised form to account for the new square footage above noted. 5, Multipliers, Attached New Table 3 provides the household and per capita income levels related to the Primary and Secondary zones of the trade area for the various years in the study period, Future years are expressed in 1994 constant dollars with only an annual increment of 0,5% included to reflect real increases in income, Also indicated in New Table 4 are the percentages of per capita income utilized do develop per capita expenditures for various types of retail stores. Multiplying the resulting per capita expenditures for each retail store type by the zonal population (see Original Table 2) in each respective study year yields the related level of sales potential. 6. Population Estimation. The attached diagram superimposes the boundaries of Rancho Cucamonga on the defined trade area. The underlying census tracts are also shown, It should be apparent that a considerable amount of populated area has been included in the trade area which lies outside the city itself. 7. Potential Commercial Re-Use of Kmart Building. The report stated that a very strong probability exists that the existing Kinart store will be recycled into another non-retail commercial use. It is this consuItant's opinion that retail is not the highest and best use at this location. The proximity to a governmental center does not necessarily mean demand for additional public sector space as stated in your memorandum, it can also relate to l~realty development research, ~nc, Mr. Alan Warren, AICP Page 4 August15,1995 demand for a variety of private sector activities -* especially professional services -- which tend to locate in the vicinity of a governmental complex. I hope that this letter clarifies the various questions you outlined in your memorandum of July 24. Please feel free to give me a call if there are any other questions or COmmentS. Sincerely, REALTY DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH, INC. ,1 pauI~VO~CRE President PGV:hs ATT. Via Fax (909)987-6499 CC Mr. Robert McClendon -- Lewis Homes Management Corp. Mr. Greg Hoxworth -- Lewis Homes Management Corp. Via Fax (909)949-6740 Revised Table 1 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA TERRA VISTA PLANNED COMMUNITY SHOPPING CENTER VACANCY/NEW AND PLANNED SQUARE Central Park Plaza Tetra Vista Village lgg4 Current In-place GLA In*place GL~ 66,000 89,000* 135,000 135,000 FOOTAGE Tetra Vista Town Center 504,000 521,000'* · .. 145,000'** · .. 80,000 705,000 890,000 Tetra Vista Square Other various additions Total Planned new setere foota~e Tetra Vista Cemunity (above Indicated) 90,400 Ontario Nills (space effective in trade area) 200,000 Kmart relocatton (net new space) 30,000 Total 326,400 * Additional 10,000 S.F. planned plus pads. ** Additional 41,400 S.F. planned. *" 45,000 S.F. additional planned plus pads. Increased Current 1994 Square Current Space 1994 Space Footaqe Vacancy Available Vacancy Available 23,000 12.4~ 11,000 0.0~ ... ... 7.4~ 10,000 7.0~ 9,500 17,000 6.4~ 33,000 S.0~ 25,000 145,000 ............ 80mO00 N/A N/A N/A N/A 265,000 7.7~ 54,000 4.91 34,500 Originial Table 2 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA TREND IN TRADE AREA POPULATION, 1980-2010 Zone 1980 lggO lgg5 2000 Primary 93,400 170,900 197,700 224,500 Secondary 37,900 72,400 80,900 89,400 Total 131,300 243,300 278,600 313,g00 1980-1990 Change lggO-2000 Change Zone # ~ # ~ Primary 77,500 83.0t 53,600 31.4~ Secondary 34,500 gl.Os~ 17,000 23.5~ Total 112,000 85.3~ 70,600 29.0s~ 2005 2010 258,050 291,600 98,050 106,700 356,100 398,300 2000-2010 Change 67,100 2g,9't 17,300 19.4t 84,400 26.~ Lewis Hams Itanagement Corp.; 1~ and 1990 U.S. Censuses of Population; SOuthern California Association of Governments (SCAG) - Ig94; Clarltas/NPOC Inc.; Realty Develo;nent Research, Inc., June and August, 1995. realty development research. inc. New Table 3 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA FORECASTED TRADE AREA INCOME USING A 0,5% GROWTH RATE PER YEAR 1994 1995 1996 1998 . 2000 2005 2010 · AHHI* AHHI AHHI AHHI AHHI AHHI AHHI Primary trade area $51,903 $52,163 $52,423 $52,949 $53,480 $54,830 $56,215 Secondary trade area $39,586 $39,784 $39,983 $40,384 $40,789 $41,818 $42,874 Total Trade Area · $47,998 $48,238 $48,479 $48,965 $49,456 $50,705 ' $51,985 1994 1995 lg96 Igg8 2000 PCHI** PCH[ PCHI PCH[ PCHI Primary trade area $17,256 $17,342 $17,429 $17,604 $17,780 Secondary trade area $11,827 $11,886 $11,946 $12,065 $12,186 Total Trade Area $15,407 $15,484 $15,561 $15,717 $15,875 2005 2010 PCHI PCHI $18,229 $18,689 $12,494 $12,809 $16,276 $16,687 New Table 4 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA PERCENTAGE OF PER CAPITA HOUSEHOLD INCOME USED FOR EXPENDITURE POTENTIAL Type of Business t of PCHI DSTN 11.6~ Building materials 2.3t Food stores 9.5~ Automotive 8.9~ Gasoline service Eating & drinking 4.3~ Drug stores 1.8~ Niscellaneous retail 3.2~ Total retail 45.2t * Average.househo)d incam. ** Per capita household lncmle. 1980 and 1990 Censuses of Population; Ciaritas/NPOC Inc.; Realty Development Research, Inc., August, 1995. Original Table 5 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA U.S. CENSUS OF RETAIL TRADE VS. TAXABLE SALES (000s) 1987 1992 1987 Taxable (Census- 1992 Taxable Census Sales Tax Sales) Census Sales DSTM Building materials General merchandise Food Auto dealers Apparel/Accesories * Furniture/Appliances Nisc. * Gaso I tne Drug Eating & drinking (Census- Tax Sales) Total $47,968 $48,485 ($517) $166,839 $156,146 $10,693 $33,193 $20,715 $12,477 $14,648 $29,007 ($14,360) $19,438 $21,341 ... $96,263 $86,515 $9,748 $90,310 $50,069 $40,241 $156,431 $81,276 $75,155 $12,632 $14,299 ($1,667) $14,087 $13,363 $724 $g,039 $8,706 $333 $17,880 $16,540 $1,340 $7,349 $3,471 $3,878 $14,701 $5,484 $9,217 $11,849 $19,674 ($7,825) $29,110 $61,665 ($32,555) $21,910 $23,357 ($1,447) $35,344 $35,347 ($3) $13,475 $8,371 $5,104 $31,546 $16,535 $15,011 $52,524 $49,079 $3,445 $76,735 $73,620 $3,115 $272,011 $214,375 $57,636 $495,629 $40B,294 $g0,334 · 1987 figures represent RenchoCucamonga only while the DSTI4total has i~e~multiplied by the appropriate factor in order to estimate the Primary zoon's sales. Original Table 4 RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA PRIMARY ZONE 1992 SALES LEAKAGE (O00s) Type of Business DSTM Building materials Foed stores Automotive Gasoline service Eating & drinking Drug stores Mlscellaneoes retail Total retail 1992 1992 Net Export Potential Sales t 4 $351,339 $166,839 $184,500 52.5~ $69,662 $14,648 $55,014 79.0~ $287,735 $156,431 $131,304 45.6~ $269,562 $14,087 $255,475 94.8~ $109,036 $35,344 $73,692 67.6t $130,238 $76,735 $53,503 41.14 · $54,518 $31,546 $22,972 42.1t ~96,921 ~29m110 ~67,811 70.0~ $1,369,011 $655,925 $713,086 52.14 Source: 1992 Census of Retail Trade; 1980 and 1990 Censuses of Population; Claritas/NPOC Inc.; Realty Development Research, Inc., June, 1995. Revised Table 6 1992 RANCHO CUCAMONGA DSTM SALES WITH NEW SPACE ACCOUNTED FOR AT $200 PER SQUARE FOOT {OOOs) 1992 DSTN Seles $166,839 DSTH space constructed in 1993: 140,000 square feet e $200 PSF $28,000 New OSTM space: 265,000 square feet 8 $200 PSF $53,000 Total adjusted 1992 sales: $247,839* 1992 DSTM expenditure potential: $351,339'* Adjusted 1992 0STN sales leakage $103,500 * Adjustment has not been made for sales from the Secondary trade area and from outside the trade area. ** Primary trade area. Revised Table 7 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA ESTIMATED 1995 DSTM SALES (OOOs) Adjusted 1992 DST~ sales $219,839 Estimated 1995 DSTIq sales (1992 sales increased e 4t per annum) $279,582 Addition of sales at planned space: 330,000 square feet 8 $250 PSF $82.500 Total adjusted 1995 OSTIq sales $361,882' · Adustment has not been made for sales free the Secondary trade area and from outside the trade area. Revised Table 8 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA ESTIMATED DSTM AND HOME CENTER SALES IN 1995 CONTRASTED WITH PRIMARY ZONE EXPENDITURE POTENTIAL. 1995-201 O DSTN Sales* Expenditure Potential (000s) 1995 1995 2000 2005 2010 DSTN $325,694'* $397,708 $463,027 $545,663 $632,167 Home Center $16,477 $78,856 $91,807 $108,192 $125,343 SeTes/Exo. PoteTHal Differefice DSTN $72,014 $137,333 $219,969 $306,6~4 Haae Center $62,379 $75,330 $91,715 $108,866 * Sales have barn increased by 41 per anntam compounded bet~e~ 1992 and 1995. · * Seles have been adjusted by a conservative lot factor to account for sales from the Secondary trade area and from outstde the trade area. Source: 1992 Census of Retail Trade; Realty 0evelo~ment Research, [nc., August, 1995. realty development research, inc. 8,04 8,05 8.06 ~ 807 8.0S 8.10 II 1.01 R.OI 18.0~, 18.02 19 20.03 21 in~n? 20.02 1318D PRIMARY TRADE AREA ~0.05 2~20.01 24 35.0 25 26 DE~)oT~5' (::iT"/ Key Omi I led [] Chosen · AIIocoled RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 95-01B TO CHANGE THE LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL FOR APPROXIMATELY 47.3 ACRES OF LAND AND TO HIGH RESIDENTIAL (24 TO 30 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR APPROXIMATELY 19.2 ACRES OF LAND BOUNDED BY FOOTHILL BOULEVARD ON THE SOUTH, ROCHESTER AVENUE ON THE EAST, THE FUTURE POPLAR DRIVE AND FUTURE CHURCH STREET ON THE NORTH, AND THE FUTURE ORCHARD AVENUE ON THE WEST, ANDMAKING FINDINGS INSUPPORTTHEREOF- APN: 0227-151-18AND 24. A. Recitals. 1. Lewis Development Co. has filed an application for General Plan Amendment No. 95-01B as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject General Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. On September 13, and continued to September 27, 1995, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution, NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public headng on September 13, and September 27, 1995, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to approximately 66.5 acres of land, basically a triangular configuration, located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard between Rochester Avenue and the future Orchard Avenue, south of the future Poplar Drive and future Church Street and is presently vacant and undeveloped. Said property is currently designated as Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre); and b. The property to the north of the subject site is designated Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) and is vacant. The property to the west is designated Commercial and Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) and is vacant. The property to the east is designated Office and Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and is developed with a single family neighborhood and is partially vacant. The property to the south is designated Industrial Park and is primarily undeveloped. · PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. GPA 95-01B - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO. September 27, 1995 Page 2 c. This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will provide for development within the distdct in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; and d. This amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and e. This amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent properties and would not have a significant impact on the environment nor the surrounding properties. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. That the subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district in terms of access, size, and compatibility with existing land use in the surrounding area; and b. That the proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor the surrounding properties; and c. That the proposed amendment is in conforrnance with the General Plan. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included with the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and recommends adoption of a Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows: a. That the Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder; that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the application. b. That, based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon the substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission dudng the public headng, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the California code of Regulations. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby recommends approval of General Plan Amendment N0. 95-01B. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION · GPA 95-01B - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO. September 27, 1995 Page 3 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 1995. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chairman ATTEBT: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 27th day of September 1995, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF TERRA VISTA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 95-01 TO CHANGE THE LAND USE MAP FROM MIXED USES, COMMERCIAL, OFFICE, RESIDENTIAL (MOC) TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL FOR APPROXIMATELY 47.3 ACRES OF LAND AND TO HIGH RESIDENTIAL (24-30 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR APPROXIMATELY 19.2 ACRES OF LAND BOUNDED BY FOOTHILL BOULEVARD ON THE SOUTH, ROCHESTER AVENUE ON THE EAST, THE FUTURE POPLAR DRIVE AND FUTURE CHURCH STREET ON THE NORTH, AND THE FUTURE ORCHARD AVENUE ON THE WEST, AND TO MAKE CHANGES TO PORTIONS OF THE TEXT AND GRAPHIC EXHIBITS OF THE COMMUNITY PLAN TO IMPLEMENT DESIGN FEATURES OF THE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 0227-151-18 AND 24 A. Recitals. 1. Lewis Development Co. has filed an application for Tetra Vista Community Plan Amendment No. 95-01 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereina~er in this Resolution, the subject Terra Vista Community Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. On September 13, and continued to September 27, 1995, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duty noticed public hearing on the application and issued Resolution No. __ recommending to the City Council that the associated General Plan Amendment No. 95-01B be approved. 3. All legal prerequisites pdor to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission dudng the above- referenced public headng on September 13, and September 27, 1995, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The land use portion of the application applies to approximately 66.5 acres of land, basically a triangular configuration, located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard between Rochester Avenue and the future Orchard Avenue, south of the future Poplar Drive and future Church Street and is presently vacant and undeveloped. Said property is currently designated as MOC (Mixed Uses, Commercial, Office, Residential); and b. The properly to the north of the subject site is designated High Residential (24-30 dwelling units per acre), Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre), and Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) and is vacant. The property to the west is designated MHO (Hospital & Related Facilities, Office) and is partially developed with medical facilities. The property . PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TVCPA 95-01 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO. September 27, 1995 Page 2 to the east is designated Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan - Office and Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and is developed with a single family neighborhood and is partially vacant. The properly to the south is designated Industrial Area Specific Plan - Recreational Commercial and is primarily undeveloped. c. This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; and d. This amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the Land Use and Community Design Elements of the General Plan; and e. This amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent properties and would not have a significant impact on the environment nor the surrounding properties. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission dudng the above- referenced public headng and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. That the subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed distdct in terms of access, size, and compatibility with existing land use in the surrounding area; and b. That the proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor the surrounding properties; and c. That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, together with all wdtten and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and recommends adoption of a Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows: a. That the Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder; that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the application. b. That, based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Furlher, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration. the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission during the public headng, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. · TVCPA 95-01 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO. September 27, 1995 Page 3 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby resolves as follows: a. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve and adopt the Terra Vista Community Plan Amendment No. 95-01 per the attached Ordinance. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 1995. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby cedify 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 27th day of September 1995, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TERRA VISTA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 95-01 TO CHANGE THE LAND USE MAP FROM "MIXED USE, OFFICE, COMMERCIAL, RESIDENTIAL" TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL FOR APPROXIMATELY 47.3 ACRES OF LAND AND TO HIGH RESIDENTIAL (24-30 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR APPROXIMATELY 19.2 ACRES OF LAND BOUNDED BY FOOTHILL BOULEVARD ON THE SOUTH, ROCHESTER AVENUE ON THE EAST, THE FUTURE POPLAR DRIVE AND FUTURE CHURCH STREET ON THE NORTH, AND THE FUTURE ORCHARD AVENUE ON THE WEST, AND TO MAKE CHANGES TO PORTIONS OF THE TEXT AND GRAPHIC EXHIBITS OF THE COMMUNITY PLAN TO IMPLEMENT DESIGN FEATURES OF THE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS - APN: 0227-151-18 AND 24. A. Recitals. 1. On September 13, and continued to September 27, 1995, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public headng with respect to the above- referenced Terra Vista Community Plan Amendment. Following the conclusion of said public headrig on September 13, 1995, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 95- , thereby recommending that the City Council adopt Terra Vista Community Plan Amendment No. 95-01. 2. On ,1995, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing and concluded said hearing prier to its adoption of this Ordinance. 3. All legal prerequisites pdor to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. B. Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga ordains as follows: SECTION 1: This Council hereby specifies and finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of the Ordinance are true and correct. SECTION 2: Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, together with all wdtten and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the City Coundl finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows: a. That the Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the Califomia Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder; that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the City Council; and, further, this Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the application. b. That, based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. ' TVCPA 95-01 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO. September 13, 1995 Page 2 Regulations, the City Council finds as follows: In considering the record I i and N.egative DeclaratiOn for the project, .there is no evidence that the ~po.sed p.roj.ect will have and exhibits, and the information provided to the City Council du_r~n.~ the public headrig, the City Council hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set fo I%/~n Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. ~t~ SECTION 3: The Rancho Cucamonga City Council finds as follows: a. That the Planning Commission of the Ci Rancho Cucamonga, following a public headng held in the time and manner prescribed by laW, recommended approval of the Community Plan land use and text amendment hereinafter descril~d to the City Council. This City Council has held a public headrig in the time and manner prescribed by law and duly heard and considered said recommendation. ///./ b. That this Community Plan land use and text amendment is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rancho Cucamo~tga. /. c. That this Community Rfan land use and text amendment is consistenl with the Development Code of the City of Ran~,~<; Cucamonga. d. That this Community Plan land use and text amendment will have no s~gnificant environmental impact, as provided in the Negative Declaration filed herein. /,, SECTION 4: The City C,ou~ti:il of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby approves Terra Vista Community Plan Amendment,95-01 as described in the title and included in Exhibits "A" and "B" of this Ordinance. ,,~.//' . SECTION 5: The Ci~'Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published wit~'~ 15 days after its passage at least once in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, . a .newspaper of gen~r,~/~ irculatio.n published in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the C~ty of RanCh ga Cahfom~a CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. TVCPA 95-01 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO. Page 2 c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the City Council finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlib resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Furlher, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the City Council during the public hearing, the City Council hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-1-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. SECTION 3: The Rancho Cucamonga City Council finds as follows: a. That the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, following a public headng held in the time and manner prescribed by law, recommended approval of the Community Plan land use and text amendment hereinafier described to the City Council. This City Council has held a public hearing in the time and manner prescribed by law and duly heard and considered said recommendation. b. That this Community Plan land use and text amendment are consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. c. That this Community Plan land use and text amendment are consistent with the Development Code of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. d. That this Community Plan land use and text amendment will have no significant environmental impact, as provided in the Negative Declaration filed herein. SECTION 4: The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby approves Tetra Vista Community Plan Amendment 95-01 as described in the title and included in Exhibits "A" and "B" of this Ordinance. SECTION 5: Within 60 days of City Council approval, a revised Terra Vista Community Plan, incorporating the changes required shall be submitted to the City Planner. A total of 25 bound copies of the plan shall be submitted for distribution to the City Council, the City Clerk, the Planning Commission, and staff. In addition, one unbound original copy, and one executable copy on a 3,5 computer diskette in a format acceptable to the City, shall be submitted, SECTION 6: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published within 15 days after its passage at least once in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. DRAFT AMENDMENT NO. 9 TO THE TERRA VISTA COMMUNITY PLAN City of Rancho Cucamonga, California Submitted to LEWIS HOMES OF CALIFORNIA August 30, 1995 Prepared By Gruen Associates rn INTRODUCTION The Terra Vista Community Plan establishes a framework for the development of a diverse, viable community by promoting the development of a variety of land uses including residential, commercial, office, medical, institutional, and educational. As the plan has become realized over the past decade, various amendments to the plan have been deemed necessary to respond to shifts in the market and the changing needs of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. This amendment proposes changing the land use designation for the parcel bounded on the west by Orchard Avenue, on the east by Rochester Avenue, on the north by Church Street and Poplar Drive, and on the south by Foothill Boulevard from MOC (mixed use office/ commercial/residential} to This change is proposed to allow for the development of a major "big box" retail center on the maiority of the site while preserving the residential component planned in the northwest portion. The proposed change is supported by the following: · There is a minimal market for additional office uses In this area. The existing' Medical Park has been determined to have sufficient area to accommodate the future expansion of medical-related office uses. · The location of the site away from the freeway creates a very limited market for automobile sales. Interest by potential tenants has demonstrated that this is a viable site for "big box" development. This type of development would be compatible with other commercial uses along Foothill Boulevard. This site is also considered to be an appropriate location for a major retail complex of this type within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. ReQuired Modifications to the Terra Vista Community Plan The Terra Vista Community Plan currently describes the planned development on the site as follows: The western portion of the site would be developed as an Executive Park with offices, potentially as a continuation of Medical Park uses. Residential uses are located to the north, adjacent to Poplar Drive. The eastern portion of the parcel is bisected horizontally with a road that separates residential uses to the north from office uses to the south. The area fronting on Foothill Boulevard was identified as a potential location for a series of automobile dealerships. A north south road connecting to Poplar Drive and Foothill Boulevard would bisect the site into eastern and western sections and provide access to the interior of the site. TERRA VISTA AMENDMENT NO. 9 ! 1 Changing the land use designation of the site to allow for a major retail complex instead of primarily office uses requires corresponding modifications to the Terra Vista Community Plan. The primary Plan elements affected by this change are: · site access · site planning · landscape treatment · pedestrian circulation , buffering between uses · overall density distribution Site Access Access to the site is relatively unchanged. A signalized intersection on Foothill Boulevard will be provided at the main entrance to the site which corresponds to the location of the intersection with the north/south bisecting. roadway in the Plan. Side access to the site is provided from Orchard Avenue and Rochester Avenue, while access from the north is from Church Street and Poplar Drive. The most significant change is that the north/south roadway running through the eastern portion of site shown in the Plan will not be provided, as it would bisect the shopping center and not be needed for access. Site Planning Site Planning for the site changes from the Executive Park shown in the Plan in order to meet the needs of the new land uses. The Plan calls for office buildings to have varying setback's from Foothill Boulevard with auto dealerships located close to the street in the eastern portion of the site. Parking was to be dispersed throughout the site to serve individual office and residential buildings. To meet the needs of the "big box" retail uses proposed for the site, smaller buildings will be TERRA VISTA AMENDMENT NO. 9 PAGE 2 located close to the street with the larger buildings setback significantly. Service areas are located away from view of the nearby streets. The parking area is located in front of the retail buildings and a landscaped setback faces Foothill Boulevard. At the entries, a series of transitional elements such as trellises and landscape features are used to reduce the scale of the large retail structures. Landscape Treatment The strong landscape pattern along Foothill Boulevard described in the Plan is maintained to partially screen parking areas and provided filtered views of the site. The "window' that was to be provided from Foothill Boulevard into the Executive Park is replaced by a strong landscape feature at the main entry to the site from Foothill Boulevard, which is more appropriate for a retail complex. To provide a buffer between the large structures on the site and adjacent residential areas, a landscaped screening is provided along Rochester Avenue from Poplar Drive south to the entrance of the retail center, Trails The trail system that runs through the Terra Vista Community must be altered to accommodate the new land use pattern. The Plan currently calls for the trail to pass through the middle of the site in a north/south fashion between Poplar Drive and Foothill Boulevard. As the proposed land uses will be located on the site in an east/west orientation, preserving the trail system would require the trail to pass by the rear loading area, between the commercial structures, and continue through the parking lot. To provide a better pedestrian experience, the trail will be relocated to the north of Poplar Drive between Church Street and Rochester Avenue and then continue south on Rochester Avenue to Foothill Boulevard. This also will eliminate the mid-block trail crossings on Poplar Drive by relocating them to the major intersection. The interior pedestrian circulation on the site is basically unchanged. The Plan called for pedestrians to pass through the middle of the site along an east/west pathway. Under the proposed land use pattern, a wide pedestrian promenade will pass in front of the major retail uses and connect to the pathway system at Rochester Avenue. Buffering Between Uses Requirements for buffering between uses on the site is modified to reflect the change in permitted land uses. The Terra Vista Community Plan calls for a 50 foot minimum buffer between residential and office buildings. As the mix of office and residential uses are to be replaced with a mix of commercial and residential uses, this minimum buffer area is proposed to be increased to 100 feet between commercial and habitable residential structures. Additionally, as the ground level of residential uses located in the northwest portion of the site would be approximately 10 feet higher than the commercial uses to south, the berm or retaining wall separating these uses should be landscaped with dense columnar trees to provide screening. Overall Density The overall density of site will change slightly ~i!!~!~~i~i ~!! Under the current designation, 18.9 acres are listed as MH (medium high) density and 9.9 acres ere designated M (medium) density for a total of 448 residential units, The proposed lend use plan would include ii~i~~ acres of H (high) density for a total of ~ residential units, resulting in an increase ~f ~ units o~"the site. ~ ..... Why this Amendment Is Needed The amendment to change the land use designation is needed because the existing designation of MOC does not allow for the development of a major commercial center on this site. Furthermore, office this location. The CC designation ,etail center, and the H desi~ ~djOining residential co~onent~ Format of the Amendment The attached package is a supplement to the Terra Vista Community Plan adopted on February 16, 1983 and subsequent amendments. The pages of the Community Plan which deal directly with this change in the residential development standards are reproduced in their entirety, with revised text and graphics. The relatively minor changes to other portions of the plan are 'made by reference. TERRA VISTA AMENDMENT NO. 9 PAGE 3 AMENDED PAGES IN TERRA VISTA COMMUNITY PLAN changes made in Figure II1-17 (revised page 111-23). ChaOter III - The Plan Figure 111-17, the Land Use Plan (page 111-23, is hereby replaced with revised page 111-23, included in this document. Pages 111-9, 111-10, II1-11, and 111-24 are hereby ~!ffi~i~!~ij.~ to reflect the trail change. Pages q!!~,:~;:E!iiEi;!~i~.~.! 111-26, 111-28 and 111-29 are hereby replaced with the revised pages appearing in this document. The "statistical summary" is hereby replaced with revised pages 111-32 and 111-33 appearing in this document. ChaPter IV - Design Guidelines Pages !y~j~:; IV-12, IV-13, !~:8:;:~EE~:~E::!~i IV-48, IV- 49, IV-50, IV-51, IV-52, IV-64, IV-65, IV-66, IV-67, and IV-68 are hereby replaced with the revised pages appearing in this document. Figures IV-23 (page IV-15), and IV-41 (page IV-32) are amended to reflect the trail change. Figures IV-80 and IV-81 are deleted from the document. Chapter V - Community DeveloDment Standards Page V-25 is hereby replaced with the revised pages appearing in this document. Ancillary GraPhics The following graphics of which the Land Use Plan is a base are hereby amended by reference to reflect the same TERRA VISTA AMENDMENT NO. 9 PAGE 4 · Figure II1-1 · Figure 111-8 Terra Vista Plan Neighborhood · Figure IV-1 · Figure IV-8 · Figure VI-2 · Figure VI-3 · Figure VI-4 Landscape Plan Likely Location of Edge Treatment along Major Arterials Density Distribution Plan As Built Land Use Progress Plan As Built Density Distribution Plan Figure IV-67 panorama of Foothill Boulevard is hereby amended by reference to reflect changes in Figure IV-78. Miscellaneous Any discrepancies between the balance of the Community Plan and the content of this Amendment are to be based on the intent of the Amendment. M LM LM OP CC CC '}fp=ooTmu .LVqiI LM P CC III M IUL NC MHO M LM IlL RESIDENTIAL ,'LM LOWMEDIUMDEN$1TY (41DU/AC CO! IMERCIAL OP OFRcEpAAK MIXI D USE MFC ~ST~T~NT~L MHO ~AL&RELATEOFA~I3TIE~ PUBLIC & QUASI-PUBLIC **pARTIAL B[DICATION OF UNIMPROVED LAND :mm ,m N GRUEN ASSOCIATES FIGURE 111-17 Land Use Plan Density Ranges of Approved Projects may vary slightly from the Plan; See "As Built Land Use Progress Plan" - Figure VI-3 on page V1-11. REVISED Amendment Nos. 1.2, 5, 8, 7 & 9 111-23 Park and Greenway System The backbone of the Terra Vista community is the greenway, 8 landscaped, linear park running from northeast to southwest through the entire community (Figure 111-9). Within this landscaped spine are paths for both pedestrians and bicycles, along with areas for active and passive recreation. Projecting from this major open space are secondary greenways--or trails--that meander through the four neighborhoods of Terra Vista, penetrating residential developments, commercial clusters, and parks (Figure II1-10). Located along the greenway and trails are the parks and schools of Terra Vista (Figure II1-11). The primary function of the greenway system is to provide a focus for leisure-time activities and community services, a verdant image for the community, and a pleasant means of walking or cycling from one part of the community to another. This section explores a number of aspects of the park and greenway system that make it central to the planning of Terra Vista, including: · The greenway and trails · Public parks and open space The Greenwav and Trails The greenway corridors through the Terra Vista community (Figure II1-12) have been carefully located to meet the following criteria: · "Anchors" to promote full use of greenway and trails SPRR BBase Line Rd. ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ~~TOWN Foothill Blvd. CENTER FIGURE 111-9 Greenway Spine for East-West Linkage Through Community with Integral Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation SPRR  I Base Line R~d. ,7 Foothill Bhd. FIGURE II1-10 Community Tied Together by Secondary Greenway Trail Network REVISED Amendment Noe, 2, 6 & 9 III - 9 PARKS SPRR ~ CENTRAL PARK Foothill Blvd. FIGURE II1-11 Parks along Greenway and Trail System within Walking Distance of All Residents REVISED Amendment Noe. 2, 6 & 9 III - 10 Trail connections to neighborhoods and community subareas · Trail access to all school sites Each of these criteria is explained further below. Greenwav System Anchors. The greenway system is anchored at the east side of Terra Vista community by a park and elementary school site. Connections across Rochester Avenue allow residents in the adjoining development to the east to have easy access to the Terra Vista greenway amenities. At the southwest corner of the community, the greenway terminates at the community commercial development in the Town Center, at the most important crossroads of the community. The Town Center will be an attraction for the entire City of Rancho Cucamonga and will offer transit access, extended hours of activity and nightlife, and extensive shopping opportunities. By providing direct access to destinations at either end of the greenway spine, the greenway offers the most direct access possible to either of these destinations, and many more in between, from nearly everywhere within Tetra Vista. Terra Vista residents will be encouraged to avail themselves of the pleasant walking and bicycfing potential of the greenway and can leave their cars at home. Trail Connections. The trails that project from the major greenway spine connect residential areas with community uses, commercial developments, employment centers, and schools. They also link with destinations beyond the project boundaries and with surrounding employment centers. Bus stops, which will be coordinated with OmniTrans, are intended at locations where the trail system intersects with key collector streets and arterials. NC M ;~ . M LM LM IUL NC M ! LM LM MAJOR GREENWAY SYSTEM ........ MAJOR TRAILS I~ SCHOOLS ~ OP 'IIrOOT'~U CC MFC MHO CC LM IIF m ~e e~ x GRUEN ASSOCIATES FIGURE 111~12 Park and Greenway System REVISED Amendment Noe. 1, 2, 5, 6 & 9 II1-11 M ,"' LM M LM M p OP H CC CC i=OOTHIL~ eLVq I LM LM MH LM MH M M M P MH RC M LM LM eASE L,.E "".11 i'" '~ LM m _ M "1 P '.X- ,.,,"'" °~' .1..X.~j...-------~.// '"~ ~ cc -= ')(' MFC MHO ~ ' CC ..s ,,c..s OF MAJOR BUS STOP MAJOR DIVIDED ARTERIAL MAJOR ARTERIAL SPECIAL SECONDARY ARTERIAL SECONDARY ARTERIAL COLLECTOR COMMERCIAL COLLECTOR :m xe eo . GRUEN ASSOCIATES FIGURE 111-15 Circulation Plan REVISED Amendment Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 & 9 ,atibilitv with Adjacent Develooments. Lower residential densities (LM and M) have been provided at places along the periphery of the Terra Vista community adjoining existing low-density development (Figure II1-18). For example, in the northeast neighborhood along Base Line Road, LM and M densities are provided ir~ order to be compatible with similar planned densities in the Victoria planned community to the north. LM and M densities are provided opposite the existing single-family homes along Rochester and Haven Avenues {Figure II1-17). Energy Efficiency and Community Interaction. Higher density residential developments (MH and H) have been oriented primarily to the interior of the community (Figure 111-19) to be: · Near the park and greenway system · Near the neighborhood core areas · On the loop parkway · Near key intersections where transit stops would be appropriate · Within and near mixed use parcels to promote extended hours of activity Examples of how these location criteria have been applied can be found in each of the neighborhoods (Figure II1-17): In the northeast neighborhood, the MH parcel is situated near the neighborhood commercial center, near a park, on the trail system, on the loop parkway, and near a recommended transit stop. Mobile Home Park PARK SpRI(~SFD)J / SFD t, :'::~:" :": -= "': " DENSITIES ~lndustrial Park ~Foothill Bhd, FIGURE 111-18 Base Line Rd. Single Family Development (SFD) Lower Residential Densities at Site Periphery Adjoining Existing Low-Density Housing HIGHER DENSITY HOUSING SPRR Foothill Bhd, FIGURE 111-19 Higher-Density Housing Locations to Promote Energy Efficiency and Community Interaction REVISED Amendment Noe. 6 & 9 111-24 HIGHER I DENSITY Base Line Rd. : LOWER DENSITY Foothill Blvd. FIGURE 111-20 Mix of Housing Densities along Greenway In the northwest neighborhood, the two MH parcels are both on the greenway/trail system as well as on the loop parkway, and close to a key intersection appropriate for transit stops. In the southwest neighborhood, there is one MH parcel on the greenway system, adjacent to or opposite three parks and at a key intersection. There are two H parcels, both at key intersections, and an H parcel within a major mixed-use development along the greenway and at a key intersection. In the southeast neighborhood, there are three higher- density residential parcels. An MH parcel is situated ~!i~i~ a park and at a key ntersection; and i!~ H ~': ~ located near a key ntersection and :::~n::~he loop parkway. Relationship to Public Open Space Amenities and Alternative Transportation Facilities. Since the greenway system is designed to encourage walking and cycling to various activity centers within the Terra Vista Community--and since it is the visual focus of all the neighborhoods of Terra Vista - - a wide range of housing densities has been oriented toward the primary greenway spine. This variety will add to the range of images encountered by people using the greenway system for daily trips to employment centers and commercial facilities. As discussed earlier, the average population density is lower in .the northern neighborhoods and higher in the southern neighborhoods. As a result, overall residential densities along the greenway system are higher at the southwestern end of the greenway and lower at the northeastern end (Figure 111-20). REVISED Amendment Nos. 6 end 9 - 25 of Densities Within All Neighborhoods. Each neighborhood in Term Vista has a mix of housing types, varying from single-family detached to multifamily housing, allowing people from many income groups and of differing lifestyles to live in Terra Vista. While the neighborhoods differ in character, no neighborhood is entirely higher density or entirely lower density. Commercial Land Uses Commercial land uses in the Terra Vista planned community are grouped in centers according to functional requirements to create convenient, efficient, and visually pleasing environments. Most commercial centers are situated between Foothill Boulevard and Church Street (Figure III- 21); however, neighborhood and other small commercial centers can be found elsewhere in the community to serve the mere localized and specialized needs both of community residents and of residents in adjoining communities. The various commercial land uses in Terra Vista include: · Community Commercial · Neighborhood Commercial · Recreational Commercial · Office Park Community Commercial ICC). The Community Commercial parcel at the corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue can accommedate depertmant store development, numerous tenant stores arranged around either an open or enclosed pedestrian mall, and community-oriented service establishments such as drug · Commercial · Office · Entertainment · Commercial · Office · Entertainment · Restaurants · Banks · Savings & Loans · Office · Residential · Commercial · Residential Chumh St, · Hospital · Office · Medical Related Facilities · Commercial FIGURE 111-21 Centers Concept Along Foothill Boulevard stores, supermarkets, financial institutions, and other functions. In addition, the Community Commercial center can have entertainment facilities and/or restaurants. The intent is that the Community Commercial parcel will cater to a mix of uses that will make the development lively well into the night, to function as an active "people place" in service to the residents of Terra Vista and the City of Rancho Cucamonga. A more detailed description of the Community Commercial parcel in terms of design guidelines is provided in Chapter IV. The Community Commercial parcel on Foothill Boulevard between Spruce and Elm Avenues will complement the uses found in the Community Commercial parcel to the west. Many of the same uses now found in the parcel to the west, such as restaurants, supermarkets, community- oriented service establishments and offices, as well as other community-wide tenants requiring large floor areas such as electronic stores can be accommodated on this parcel. REVISED Amendment Noe. 1, S, 6, 7 & 9 111-26 Mixed Use Center Concel;)t While the preceding discussions dealt with the primary thrust of development at the various commercial sites in Terra Vista, this section explores in more detail the concept of "mixed use centers." The concept capitalizes on the ability of a mixed-use center to provide an integrated environment, to respond to evolving market conditions and human needs, to offer a variety of physical development types, and to have a pedestrian orientation. Integrated Environments. Mixed use centers have the ability to provide stimulating, integrated environments that include commercial, office, entertainment and leisure time, and residential developments--all clustered together into unified, highly identifiable developments. Resoonse to Evolving Market Conditions. Mixed use centers can respond over time to changing market conditions. Since the mixed use developments at Terra Vista will not be the first parcels in the community to be developed, the mixed use designation allows specific development at each center to vary-- within certain parameters -- in response to evolving market demands. Tvoes of Physical Development. The type of physical development that can occur within the mixed use parcel will cover a variety of building types catering to different specific uses. For example, one parcel may feature stores, offices, and housing all stacked together In one multi-use building. Another parcel may feature a split- level arrangement, through the use of site contouring, that puts commercial functions at the ground level facing Foothill Boulevard and residential units above the commercial -- at a higher ground level -- oriented toward the parklike Terra Vista environment to the north. Still another parcel might contain a combination of both building types. Pedestrian Orientation. Common to all commercial and mixed use parcels along Foothill Boulevard is the pedestrian orientation of development. pedestrian walkway along Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, E:;j~iE:;~:~ developments with each other, w th the Terra V Sta greenway greenway system -- with adjoining communities within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. This is described more fully in Section IV. SPeCific Mixed Use DeveloDmentl While all the commercial parcels along Foothill Boulevard are "mixed use" developments, the parcels that make up the boulevard frontage from just west of Mill(ken Avenue eastward to ~t Avenue feature an even broader spectrum of fG~i:~:~'= than the parcels to the west. The Terra Vista Plan (Figure II1-17) designates these parcels as MFC (mixed use financial facilities, restaurants, residential), and MHO (mixed use hospital, office, commercial). These designations represent a unique focus for each center, as the following profiles describe: MFC Parcel. The MFC parcel, immediately west of Mill(ken Avenue, will feature a broad mixture of financial institutions (banks, savings and loans, and brokerages), restaurants (to function as the "restaurant row" of Rancho Cucamonga), and residential development. The physical arrangement of the site will provide parking at the center, hidden from direct view of motorists on REVISED Amendment Nos. 1 & 9 III - 28 Foothill Boulevard when all buildings are completed. The central parking will be jointly used by businesses and luncheon restaurants during the day and by dinner restaurant patrons in the evening; this joint use allows there to be less overall parking than would be required without a mixed use arrangement. The residential portion of the parcel will be oriented to the northern portion of the site to take advantage of park views. A loop pedestrian pathway will link all developments in the MFC parcel together and with adjoining parcels. MHO Parcel. The MHO parcel, located east of Milliken Avenue, is planned as a medical park to accommodate hospitals, other specialized health care facilities, medical offices, and other office/commercial uses. Through coordinated site planning and a central pedestrian network, these facilities can function together in an integrated campus environment. As explained below, the campus can be extended eastward to accommodate expansion. The higher density housing surrounding this site makes it an extremely convenient location for both health care consumers and providers. ~L{]].~_~ZY_. As the previous discussions have noted, mixed use centers offer: · A variety of activities and opportunities. A lower need for use of the automobile, since numerous tasks can be accomplished without the need for intermediate car trips. More stimulating living, working, shopping, and leisure time environments with extended hours of activity and a variety of people intermixing. A human scale, with a tendency toward the clustering of various sizes of buildings. A special image and identity that reflects well upon both Terra Vista and the City of Rancho Cucamonga. More detailed descriptions of the various mixed use and commercial centers along Foothill Boulevard are provided in Chapter IV. REVISED Amendment Noe. 1 & 9 III - 29 Table 111-2 LAND USE SUMMARY Amendment #1. #2. #3. #5. #6. #7 and #9 Revised to CorresDond to Land Midrange Gross Dwelling Units/ Acres Gross Acre LAND USE DESIGNATION (AC) (DU/AC) RESIDENTIAL Low Medium Density (4-8 DU/AC) Medium Density (8-14 DU/AC) Medium High Density (14-24 DU/AC) High Density (24-30 DU/AC) Subtotal (Residential) 310.3 6 280.3 9 76.7 19 95.8 27 763.1 COMMERCIAL MIXED USE3 Community Commercial Neighborhood Commercial Office Park Recreational Commercial Mixed Use4 - Financial, Commercial, etc. 159.5 26.0 36.4 9.7 16.8 21.0 269.4 QUASI-PUBLIC AND PUBLICs Hospital Schools Central Park (Proposed by General~ Plan)* Parks and Trails" Special Landscape (Loop Median) Flood Control/Recreation Subtotal (Quasi-Public and Public) 10.0 46.0 99.2 51.9 4.9 12.4 224.4 December 31, 1989 Revised August 30, 1995 Use MaD IFigure 111-17. D. 111-23) Number of Dwelling Estimated Estimated Units Persons/ Number of (DU) Household Persons 1,824~ 3.43 6,256 2,523 2.582 6,509 1,400 1.52 2, 128 2,587 1.53 3.95~ 8,334 18,851 MAJOR HIGHWAYS" TOTAL 64.1 1.321.0 8,334 18.851 3 FOOTNOTES FOR STATISTICAL SUMMARY TABLE 111-2 It is assumed that a portion of the land shown in residential use will be developed in community uses through the process described elsewhere in this plan. For this reason, 6.4 acres of Low Medium Density and 3.0 acres of Medium High Density which appear on the Land Use Plan are e~cluded from the residential dwelling calculations on the previous page. Household size for Medium Density residential is an arithmetic average based on the estimated distribution of types of dwellings to be built. See Chapter VI of the Terra Vista text. Descriptions of commercial land uses indicate the general type of development considered. Actual permitted land uses are enumerated in Chapter V of the Terra Vista text. Commercial acreages in Mixed Use parcels exclude residential uses, estimated to total 6.5 acres of High Density. Specific locations for community uses are not determined by this plan because the site size and location desired will van/depending on the user. However, it is estimated that 9.4 acres not included in the tabulation of public and quasi-public acreage will be developed in community uses. See Note 1 above. 8 Major highways acreage includes half-width rights-of-way for Foothill, Haven, Rochester, Base Line east of Milliken, and Milliken north of Base Line*, and full-width rights-of- way for Milliken south of Base Line and Base Line west of Milliken. With density bonuses a total of 9,338 units are permitted in Terra Vista. Park and trail acreage of 51.9 shown on the Land Use Summan/and Land Use Plan (pages 111-23 and IV-15) exceeds the 47.86 acre requirement (56.06 acres per page VI-3 less 8.2 acres private open space credit per the Park Implementation Plan) by approximately four acres. Trail widths and locations may change slightly as developments proceed through the planning process, and a portion of the park land shown on Milliken Avenue may be converted to another "community use" (a YMCA), but in no event will public park, greenway and trail acreage fall below 47.9. · now a part of City Park. REVISED Anmncknent Noe. 1, 2. 6, 7 & 9 III - 33 . .parking both sides 45'right of way 36" 6'~"'jseme"~t'~~:~ 36' 6"le5"~se~"t 3arking both sides 41' right of way ' -6" -6" 6 easement easemen 4' 30' 4', 47. 30' . parking ore side . ,parking ore side, 40' right of way 40' right of way FIGURE IV-15 Landscaping of Local Streets Buffer and Edge Conditions The Terra Vista landscape concept affects more than the visual and recreational aspects of the community. Landscaping and open spaces also are used in buffer and edge conditions to enhance relationships between land uses and to soften the edges of the community. The need for extensive buffering devices is minimal .in Terra Vista, since land use adjacencies have been planned for high compatibility. In general, adjacent residential land use parcels are identical in density category or differ by only one density category, unless separated by landscape elements, trails or streets. However, landscaping as well as fences and walls will offer an appropriate buffering for common conditions throughout the community. The residential development section of this chapter offers illustrations of many of these conditions. This section covers the following conditions: Buffer between residential and neighborhood commercial Buffer between commercial · Buffer between uses in mixed-use parcels Edge conditions along Deer Creek and the Southern Pacific Railroad Buffer Between Residential end Neiahborhood Commercial. A minimum of ten feet of landscaping and a six-foot solid wall will buffer residential from neighborhood commercial uses (Figure IV-16). REVISED Amendment Noe. 6 & 9 11 FIGURE IV-t6 Buffer between Neighbmhood Commercial and Residential ~) Buffer Between Uses in Mixed-Use Parcels. Mixed-use parcels require less extensive or no buffering between ~) land uses due to their integrated designs and their compatibility of functions. Residential land uses are ~J'\ permitted in the MEG mixed-use parcel along Foothill ~ Bou evard. Reside~iJ~l:units in ~l~ parcel may be oriented alongside commercial and/or oi~r uses; alternately, the residential units may be stacked on top of these other uses vertically. Buffering techniques for more conventional horizontal arrangements are illustrated In Figures IV-17 through IV-18. It~cene FIGURE W-17 Buffer between Residential and Office/Commercial In MFC Mixed-Use Parcels (Horizontal Integration) /~k ~ COMMERCIAL IV - 17 (3uffer Between Identlal imd Cort~Tlunjtv Contmercl~l. .,Exie~slveb~ffering~e~ Uiredbetwemlresklent~alandcommurdtY c~rnmerclal users, ~l~ers~ttent is to e~sum that resid~1 will not be impacted by undesirable element/in the back of a ard glare from tim parking area br the noise or odor gelwmted Buffer Bet;een II Residential and CC Commercial from commercial activities rblated tO truck traffic, bading/end (HorizontrqlJ~te~ rio unloading For residential structures, a minimum 35-[bot buildiug and landscape setback is required from any property line' that abuts ~o,.mercial .se. Where commercial .sc .b"ts re.iae.tial .se. a ~-re,/~0~~s-s ~r-~t ~467 niinimum 2()-1~.~ol landscape selback is reqnired from lhe property line Ibal abuls die residenlial use. The mininmnl building separalion belween one-slo~ or lwo-slo~ residenlial slruclures and commercial buildings shall be I~ feel. The miniretort building separalion bclween residenlial slmclums over 35 feel in heighl and commercial buildings shall be 120 feel. Buffering lechniques may include, bul ~b~b~ f~ d~ll~ ~ a~ ~:k~ stn~tur~, d~t~ , ~t, e~ ~ ~h mM of ~, a~ Edge Conditions Along Deer Creek and the Southem Pacirm Flailroad. Rgure IV-20 illustrates the condition where residential use abuts the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way at the extreme northern boundan/of Terra V~sta, The edge condition within residential parcels adjacent to Deer Creek is sbown in Figure IV-21. FIGURE IV-19 Deleted no longer applicable 80' FIGURE IV-21 Edge Condition at Deer Creek FIGURE IV-20 Edge Condition at Railroad IV-13 Trail crosses Base Line at Proposed Regional Tra ' signalized intersection for (c tywide) SPRR M ~/ greater safe . Trails align with sidewa~; for continuity. IlL M M i NC s,ss ~.,NE M ,~' LM JIL TRAIL TYPE PEDESTRIAN UNDERPASS CONTINUOUS GREENWAY (NO TRAFFIC CROSSINGS) LM ,' ........ TRAILS LM g) o OP - Residents east ol Terra Vista have easy access to the greenway Nodes ~ CC °°6 · ~ °****** CC CC MFC MHO CC Rochester Avenue ~ 'seesees T l+5 ACRES OF X I~ O~ T GRUENASSOCIATES ~,,~.~ IH HI Ill '1~ ~, H~, ~'""" ~o~r greater pedestrian safety FIGURE IV-23 Greenway System Design Features IV-15 Trails In addition to the primary greenway spine, secondary greenway trails, generally running in a north-south direction, extend into and through all parts of the community, as described in Chapter III. These secondary linkages have separate bicycle and pedestrian paths in some instances and combined paths in other instances. The minimum unobstructed width of all trails (i.e. not interrupted by walls, fences, or buildings) is 15 feet. The minimum building setback varies depending on the situation. All trails will contain as a minimum a six-foot paved walk with adequate side access for maintenance via cul-de-sacs or easements. A tall, arching evergreen tree will be utilized throughout the trail system to provide a consistent image. Figure IV-23 indicates the location of each trail type. Figure IV-33 illustrates Trail Types C, D, and E, the secondary trails with a six-foot wide combined bicycle and pedestrian path. Three conditions are shown for secondary trails: Conventional Single Familv Adjacent to Both Sides of the Trail (Trail Type C). Trails are 15 feet wide and typically fenced off from single family lots. The side-on condition is preferred but not mandatory. In the side-on condition, there is no minimum setback; however, the minimum building separation remains 25 feet. Wall conditions vary among 3-foot solid walls, 3-foot walls topped by an open fence, and open fences or solid walls 5-feet 6-inches high. In a rear-on condition, the typical situation along trails is a 5-foot 6-inch wall; the building separation is increased to 35 feet; and the minimum building setback from the trail is 10 feet. Trail Type C also typically occurs adjoining schools. Cluster Multifamily Adjacent to One or Both Sides of Trail (Trail Type D). The intent of this condition is to minimize the use of solid walls or fences along the trail system, allowing the common landscaped areas of the multifamily projects to touch the trail. Minimum clear trail width remains 15 feet; however, the actual right-of-way is six feet. Minimum building separation is 25 feet for buildings of one or two stories and 35 feet for buildings of three stories. The minimum building setback from the trail is six feet. BOth the selected trail tree and the neighborhood accent tree will be used in landscaping the edge of the trail adjacent to multifamily projects. Trails Adjacent to Roadways (Trail Type E). When trails adjoin public roadways, six feet are added to the landscaped public area beside the roadway outboard of the sidewalk. The width of the sidewalk is also increased from four to six feet to accommodate the bicycles and pedestrians. Figure IV-34 illustrates landscaping of Trail Types D and E in plan form. Nodes Along the Trail System. various locations along the second~::~!i?E::~ii green~y~ Landscaping of trail nodes will be similar to that of greenway nodes (see above) except that shade structures and similar amenities are not required. M ~ M LM, ~ OP / PROPOSED CITy pARK PER RANCHO CUCAMONQA G(NERAL pLAN** LM JIL NC = CC MHO > CC ~HFOOTHILL "LVD Ill III Ill BASE M LM \ M } LM CC IlL CROSSWALK AT MIDBLOCK CROSSING AT INTERSECTION CONTINUOUS GREENWAY (NO TRAFFIC CROSSINGS) PEDESTRIAN UNDERPASS sm ~m mo N GRUEN ASSOCIATES FIGURE IV-41 Street Intersections with Greenway and Trails RE1/ISEDA~nerdmant Nos. 1, 2,5,6, T&9 N-32 Town Center FinenciaU Restaurant Center O~':~ Commercial Park /~ O~P~F~'~Park MFC ~ cc · Commercial · Restaurants · Office · Benks · Entertainment · Savings & Loans · Office · Commercial · Residential · Office · Entertainment Prcmotlonal · Commercial · Hospital · Office · Medical Related Facilities · Commercial FIGURE IV-63 Foothill Boulevard Center Identity and PredominantUses REVISED Amendment NoL 1, 5. 6, 7 & 9 IV o 48 the centers the place to go rather than one or two individual entities within them. Because of this, all the concerns located in the centers should benefit. The overall design concept for the centers along Foothill Boulevard is best described by breaking down the centers' design guidelines into the following four components: · Center identity and specific uses · Access and community gateways · Site planning and pedestrian network · Landscape treatment Each of these components is described below in terms of how they will affect the image and appearance of Terra Vista from Foothill Boulevard. Following this discussion are individual profiles of each center. Center Identity and SDecific Uses Each center along Foothill Boulevard is intended to cater to a different mix of business, office, professional, and residential functions. For convenience, each has been identified by a preliminary name reflecting the types of uses currently expected to predominate within it (Figure IV-63): · Town Center · Commercial Park · Financial/Restaurant Area ® sdical Park The discussion in Chapter III on commercial land uses in Terra Vista described the unique mix of specific commercial facilities in each center that complements adjoining commercial centers yet' promotes variety and identity. Access and Community Gateways Access. Within the Tetra Vista community, primary access to each of the centers along Foothill Boulevard will be from Church Street and north-south streets connecting Church Street with Foothill Boulevard, as indicated diagrammatically in Figure IV-64. The reason for this access concept is twofold: Smoother Traffic Flow. Anticipated traffic levels along Foothill Boulevard are relatively high; the removal of primary access points from Foothill Boulevard allows for smoother traffic flow along the boulevard. Left turns into centers will generally be confined to the intersections and locations shown, since such movements at other than strategically spaced locations can inhibit traffic flow. Better Traffic Distribution. Access from Church Street and from cross streets perpendicular to Foothill Boulevard will help to distribute traffic more equally between Church Street and Foothill Boulevard than would be possible with primary Foothill Boulevard access points only. Terra Vista Residents will have no need Town Center Financial/ Promotional Restaurant Center Cemmunlb/ Plaza Medical Commercial . ~ Church · ~ '~ paCerl~merclal Park Type I Galeway ~pe II Gateway Type III Galeway FIGURE N-64 ~ Pdmaly Access Primary Access and Gateways Concept for Church Street REVISED Amendment Nos. 1, 5. 6, 7 & 9 IV - 49 to use Foothill Boulevard for intra-comrnunity tdps for shopping, entertainment, and other daily n"'~s. GDtJL~B~. GatewaYS are another maJor means of punctuadng the Foothill Boulevard frontage, as described .b the Foothill Boulevard Specif'c Ran, Gateways am also located on the north side of Church Street, as Indicated in FIgure IV-64. One Type II gateway Is provided at Mililken Avenue and Type lil gateways me located at the ~orners of Chumh Street and Spruce, Elm, and Orchard Avenues. Each ~f the Type II and Type III gateways will haveaconsistenttr~as~hthelandscapesec6on ................... Site Rannino and Pedestrian Network Each cemer along Foothill Boulevard will have a different appeermx~ from the boulevard within the context of the uniform Term Vista design image. As indicated conceptually in F~ura IV- 65, the arrangement of buildings, perking areas, and pedestrian walkways is unique to each enter. For example: · In the Town Center, smaller buildings are clustered dose to Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue, while more imposing commercial structures are set back from these streets. The primary greenway spine leads directly to the Town Center community commercial center and to the east-west pedestrian linkage through the Foothill Boulevard canters. In the Cernmercial Park, as in the Town Center, larger buildings am set back away from Foothill Boulevard and the smalbr buildings am located near Foothill Boulevard and along a central perk-like entry. A large open space with a pedestrian spine traverses the site from north to south. Primary perking access will be from Foothill Boulevard, Spruce Avenue across from Town Center Drive, and from Elm Avenue. Service screening from Church Street. The pedestrian pathway abng REVtSEDAmerdmentNoe. l,6,7&9 Elm Avenue will connect with the Trail System and La Mission Park. In the Financial/Restaurant PI,q~, buildings will encircle the site; centralized perking will serve all establishments but be hidden from view from Foothill Boulevard. The pedestrian walkway will assume a circular configuration around the perking ares. In the Medical Park, as with the Corporate Park, a generous open space within the campus will be the focus for buildings. Larger health care facilities will be set well back from Foothill Boulevard, A pedestrian path will bad to the site and will, in turn, connect with the trail system. In the Promotional Center back from Foothill Boulevard from public view. Smaller retail be located close to the street. Storefronts will lead through Orientation. ~ bndscaped Avenue will help to buffer developments with 1, nortlVsouffi direction up perking area, and The result of this carefully conceived site planning, coupled with detailed designs for each center that will be reviewed prior to site development, should be a development pattern that uses scale, rhythm, and variety to excellent advantage. Town Center Financial/ Promotional Restaurant Center Coromunity Plaza Commercial ~.~'~ ~aar~morciaj ,~ ~ ' ~__._'_"_ ......J L~- ~ -- Pedestrian Walkways Id Buildings ~ Parking FIGURE IV-65 Site Planning Concept for Foothill Boulevard Town Center Financial/ Promotional Restaurant Center Community Plaza Commercial Lz ~// ~/i Medical I c..,~.s, .:m Moderate Bermo I~ Windows eeee Tree Rowe +++ FilterViews FIGURE IV-66 Landscape Concept along Foothill Boulevard Landscape Treatment. Each center has been carefully evaluated from the standpoint of landscaping to create an attractive, manicured image for Terra Vista along Foothill Boulevard. The various components that have gone.into the landscape concept include: · Tree rows · Berms · View filtering devices (planting and hedges) · View opportunities for "windows" to the shops and mountains beyond As indicated diagrammatically in Figure IV-66, trees symbolizing the Terra Vista community will line Foothill Boulevard i. conformance with ~,~i~iE~!i!;~ii~q Specific Plan. In addition, each center along Foothill Boulevard will have a unique mix of landscaping treatments in conformance with the building arrangement within the site. For example: · At the community commercial center within the Town Center, edge planrings will be provided to filter views of the landscaped parking areas but will still allow the larger buildings beyond to be clearly seen by motorists along Foothill Boulevard. · There will be three primary landscape features at Commercial Park in addition to parking lot landscaping: 1) a landscaped area bisecting the site from north to south containing special decorative paving and a canopy tree-covered parklike area with outdoor dining and other pedestrian amenities, 2) edge planting along Foothill Boulevard to filter views to the buildings in the distance with a special plaza combined with a gateway at the northeast corner of Spruce Avenue and a gateway at the northwest corner of Elm Avenue, and, 3) dense planting adjacent to Church Street to soften the rear view of the buildings and service areas. REVISED Amendment Nos, 1, 5, 7 & 9 IV - 51 · best served by a combination of techniques that would be used in conjunction with setbacks. In the Financial/Restaurant Plaza, the parking area will be screened from motorists on Foothill Boulevard by the buildings themselves. Informal plantings will be provided around and between the buildings. In the Medical Park, there will be two rows of trees, plus landscaping in the parking areas along Foothill Boulevard. Lan. dscaping and low berms may also be provided to screen parking areas further. In the Promotional Center, landscaping along Foothill Boulevard will offer windows into the commercial complex, .plantinge ~lloi~g a portion of Rochester Avenue and a Type B trail will screen parking and loading aress and serve to reduce the scale of the large buildings on the site. Additional setback areas will buffer the project from the adjacent residential neighborhood to the east. The use of palms at project entries will tie this site with the other retail projects along Foothill BouleVard end reinforce community Identity. In this last regard, the setbacks for both parking areas and buildings along Foothill Boulevard have been specially selected to address the Boulevard's unique role as a primary travel corridor in Rancho Cucamonga. As noted in the section earlier in this chapter on landscaping, setbacks along Foothill Boulevard from the curb to parking areas will be 28 feet minimum {43 feet average), and from the curb to buildings, 38 feet minimum (43 feet average). It was felt in planning the Foothill Boulevard frontage that the objectives of variety and visual interest would be These techniques, which are described elsewhere in this section, include: Specifying average setbacks (43 feet from the curb to parking areas or buildings) in addition to minimum setbacks, assuring that many buildings will be set well back beyond the minimum required distance Site planning guidelines for several of the parcels along Foothill Boulevard calling for very generous setbacks, taking on the image of landscaped parks Major "windows" into the projects periodically along the boulevard frontage, constituting large setbacks in special situations. ~L.q3~_9.~. To provide an overview of the image one will have driving along Foothill Boulevard past the various commercial centers, a "panorama" of development along the boulevard has been prepared. Figure IV-67 offers a conceptual plan of the entire Foothill Boulevard frontage within Terra Vista and, in conjunction with this conceptual plan, a view or views of soma of the major highlights along the corridor. (Larger reproductions of these views will follow.) As indicated by Figure IV-67, development along Foothill Boulevard--acknowledging that actual development may differ according to specific development programs but will adhere to the spirit and quality portrayed--will be epitomized by variety, attractive clusterings of buildings and open spaces, and an image that builds on the unique heritage and qualities of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Amendment Nos. 1, 7 & 9 RES Tall columriar trees screen VieWS of commercial Structures --Landscaped berm provides a buffer between residential and commercial uses Foothill BlvC~ ........ walkway -- COMMERCIAL CENTER ~ [ Treiiis~iWalkwe~; .... along Poplar Drive and Rochester Foothill Boulevard treatment Figure IV-77 Conceptual Site Ran for the Promotional Center REVISED Amend~nent No8. 1 & 9 IV o 64 Promotional Center. The Promotional Center, between Orchard and Rochester Avenues on Foothill Boulevard is envisioned as b mixture bf commercial and residential Use~. Primary iiccess 't0 'the commemlal Complex will be fron~ Foothill Boulevard, ~nd Orchard and Rochester AvenUes. Access to ~the residential area will be from Church'Street, 0rc~!rd AvenUe, 8' :niI,pop!ar Drive.* ..... The large "big box,".comm~relal buildings will be set back from the Boulevard ~o ~lUce their scale and provide room for a spacious :patldnb lot,'~, "Smaller reta I stores and ~estaUrents. are :, located: fa~ing ' Foothill Boulevard 'and adjacent =~0' the ,~iil~. e~ran~ (Figure iV-77), Th~ landscape treatment.of ~te F.~...thlll Boulevard frontage will both, provide ,~creenl~g .of:k~klri9 "areaS' iind' lillow':, for fliteL ~le~,~i't~ tti'~ sit&: ~ An amhltecturafiy interesting theme element will provide a visual terminus to the main entry mad and establish a strong identity fo~ the ~levelopment: Pleasant pedestrian promenades with. e meandering pathway and an informal paving pattern wil lead through the site in an east/west OrSanimation, providing e COn~nle~ Stores ' in}he. ~mp!.:~. ......... Two north/south promenade walkways will link the large buildings to the smaller retail and ~estaurant buildings along Foothill Boulevard. ,The promenade at the main entry will be promtnent, '.while. :the ~ promenade through. the. western parking area wig be secondary~ ,,:A Continuous east/west promenade,will conneat all the large retail buildings; ..iThe ~ede~trJarj ~rail along thlll Boulevard willsprovide dire~t cc~ 't~ ~ ii ~ "~ ,tame i;nd re~taurent buildingS. The prominent promenades wifi be similar to those in the Terre Vista Town Center and offer expansive landscaped areas, walkways, fumiture,d trellises, and pedestrian plazas. The secondary .prOmenade will 'featUre less' extensive landscaping knd a walkway! ...... The facades of the buildings Complex Will be staggered to crea~:~ nd the entrances to each of t~":::=;~;'~:~:~""~'~~ ' ~Us~ o~a~ to..~mte v~d~~ Between the articulated entrancei!!i!i~ il series of vine-covered trellises, eady heritage, will provide shade a~ii:j along the promenade. Other fea(~ Center Include decorative tile, lusl~i!:~i ~ooldng trellises located along the Foothill Boulevard (Figures IV-78 The loading ares towards PopUlar $~i~li;~!~:~ a combination of high walls at t~!!iij~ ~i~ai~=:i=!~, The remoinder will be screened ~ii~E:~i!;!~~i;;~!:~!!~!~ ~valls, ber~ a~ landscaping. ~;~ ~ ~ ~r~ from t~ view. oT area tmff~ .............~ ..................' ......................... ~ocatin9 several "big boX". use, hoppers to complete Several i:onfiguration of the between the various Stores; behind the large USes and .are residential uses by a dense r Pads. A covered pick u¢ PJ;provement uSeS is in permitted .~he trail system w~l serve the orth side of Poplar.,Ddve. achestar on the elL~t &IS:Is offfie ~oth~ill BoulevaK!~ "'" ........................................ Higher' density residential porthwest portion of the site park and the tauntsins in the dista~l~~ ~r tr~ ' Revised Amend~nent Noe, 1 & 9 .I Figure IV - 78 View of the Main Entrance to the Promotional Center REVISED Amendment No~. 1 & 9 IV-66 Figure IV - 79 View of the Pedesuian Promenade in Front of the Promotional Center REVISED Amendmere Floe. 1 & 9 Figure IV - 80 Figure IV - 81 Deleted from Plan REVISED Amendment No. 9 Service businesses Pharmacies Restaurants with incidental serving of beer and wine but without a cocktail lounge, bar, entertainment or dancing. Commercial recreation and entertainment facilities Community facilities as specified above Accessory structures and uses necessary or customarily incidental to the a.bove Other uses which are found by the Planning Commission to be consistent with the spirit and intent of this land use classification Institutional and governmental uses Retail and service businesses serving the needs of office users, including but not limited to: Uses Permitted in Business Park,Overlav Zone In addition to the uses .permitted by the' base zone, the fo,,o.ing g.nera,uses .h.. be . rm,.ed i. the Business Park he: Administrative offices Professional offices, including but not limited to such professions as: Accounting Law Income tax Insurance Architecture Engineering Medicine Optomatry Podiatry Chiropractic Osteopathy Dentistry Real estate Escrow Financial brokerage Securities brokerage Interior design REVISED An~endn~ent Now. 3, 5. 6 & 9 LM NC M LM CC FIGURE 111-17 Land Use Plan CITY OF RANCHO CLICAMONGA PLANNING DIVISION .i M M LM /? lid TVCPA 95-01 MOC to Community Conmtercid mtd High ,~' :!: LM j RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL cc NC RC OP ~ MIX=,D USE PUBL S eU JC Densit Ran es of Approved Projects may vary sli htly from the Plan; See "~s Bui?t Land Use Progress Plan" - Figure ~1-3 on page V1-11. ITEZVI: CPA 95-01B and TVCPA 95-01 TITLE: Community Plan Land Use Map EXHIBIT: 'B" SCALE: SIGNAL UGHT MAJOR MAJOR I 3 MAJOR MAJOR 122,g71 s( 45,000 sf 4 5 24,~50 sf 18,000 sf oR :t:::~ ~ I: ~ i P ..~'__:__..~--~ ..~ '~_____~ ',' --~.---- ~-,; -=: FOOTH LL BOULEVARD q S~C'N~. UCHT --/~ 'l ~ --,~. i ~ SICNed. U(~IT E CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ' STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: September 27, 1995 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Steve Hayes, AICP, Associate Planner ENVIRONMENTAL ASSES SMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-11 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO. - The proposed development of an integrated shopping center totaling 495,736 square feet on 47.33 acres of land with proposed phase one consisting of a 132,065 square foot Home Depot home improvement center in the Mixed Use (Commercial, Office, Residential) District of the Terra Vista Community Plan, located at the northwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue - APN: 227-151-18 and 24. Related Files: General Plan Amendment 95-01-B, Terra Vista Community Plan Amendment 95-01, and Tentative Parcel Map 14022. (Continued from September 13, 1995). At its regular meeting on September 13, 1995, the Hanning Commission continued this item and all related items to allow the applicant sufficient time to complete the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) to the satisfaction of SANBAG and City staff. Because it was not known at the time of preparation of this report (and the advertising deadline) if the TIA will be accepted by SANBAG and City staff in time for the Planning Commission to take final action on September 27, this item has been advertised to be forwarded to the City Council for final action. In addition, the Commission directed the applicant to work with staff to clarify a number of issues raised by the developer during public testimony at the September 13 meeting. Staff met with Lewis Homes and the majority of the issues have been addressed. The resolution has been updated as appropriate. The wording was clarified on Planning Conditions 4, 9, 19, 42, and 46, Planning Condition 30 regarding tree replacement was deleted, Planning Condition 18 regarding outdoor displays was deleted in favor of Planning Condition 38, and Planning Condition 32 regarding the Design Guidelines was deleted in favor of Planning Condition 11. Other Planning conditions were discussed, but wording remains as originally proposed. The wording was clarified on Engineering Condition 9, Engineering Condition ld was revised to allow the 18-inch corrugated metal pipe crossing Foothill Boulevard to be abandoned in place with a slurry fill, Engineering Condition 2 was clarified to indicate that the driveway shall align with the future Masi Drive as currently designed, and Engineering Condition 20 was revised to allow the developer to submit a request for a refund of a portion of the in-lieu fee for the future undergrounding of existing overhead utilities on the opposite side of Rochester Avenue. The applicant may still wish to address several conditions. ITEM C PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 95-11 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO. September 27, 1995 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit 95-! 1 through adoption of the attached Resolution and recommend issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. BB:SH:mlg Attachments: Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 13, 1995 Resolution of Approval CITY OF RANCHO CUCAIVIONGA -- STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: September 13, 1995 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Steve Hayes, AICP, Associate Planner ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-11 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO. - The proposed development of an integrated shopping center totaling 495,736 square feet on 47.33 acres of land with proposed phase one consisting of a 132,065 square foot Home Depot home improvement center in the Mixed Use (Commercial, Office, Residential) Distdct of the Terra Vista Community Plan, located at the northwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue - APN: 227-151-18 and 24. Related Files: General Plan Amendment 95-01-B, Terra Vista Community Plan Amendment 95-01, and Tentative Parcel Map 14022. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - South - East West Vacant; Low Medium and Medium Residential (4-8 and 8-14 units per acre, respectively) Vacant; Industrial Park (Industrial Specific Plan Subarea 7) Single Family Residences and Vacant; Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and Office Professional Vacant; Office, Hospital, and Related Uses General Plan Designations: Project Site - Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) North - Low Medium Residential (4°8 dwelling units per acre) South - Industrial Park East Office and Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) West Commercial Site Charactedstica: The site has no significant land forms or any structures, but a few mature Eucalyptus trees are scattered across the property. These trees are proposed to be removed in conjunction with development of this site. The site slopes gently from north to south at roughly 3 percent. pLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 95-11 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO. September 13, 1995 Page 2 De Parking Calculations: Number of Number of Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces of Use Footaae Ratio Reauired Provided Home Depot 132,065 1/200 660 565 * (Phase 1 ) TOTAL Retail Shopping Center 495,736 1/200 2,479 2,474 * * Please refer to parking analysis (Section B of Analysis) for further details. ANALYSIS: General: The applicant is proposing to develop a 103,000 square foot Home Depot with a 23,665 square foot garden center and 5,400 square foot house plant enclosure as Phase 1 of a Master Planned Shopping Center consisting of 495,736 square feet of retail space. The intent of the applicant is to receive approval of only the Home Depot and related improvements at this time; future applications with modifications to the Master Plan will be processed at such time development is proposed for future phases of the Master Planned Center, similar to projects such as Terra Vista Town Center and Town Center Square. The purpose of the Master Plan is to establish a concept plan on how the center could be developed while meeting the technical and design criteda of the City. Home Depot is shown near the northeast comer of the site. An 8-foot high screen wall and landscaping are proposed to screen the loading area from view of Rochester Avenue and the future Poplar Ddve. The building has also been set back 80 feet from the curb along Rochester Avenue. Traffic control measures, as required by the City's Traffic Engineering Division, will be installed at the new project ddveway along Rochester Avenue, directly across from Chervil Street. With Phase 1 development, the applicant is proposing to take vehicular access from two locations along Foothill Boulevard, two driveways on Rochester Avenue, and one driveway on Poplar Ddve. One of the driveways along Foothill Boulevard is for vehicles entering the site only, while the other lines up with the future Masi Ddve to the south. The second ddveway on the Rochester Avenue frontage is exclusively for large trucks exiting the lumber off-loading area in back of the Home Depot. The ddveway on Poplar Ddve is designed for large truck access to the loading and unloading areas and for some employee parking. As part of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Activity Center area for the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue, the project includes a pedestrian activity area at the comer with a fountain, seating, and upgraded landscaping and decorative hardscabe, with elements tying together this design with the activity center designed for the Masi project. The proposed Master Plan includes six other major tenants in a line of buildings west of the proposed Home Depot. In addition, eight other pad buildings along Foothill Boulevard are shown on the Master Plan, two of which are fast-food restaurants and one a service station. pLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 95-11 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO. September 13, 1995 Page 3 Again, the balance of the center is shown in concept only; specific development plans will be required at such time future phases are proposed for development. It should be noted that the Master Plan has been reviewed by both staff and the Planning Commission and even though the plans may change when actual development is pursued, the concept of the Master Plan is consistent with the direction given by the Planning Commission at the Planning Commission Workshops. North of the commercial project is vacant and zoned High Residential District. The plans show a 10-foot grade difference between the two land uses. The applicant stated that they do not have plans to develop the site in the next five or ten years. The residential design depicted on the plan is a concept to show that proper buffedng and screening can be achieved between the two land uses. Staff would like to point out that new design guidelines requiring extensive buffering between the two land uses are being proposed in the related Terra Vista Community Plan amendment. Parking: As noted in the parking calculations for the project, Phase 1 development would be deficient 95 parking spaces as shown on the Phase 1 Development Plan. To address this deficiency, staff has included a Condition of Approval requiring a minimum of one parking space per 200 square feet for Phase 1 development. Therefore, the Phase lines will require modification to ensure that the additional parking will be provided to meet the minimum number required for Home Depot. As for the Master Plan, the site is deficient 5 parking spaces as shown on the conceptual Master Plan, under the assumption that no more than 15 percent of the total gross floor area will be occupied by food service users. As noted earlier, each phase of development will require design review, thereby insuring that all technical criteda (including parking ) will be provided in accordance with City standards and policies. Plannine Commission WorkshoDs/Design Review Committee: The Planning Commission held a series of workshops on this project dating back to December 28, 1994. To "formalize" the Development Review process, the Design Review Committee (Barker, Lumpp, Fong) did review the project on August 1, 1995, but recommended that, because of the significance of the remaining issues, the project be reviewed further by the full Planning Commission in a workshop format. The Action Comments from that meeting are attached for your convenience. At the two most recent workshops, held on August 9, and 23, 1995, the Planning Commission directed the development team to revise the plans to the satisfaction of staff prior to this meeting for Commission consideration. Of pdmary concern were the following: 1. The vehicular circulation in the parking area south of the Home Depot, 2. The screening of the lumber off-loading and ddve aisle along Poplar Ddve. Technical Review Committee: On August 2, 1995, the Committee reviewed the project and determined that, with the recommended special and standard Conditions of Approval, the project is consistent with all applicable standards and ordinances. The project was reviewed by the Grading Committee on August 1, 1995, and modifications to the design were recommended by the Committee. These changes have been reviewed by staff and deemed acceptable to resolve the concerns of the Grading Committee. pLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 95-11 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO. September 13, 1995 Page 4 Environmental Assessment: Part I of the Initial Study has been completed by the applicant. Staff has completed Part II of the Initial Study. Staff found no significant impact on the environment with the development of the project because proper mitigations on the buffedng and screening between the commercial and residential uses and the improved on-site circulation design have been incorporated into the project design. However, the recommendation to issue a project level Negative Declaration is contingent on the Planning Commission's recommending the issuance of a Negative Declaration for the General Plan Amendment and the Terra Vista Community Plan Amendment. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletir~ newspaper, the property has been posted, and notices were sent to all property owners within a 300 foot radius of the site as well as an expanded notification area within the residential area east of the site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit 95-11 and the issuance of a mitigated Negative Declaration. However, this recommendation is contingent on the Planning Commission's recommending approval of the General Plan Amendment and the Terra Vista Community Plan Amendment to the City Council as well as their final approval. if the Commission can not make a recommendation on the General Plan Amendment and the Community Plan Amendment, the Conditional Use Permit needs to be continued. BB:SH:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" Exhibit "B" Exhibit "C" Exhibit "D" Exhibit "E" Exhibit "F" Exhibit "G" Exhibit "H" Exhibit "1" Exhibit "J" Exhibit "K" Exhibit "L" Exhibit "M" Resolution - Site Utilization Map - Site Plan (Phase I) - Master Site Plan - Conceptual Landscape Plan (Phase I) - Master Conceptual Landscape Plan - Activity Center Concept - Grading Plan (Phase I) - Building Elevations (Home Depot) o Conceptual Building Elevations for Major Tenants - Storefront Promenade Details - Cross-Sections/Details o Floor Plan for Home Depot - Design Review Committee Comments Dated August 1, 1995 of Approval with Conditions L PHASE ONE SFFE PLAN TERRA VISTA PROmENaDE FEOLA CARLI & ARCHULETA AICHITIC[$ FOOT~IILL BOULEVARD CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN PHASE I CONCERN - LTD. CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN FOOTHILL BOULEVARD CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN FOUR CORNER EXHIBIT fERRA VISTA P~OMENAI)[ , / DRIVE THE HOME DEP01 / '-- -=-~ TENTATIVE PARCEL HAP N0.1402.2 IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAHONGA, GALIF(]RNIA ~;~'~=-..,~ ~'~-:~.~.F ~- .... LH~NO PHASE ONE SITE PLAN CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN FOR HOME DEPOT TERR~ ~ PROMENADE NOETH ELEV="I[)N CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING DIVISION STOREFRONT PROMENADE ~ I, .L JI. UkJ0R4 MAJOR 3. MAJOR STORE FRONT PROMENADE CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN ~ I , ffRRA 1/15fA Pt?OMEN~[ ARBOR ,~C77ON MAJOR 5 ENTRY STRUCTURE MAJOR 6 ENTRY STRUCTURE T[RRA VISfA PROM[gAD[ FOOTHILL BLVD. ~ ,,~, ,SECT10N B--8 fJ.~EECTION C-C LOW CANOPY SECTION SECTIONS TEBA V/gA P~OMENAD[ ..... ............ i ............. i ............. ]___L .............. ~. ........... i i i i i i i i i i ............ ~- .............. -i ........... 4' ....................... 4' .......... i i i i i i i i i , I,.~ 'I i i !'~h'.. I .. ~' ,~Z~ , ,,~!'~:~ ._am .............. ma_.l ...... · ......· ......am .......... It ...... · ......· .... s! " ........: ....... ]~ @,..L.o?. ,~,I . DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:20 p.m. Steve Hayes August 1, 1995 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-11 WESTERN LAND PROPERTIES - The developmere of an integrated shopping cemer totaling approximately 495,736 square feet on 47.33 acres of land with proposed phase one consisting of a 132,065 square foot Home Depot home improvement center in the Mixed Use (Commercial, Residential, Office) District of the Tetra Vista Community Plan, located at the northwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue - APN: 227-151 - 18 and 24. Related Files: Tetra Vista Community Plan Amendment 95-01 and General Plan Amendment 95-01B. Design Parameters: The vacant site is bounded by undeveloped land in all directions, except to the east, where a single family residential housing tract exists, and to the south a building exists that will be retained for the future Masi Plaza development as an Old Spaghetti Factory. No significant landforms exist on the property, however, a few mature Eucalyptus trees are scattered across the site and are proposed to be removed in conjunction with development of the site. The site slopes gently from north to south. The project is designed to take its primary access from Foothill Boulevard at the future signalized intersection with Masi Drive. This access lines up with the future project on the south side of Foothill Boulevard. The proposed vehicular access on Rochester Avenue lines up with Chervil Street to the east. Other driveway locations have been located in conformante with the regulations of Caltrans and the Engineering Division, as applicable. As part of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Activity Center Area for the intersection of Foothill and Rochester, the project includes a pedestrian activity area at the comer with a fountain, seating, and upgraded landscaping and decorative hardscape, with elements tying together this design with the activity center designed for the Masi project. A master plan for development of the four comers of the Activity Center is included within the plan submittal. Home Depot is shown near the northeast comer of the site. An 8-foot high screen wall and landscaping are proposed to sc~en the loading area from view of Rochester Avenue and the future Poplar Drive, the building has been set back 80 feet from the curb along Rochester, and traffic control measures as required by the City's Traffic Engineering Division will be installed at the new project driveway along Rochester, directly across from Chervil Street. To the north of the commercial project, a future multiple family residential development is proposed. A 10-foot grade difference is proposed between the two uses with a 10- to 15-foot wide landscape buffer on each project boundary. Even though the residential project is only shown in concept, it appears that it is the intent of the applicant to have two and three-story multiple family buildings internal to the residential site with a drive aisle and parking along the interior property lines to provide an additional buffer between the residential units and the shopping center. The project was the subject of two previous Planning Commission workshops (minutes are attached). Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: DRC COMMENTS CUP 95-11 - WESTERN LAND PROPERTIES August 1, 1995 Page 2 Site Plan: A master plan of the multiple family residential area north and west of the site should be provided to illustrate how the shopping center, as currently designed, will mitigate any potential negative impacts (i.e. land use transition, noise, aesthetics, etc.) related to locating a shopping center adjacent to residential development and how pedestrian connectious can be planned from surrounding residential land to the shopping center. The parking area south of the Home Depot should be modified with clearer major through drive aisles that are designed to avoid dead ends in the middle of long rows of parking stalls. The Committee should consider whether the linear appearance of the storefronts has been modified enough to address previous Commission concerns relative to this issue. The four way vehicle intersection north of Pad C should be red~signed to be at more of a tight angle. In addition, the sweeping curve leading up from Foothill Boulevard should be straightened with longer radius curves. Drive-Thru Pads C and E should be redesigned to provide longer stacking areas for the dtive- thru lanes. Typically, 8-10 car stacking is needed. A significant east/west pedestrian link should be provided along the southern half of the project (i .e. along the main drive aisle) to promote pedestrian movement among the pad buildings. Connect sidewalks at project entries to a logical on-site sidewalk system. Cross-sections of the loading area at the mar of the Home Depot, including proposed screening devices, should be prepared for Committee review, as requested at the previous Planning Commission Workshop. A more elaborate design guideline package (similar to Tetra Vista Town Center) should be provided for Committee review. Architecture: The rear (north) elevation of the Home Depot should be significantly upgraded, being that it will face future residential development. Screening of roof-motmted mechanical equipment is going to be of special concern with this proiect, given the potential grade difference between the project and the future residential project to the north. A design solution for Home Depot as well as other buildings should be considered now because these screens may become an integral pan of the architectural design. Provide several sight-line cross-section studies to show equipment in relation to parapet height. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: Site Plan: The customer pick-up lane in front of the Home Depot should be defined by using special DRC COMMENTS CUP 95-11 - WESTERN LAND PROPERTIES August 1, 1995 Page 3 The landscal~ buffer between the shopping center and the future residential project to the north should be increased in width and density of planting. In addition, the landscaping on the outside of the screen wall along Poplar Drive should be upgraded. The layout of the parking lot should be revised to minimize vehicular circulation problems in several areas of the site, which will be highlighted by staff at the meeting. A greater depth for vehicle stacking should be provided at the two westerly accesses to Orchard Avenue. Landscaping should be introduced along the storefront of Home Depot wherever possible. Virtually none is proposed over the 400 foot long front elevation. Architecture: The typical enhanced storefronts should be enlarged and increased in depth to become a more integral pan of the architectural design. .A more decorative roofing material than galvanized metal sheets should be used on all arcades In the promenade area. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: The activity center concept should be carried westward across the Foothill Boulevard frontage to the tirst driveway, as required of the Masi project on the south side of Foothill Boulevard, and as required by the Foothill Boulevard Design Supplement. All proposed signage should be in balance with the proportions and mussing of the buildings. The exterior treatment used on the pick-up canopy and facades of the Home Depot should be carried around to the back and undersides of the elements as well. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee review the plans in light of the staff comments raised in this report. If the Committee feels that there are significant issues remaining that should be addressed by the applicant for additional Committee review, then this item should be brought back for further Committee consideration prior to scheduling the item for another Planning Commission Workshop. However, if the Committee feels it more appropriate to have the unresolved items be reviewed again by the full Planning Commission at a workshop, then the Committee should direct the applicant and staff to schedule another Planning Commission Workshop. Attachment: Planning Commission Minutes Design Review CommiRee Action: Members Present: David Barker, Heinz Lumpp, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Steve Hayes DRC COMMENTS CUP 95-11 - WESTERN LAND PROPERTIES August 1, 1995 Page 4 The Committee (Barker, Lumpp, Fong) recommended that, based on the significance of the remaining unresolved issues, that the project should be forwarded to another full Planning Commission Workshop to potentially resolve the remaining design issues, The Committee and/or the applicant did offer the following comments at the meeting: Site Plan: Item No. I - The applicant stated that, based on the uncertainty of the market, that the preparation of a master plan for the residential area was not feasible at this time. To move along the commercial project, the applicant stated they would agree to a condition of approval that allows staff to develop the design guidelines and add them to the Community Plan for addressing the buffer and the edge treatment between the commercial and the residential developments. Item No. 2 - No resolution was reached between the Committee and the applicant on this issue. Further discussion of this item should occur at the Planning Commission Workshop. Item No. 3 - The Committee felt the linear appearance of the store~'onts had been modified sufficiently to address previous Commission concerns. Item No. 4 - Item No. 5 - The Committee felt that the most recent revision to this intersection, with a greater degree of symmelry, would be acceptable with proper signage and striping. The Committee recommended that these pads be modified to reflect proper stacking now. Moving the pick-up windows on these pads may allow for the required stacking, to the satisfaction of staff. Item No. 6 - The applicant is proposing to use the Foothill Boulevard sidewalk with sidewalk connections from Foothill Boulevard to the pad bullclings to provide the pedestrian link to the pad buildings. This would be a departure from previous Commission policy, and the Commission should discuss this in greater detail at the workshop. Item No. 7 o The applicant agreed to finish the sidewalk connections from the public right-of- way to the site. However, the Committee also recommended additional north/south pedestrian connections throughout the project to connect pad buildings with the major tenants. Item No. 8 - Cross-sections were provided at the Design Review Committee meeting showing how the loading areas would be screened. Considerable discussion occurred on whether the screen wail along Poplar Drive should be continued west to screen the areas where trucks will off-load lumber and other building supplies, however, no consensus was reached by the Committee on this issue. Additional discussion of this item should occur at the Planning Commission Workshop. Item No. 9 - More elaborate Design Guidelines have been prepared and will be given to the other three Planning Commissioners at the Planning Commission Workshop, and may be discussed at that time. Architecture: Item No. I - The Committee felt that the revisions to the north elevation were sufficient to address previous Commission concerns. DRC COMMENTS CUP 95-11 - WESTERN LAND PROPERTIES August 1, 1995 Page 5 Item No. 2 - Seconda2Cy Issues: The applicant provided line-of-site drawings to indicate that the roof equipment on the Home Depot (including the proposed satellite dish) will be completely screened from all existing development. However, of special concern in this situation would be how the equipment can be screened from the future residential multiple family development north and west of the shopping center. The applicant agreed to conditioning the residential project in the future to not be able to orient buildings to cast their views onto the rooftops of the shopping center. Item No. 1 - Item No. 2 - Item No. 3 - Item No. 4 - Item No. 5 - Architecture: The Committee felt that the layered colored concrete to delineate the customer pick- up lane is acceptable, but preferred not to have any paint striping over it. If slfiping is necessary, a color other than yellow should be used. This item should be discussed further by the Planning Commission at the workshop. The Committee directed the applicant to work with staff on addressing this issue. The Committee directed the applicant to work with staff to resolve this concerto The Committee felt that the recent inclusion of landscaping in front of the garden center and the house plant enclosure was sufficient to address this concern, understanding the function and heavy foot traffic associated with a Home Depot. Item No. I - Item No. 2 - This item was recommended to be deferred by the Committee to such time when the balance of the shopping center is proposed to be developed. The roofing material for the promenade area should be considered further at the Planning Commission Workshop. In addition to these comments, the Committee also noted that the center focal point element, now proposed as a low profile gazebo-like structure, should be considered further by the full Planning Commission. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting May 10, 1995 chairman Barker called the Adjourned Meeting of the city of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 8:15 p.m. The meeting was held in the De Anza Room at the Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, california. COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Barker, Heinz Lumpp, John Melcher, Larry McNiel, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Steve Hayes, Associate Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer APPLICANT/DEVELOPER: Gary Luque, Greg Hoxworth, Robert McLendon, Chuck Beechef, and Mike Lasley - Lewis Development Corporation; Greg George - Home Depot; Mark Bertone - Madole and Associates; Andrew Feola, Greg Mendoza - Feola, Carli & Archuleta Architects; Frank Coda, Vasanthi Ramahthan, Mark Shenouda - Greenberg Farrow Architects; Mike Sweeney - Land Concern NEW BUSINESS A. CONDITIONAT. USE PERMIT 95-11 - WESTERN LAND PROPERTIES The proposed development of an integrated shopping center totaling 501,324 square feet on 47.33 acres of land with proposed phase one development consisting of a 136,953 square foot Home Depot home improvement center in the Mixed Use (Co[m~ercial, Office, Residential) District of the Tetra vista Community Plan, located at the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue - APN: 227-151-18 and 24. Related Files: Terra Vista Community Plan Amendment 95-01 and General Plan Amendment 95-01B. Brad Buller, city Planner, introduced the Commissioners to the development team and stated the purpose of the workshop. He noted the status of the related applications and framed the major issues for commission discussion. Gary Luque, Lewis Development Corporation, introduced the development team and referenced the proposed project timing for the Home Depot. He briefly mentioned his concern with the requirements for street improvements with the initial phase of development. Mr. Bullet suggested that, if the Commission wished to discuss this item, it could be done in conjunction with the topic of vehicular circulation, which is included on the workshop agenda. Greg Hoxworth, Lewis Development Company, elaborated on how this center was different from other shopping centers in Tetra vista, in that all of the users are proposed to be of the larger, major-tenant variety and none of the smaller tenants typical of most centers. Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, discussed the neighborhood setting and presented the concerns related to locating this project in the existing neighborhood. Commissioner Tolstoy stated how, in the early days of the City, the Commission was very sensitive to development in the surrounding neighborhood and that is why the area in question wes designated as a mixed use site. He said it was felt that mixed use zoning would allow a better buffer to be planned and provided between the site and the existing subdivision of homes and any newly planned developments adjacent to the site. Andy Feola, Feola, Carli & Archuleta Architects, detailed the thought process behind the proposed architectural and site planning concept. · Mark Bertone, Madole & Associates, explained the technical aspects of the site grading and drainage situation. Commissioner Tolstoy asked how far the building is set back from Rochester Avenue on the new site plan alternative presented at tonight's workshop. Mike Lasley, Lewis Development Corporation, replied that it is now approximately 90 feet back from the Rochester Avenue face of curb. Commissioner Tolstoy questioned the development team about the proposed trail along Rochester Avenue. Mr. Lasley reported that a meandering sidewalk would be used along the entire frontage of Rochester Avenue. Commissioner Melcher asked how wide the ultimate right of way for Rochester Avenue will be and how far the proposed 4-story hotel on the northeast corner of Rochester and Foothill will be located from the existing residences. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, presented a site plan of the hotel indicating it is approximately 125 feet from the closest existing residence. Commissioner Lumpp observed that the proposed location of the Home Depot is approximately 135 feet from the closest residence. He felt that if the building were moved back f~rther from the property line, a traffic circulation problem, similar to that at their-Upland store, would be created. In addition, he expressed concerns that the modified plan includes a lo88 of landscaping against the east elevation of the building and a new vehicular access, which he felt could potentially create additional traffic hazards on site. Finally, he suggested that the best way to lower the profile of the building, as seen from Rochester Avenue, would be to add on elemente at a lower, more pedestrian scale, such as colonnades, overhead trellises, etc. Commissioner McNiel objected tO the new driveway along Rochester Avenue, noting the traffic congestion would increase. He strongly urged the developers to provide intensified landscaping along the east side Of Home Depot and consider further lowering the pad elevation of the building. He asked who would be maintaining the landscaping along the perimeter of Home Depot. Mr. Lasley sta~ed that Lewis Management Corporation will maintain the entire shopping center landscaping. Commissioner Melcher asked for a conceptual design of the abutting residential project to the north in order to get a better idea of how the two uses interrelate (or conflict) with each other. PC Adjourned Minutes - 2 - May 10, 1995 Commissioner Tolstoy asked for clarification as to where the Rochester trail is now proposed. Mr. Lasley described, in detail, the original trail concept and its relationship to the mixed use site and the new concept on the site perimeter acting as an additional buffer between the adjacent land uses. Commissioner Tolstoy noted that with the trail proposed on the project perimeter, an even greater opportunity will exist to provide the type of buffer needed between the two very different land uses. commissioner Melcher requested that the width of the trail feature be similar to the width of Other greenway trails used throughout Tetra Vista. Commissioner Tolstoy commented that perhaps the Terra Vista Community Plan should be amended in order to address the economic changes related to the "big box" tenant market anticipated for the future. Mr. Mullet asked for clarification on the setback issue, whether the Commission felt the originally proposed location, 45 feet back, was preferred to the new 90-foot setback presented to the Commission this evening. No consensus of the Commission occurred at this time; however, the Commission did concur that the trail along Rochester should be upgraded. Mr. Hayes framed the vehicular circulation issue for the Commissioners. Chairman Barker asked for clarification regarding the circulation pattern around the pick-up canopy. Mr. Hoxworth elaborated on the function and circulation around the pick-up canopy, as well as the interior function in the imediate area of the canopy. Frank Coda, Greenberg Farrow Architects, embellished further on the interior function of the area surrounding the pick-up canopy area. Commissioner Melcher observed that truck traffic will be less intrusive if truck traffic is limited to Popla~ Drive, as with the original scheme. commissioner Lumpp noted the traffic problems created near the In-N-Out Burger in the Foothill Marketplace Shopping Center, and he expressed hope that resolutions to the traffic concerns could be addressed better in this situation. Commissioner Tolstoy also noted that better stacking should be provided at key vehicular access points rather than at Foothill Marketplace. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, explained the problems associated with moving the Rochester access point to a location further south along the project frontage. commissioner Lumpp explained why he felt the parking lot layout in front of the Home Depot works because it disperses traffic and does not create well-marked "speedways" in the parking lot. commissioner McNiel expressed his concerns with the layout of the parking area adjacent to the Home Depot, noting that a more pronounced access aisle should be provided to connect the Home Depot parking area with the balance of the site. PC Adjourned Minutes - 3 - May 10, 1995 Co~nissioner Tolstoy noted that most people coming from the north will decide use Rochester Avenue. Mr. Hayes referenced the linear arrangement of the buildings and asked for Commission input on this issue. Mr. Feola talked about the uniqueness of the project and how the promenade element acts as a focal point for the storefronts. He noted that the movement in the storefronts had been increased since the December workshop. Chairman Marker noted his concern that the solid wall Of buildings does not have a penetration (i.e., plaza) and stretches for the same distance as from Target to Ross in the Tetra Vista Town Center. commissioner Melcher asked how wide the pedestrian walkway is under the trellis. Greg Mendoza, Greenberg Farrow Architects, responded that it is planned to be 10 feet. Co~nissioner McNiel recommended that some landscaping be introduced in front of the Home Depot as well. Commissioner Lumpp stressed the importance Of providing logical and clear pedestrian connections to link the entire project. Mr. Feola explained to the Commissioners how the movement in the promenade element is substantial, not just straight as earlier commented. Commissioner Lumpp recommended that the treatment in front of the Home Depot be softshed in some way to be more consistent with the rest of the project and be carried across the front of the garden center area. Me recommended that the architect explore the possibility of moving the Home Depot south to aid in breaking up the linear effect along the storefronts. He again stressed the importance of providing a linear pedestrian connection from the west to east side of the project. Mr. Lasley explained the problems associated with moving the driveways along Orchard Avenue relative to providing a pedestrian connection along the lower-half of the project area. Chairman Barker noted that the project still appears quite linear in two dimensions. commissioner McNiel requested that the applicant identify the pedestrian connections better for major entrances to parking areas. Mike Sweeney, Land Concern, highlighted the attributes of the storefront promenade feature, stressing that the feature extends over the entire storefront area instead of being concentrated in one specific plaza area. Mr. Buller asked the Commission for clarification on the pedestrian circulation system. Chairman Barker asked for input from other Commissioners as to whether the pedestrian circulation as proposed meets the intent and goals of the Tetra Vista community Plan. Commissioner Lumpp felt that it would, with the suggested changes. Mr. Mendoza presented the proposed revisions to the other site planning issues raised in the staff report. Commissioner Melcher felt that more room should be allowed for the proposed drive-thru restaurants for maneuvering, parking, and outdoor eating areas. Commissioner McNiel expressed his concern with placing a service station adjacent to the major project entrance. Commissioner Lumpp stated that it would be his .preference to provide sit-down restaurants and that the service station be provided at the corner of Foothill and orchard. Chairman Barker expressed his concern with the garden shop on the west side of Major One. Mr. Lasley suggested that this issue be deferred and considered with the appropriate phase of development. Mr. Sweeney elaborated on the proposed activity center concept and the differences between a formal versus the proposed informal design. Mr. Buller further framed the issue for the commission, explaining the concept used on the Masi project and how the concepts could be tied together to create some uniformity for all four corners. chairman Barker stated his preference for the original, more. informal concept. Commissioner McNiel stated why he feels the pedestrian activity centers are a good idea. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that the applicant could take advantage of providing different levels of activity at each corner within the activity center. commissioner Melcher clarified that the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan (FBSP) requires consistency among the four corners within an activity center and that anythfng else would be in violation of the spirit of the plan. However, he disagreed with the FBSP requirement in this situation, and felt that the original concept Of the applicant was highly preferred. commissioner Lumpp noted that the historic relevance of the corner and its buildings could be taken into consideration with the design Of the activity center. Comissioner Melcher felt that the formal design could be applied once transitioning away from the corner to bring in the element of consistency with the Masi project and future development on the other corners. Commissioner Lumpp expressed his support for the unique individuality of the center. Mr. Feola stated that a design criteria package would be developed to ensure that the architecture of the pad buildings would be complementary to the line of major tenants. Mr. Lasley ensured the Commission that such guidelines could be enforced. Commissioner Melcher observed that Home Depot does not relate to the rest of the center in terms of architecture. Mr. Lasley explained the architectural differences to the Co~unission and pointed out the elements that tie the Home Depot to the rest of the center. Commissioner Tolstoy requested that something be done to soften the front elevation of Home Depot. Mr. coda embellished on the function in front of the Home Depot and stated that maybe the promenade element could be extended to be in front of the garden center and on the east side of the building. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that the architecture did not have enough detail. Commissioner McNiel agreed with Mr. Coda and thought that carrying the promenade element to be in front of the garden center and nursery would be a good idea. Chairman Barker felt that the elevations adjacent to existing and future residential development should be studied further. Mr. Feola presented the metal roof and its proposed use to the Commission and asked for Comments. Two of the Commissioners did not like its proposed use. Commissioner McNiel noted that he did not object to its use on the surface, but he felt that it would create a precedent for a lack of quality design for the future. Mr. Bullet asked for Commission comments on the central tower element. Chairman Barker did not like the low profile and bulk of the new central element and noted his preference for the original taller, more open and airy tower element. Commissioner Eumpp expressed the need for a significant focal feature (related to the clock tower element). Mr. Bullet recapped the major comments generated from the workshop and recommended that another workshop be held, at which time a better phasing plan for on-site and off-site improvements be prepared. The meeting adjourned 12:05 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Brad Bullet Secretary CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Workshop' May 31, 1995 chairman Barker called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Co~nission to order at 4:30 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains Room at the Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Dave Barker, Heinz Lumpp, Larry McNiel, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: John Melcher STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Steve Hayes, Associate Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Betty Miller, Associate. Engineer APPLICANT/DEVELOPER: Gary Luque, Greg Hoxworth, and Robert McLendon - Lewis Development company; Mike Lasley Private Consultant for Lewis Homes; Miller Archuleta and Greg Mendoza - Feola, Carli & Archuleta Architects; Mark Schenouda and Vasanthi Ramahthan - Greenberg Farrow Architects; Mark Bertone Madole & Associates; Jill Sweeney - Land Concern. OLD BUSINESS C0NDITIONAT. USE PERMIT 95-11 - WESTERN LAND PROPERTIES - The proposed development of an integrated shopping center totaling 491,324 square feet on 47.33 acres of land with proposed phase one development consisting of a 136,953 square foot Home Depot home improvement center in the Mixed Use (Commercial, Offjoe, Residential) District of the Tetra Vista Community Plan, located at the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue - APN: 227-151-18 and 24. Related Files: Tetra Vista Community Plan Amendment 95-01 and General Plan Amendment 95-01B. Brad Buller, City Planner, summarized the issues raised at the May 10, 1995, workshop and the purpose of today's workshop. Robert McLendon, Lewis Development Company, highlighted the revisions to the master site plan. Greg Mendoza, Feola, Carli & Archuleta Architects, explained the specific changes made to the architecture and site plan in response to the previous workshop. The specific issues highlighted were: 1) change in the truck access for Home Depot; 2) moving Staples northward; 3} the new north/south drive aisle west of the Home Depot parking area; 4) the addition of the service station; 5) lining up the handicapped parking with the main storefront entrances; 6) moving the curb cut north on Orchard; and 7) the moving of Major One southto give more curve to the main drive aisle. Commissioner McNiel asked if the setback along the rear property line was the same as the original proposal. Greg Mendoze, Feola, carli & Archuleta Architects, responded that this setback had not changed. Commissioner McNiel inquired as to how many large trucks per day would be dropping off building materials. Mark Schenouda, Greenberg Farrow Architects, stated that five trucks per day could be expected. Mike Lasley, Consultant, highlighted where the screen wall is pulled back from the street and extended in distance on the new site plan. He noted that the screen wall will give an appearance of being approximately 10 feet high from the perimeter streets. Commissioner Lumpp questioned if the screen wall would be long enough. Commissioner McNiel asked if Poplar Avenue would be signalized. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, replied that Rochester and Poplar Avenues will not be signalized. Co~Taiseioner Lumpp requested an explanation for the theory of screening the off- loading area from Poplar Avenue. Jill Sweeney, Land Concern, explained how the proposed hierarchy of trees and shrubs would screen this area. Mr. Bullet pointed out to the Commission that there may be a concern with the screening of the off-loading area west of the transformer. He felt that additional cross-sections should be provided to depict the proposed screening in this area. Mr. Lasley noted that a screen wall could be added on top of the proposed retaining wall and that additional landscaping could be used to provide better screening. chairman Barker was concerned with the potential impact of the rear of the buildings on the future residential projects north of the commercial site. Commissioner McNiel agreed with Chairman Barker and added that the rear elevations should still be upgraded, as well as the landscape concept. Chairman Barker reiterated that he is especially sensitive to this concern in this area given the close proximity of the residential areas. Mr. Lasley noted that the screen wall will be 2 feet higher than the loading doors on the north side Of the building. Co~nissioner McNiel added that the east elevation still may need some additional architectural enhancements. Ms. Sweeney explained the changes made since the first workshop on the Rochester trail system. PC Adjourned Minutes May 31, 1995 Mr. Mendoza presented the changes made to the front of the Home Depot inc~udlng a change in the coluunns to match the rest of the center, =he addition of a wood trellis, and the upgraded design of the lumber pick-up area structure that matches the rest of the center. Mr. Buller asked how close the pop-out on the building comes to the curb. Mr. Mendoza responded 12 to 13 feet and highlighted for the commission how the pedestrian walkway would work in this area. Chairman Barker asked the architect to look into modifying the pop-out on the front elevation to be less obtrusive to the pedestrian walkway system. Mr. Mendoza highlighted the modifications made to the pick-up canopy area. Chairman Barker reiterated his earlier concern of how, even with the changes made to the circulation around the pick-up canopy, motorists will disperse in the parking lot directly south of the Home Depot. Commissioner Lumpp liked the parking lot layout in this area and how it forces people to scatter as opposed to denoting drive aisles Of major vehicular activity. He expressed the need for the applicant to hold a neighborhood maeting soon in case the neighborhood has different ideas about the project. He felt that the cornices were designed too close together, but that the building should not be raised as a potential solution. Chairman Barker expressed his dislike for the striping in front Of the Home Depot and recommended that special paving be used as a potential solution to denote the loading area. Commissioner McNiel felt that a traffic control system should be devised to help internal circulation flow better. commissioner Tolstoy asked if any flat cart storage is planned to be provided in the Home Depot parking area. This issue was discussed and it was determined that this may not be a good idea given the Home Depot's employee policy on cart returns and that human nature does not lend itself toward using the return areas. Commissioner Lumpp suggested that one large area for cart returns may be the best alternative. commissioner McNlel referenced the situation at Target where the cart storage is concealed by architectural additions to the building. Commissioner Eumpp indicated his support now to be able to provide a better pedestrian connection between Home Depot and Staples. Mr. Bullet asked the applicant to provide a plan that shows how the plaza area in front of Home Depot and Staples works. Mr. Easley talked about the proposed sign program and specifically the signage size for Home Depot. PC Adjourned Minutes -3- C~/ May 31, 1995 Commissioner McNiel recommended that the sign size be reduced and that several alternatives be provided so that the sign. is in proper proportion with the building facade. Two sign alternatives were presented to the Commission, one with 60-inch internally illuminated orange letters and the other with 72-inch letters. commissioner McNiel asked the architect to make sure that the pick-up canopy treatment used on the exterior side of the element is carried around to the undersides of the element as well. He also felt that the pop-out area on the front side of the Home Depot was an afterthought and that it should be eliminated or moved to a location that does not interfere with pedestrian circulation. He expressed his concerns with the length of the flat parapet and the minimal depth of the entry element. Be noted that some columns should be used at logical termination points to enhance the appearance Of the building. Chairman Barker asked for an explanation of the service station area. Mr. Mendoza explained the internal circulation patterns and the functions of the service station. Chairman Barker felt something should be done to provide better balance and symmetry at the main entrance. Mr. Lasley suggested that Pad E could be rotated to be on an angle to match the service station building and harmonize the theme through landscaping. Mr. Buller mentioned that the spacing and patterning of the Crape Myrtle trees could be tightened up on the project site and pavement patterns similar to those used across Foothill Boulevard could be used to integrate the activity center better with the Masi project on the opposite side Of Foothill Boulevard. He noted that the special paving treatment should be extended to the first project driveway to match the Masi project. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned 6:45'p.m. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Secretary RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 95-11 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN INTEGRATED SHOPPING CENTER TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 495,736 SQUARE FEET ON 47.33 ACRES OF LAND WITH PROPOSED PHASE ONE CONSISTING OF A 132,065 SQUARE FOOT HOME DEPOT HOME IMPROVEMENT CENTER IN THE MIXED USE (OFFICE, COMMERCIAL, RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT OF THE TERRA VISTA COMMUNITY PLAN, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND ROCHESTER AVENUE AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 227-151-18 AND 24. A Recitals. 1. Lewis Development Company has filed an application for the issuance of Conditional Use Permit No. 95-11, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereina~er in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application." 2. On September 13, and continued to September 27, 1995, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on the latter date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on September 13, and September27, 1995, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located at the northwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue with a Foothill Boulevard frontage of 2,080 feet and a maximum lot depth of 1,190 feet and is presently unimproved; and b. The property to the north of the subject site is vacant, the property to the south consists of primarily vacant land and an existing building most recently used as a church, the property to the east is single family residential and vacant, and the property to the west is vacant; and c. The property is cun'ently zoned MOC (Mixed Use-Office, Commercial, Residential) and related amendments to the Tetra Vista Community Plan and General Plan have been filed to change the zoning of the shopping center site to CC (Community Commercial); and d. The application contemplates the development of a commercial/retail shopping center with Phase One development consisting specifically of a Home Depot home improvement center with required on and off-site improvements; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO CUP 95-11 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO. September 27, 1995 Page 2 e. The application contemplates the development of a pedestrian activity center at the comer of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue with Phase One development, consistent with the requirements of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed use is in accordance with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the distdct in which the site is located. b. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injudous to properties or improvements in the vicinity. c. The proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and recommends adoption of a Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows: a. The Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder; that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the application. b. Based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of RegulationS, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission during the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby recommends approval of the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Planning Division 1) Approval of Conditional Use Permit 95-11 is granted subject to the approval of General Plan Amendment 95-01B and Tetra Vista Community Plan Amendment 95-01. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO ' CUP 95-11 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO. September 27, 1995 Page 3 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) All back sides of the enlarged storefront entrance features for all tenants and buildings shall be treated architecturally identical to the exposed front sides, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Additional endched pavement shall be provided across vehicular drive aisles at key pedestrian crossing locations subject to review and approval of the City Planner prior to the issuanceof building permits. Enlarged landscape planter areas, per the conceptual landscape plan (approximately the size of two parking stalls), shall be provided in the parking areas throughout the project, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Berming, low walls, dense hedgerows of evergreen shrubs, or any combination thereof. shall be provided to sufficiently screen all parking areas from public view of perimeter streets, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. The detailed landscape/irrigation plans shall be in compliance with this requirement. There shall be provisions for the following design features in the trash enclosures to the satisfactionof the City Planner. (The exact location for the trash enclosures shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits): a) Architecturally integrated into the design of this project; b) Separate pedestrian access that does not require opening the main doors; c) Large enough to accommodate two trash bins; d) Trash bins with counter weighted lids; e) Architecturally treated overhead shade trellis; and f) Chain link screen on top to prevent trash from blowing out of the enclosure. The screen shall be designed to be hidden from view. The satellite dish shown on the roof of the Home Depot on the conceptual plans shall be completely screened from view by the roof parapet system, to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. Approval is for Phase One development only. as shown on the proposed Phasing Plan. The remainder of the Master Plan is shown in concept only. A modified Conditional Use Permit application shall be submitted for review and approval for any modifications to the conceptually approved Master Plan. A Uniform Sign Program for the shopping center, including provisions for major tenants, other in-line tenants and pad buildings, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission pdor to the issuance of building permits. The standards shall be designed PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO · CUP 95-11 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO. September 27, 1995 Page 4 11) to be compatible with the architectural style of the shopping center. The size of the sign copy shall be visually balanced and proportionate to the buildings and the architectural style. Graffiti shall be removed within 72 hours. A uniform hardscape and street furniture treatment, including trash receptacles, freestanding potted plants, bike racks, light bollards, benches, etc., shall be utilized for the shopping center and shall be designed to be compatible with the architectural style. Detailed designs shall be included in an expanded Design Guidelines Supplement, which shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee prior to the issuance of building permits. 12) The following trees shall be at least 36-inch box size: 13) 14) 19) a) Trees framing the main focal point· b) Entry access trees framing the main drive aisles throughout the project. c) On-site Activity Center trees at the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue. All future building pads shall be seeded and irrigated for erosion control. Detailed plans shall be included within the landscape and irrigation plans which shall be submitted for Planning Division review and approval pdor to the issuance of building permits. All future projects within the shopping center shall be designed to be compatible and consistent with the architectural pr?gram established. Any outdoor vending machines shall be recessed into the building faces and shall not extend out into the pedestrian walkways. The design details shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits. The entire site shall be kept free of trash and debris at all times, and in no event shall trash and debds remain on the site for more than 24 hours. The applicant shall resolve any Building Code compliance difficulties (with construction of canopies, property lines in relation to walls and other openings, and roof tile installation to withstand severe winds) with the Building and Safety Division prior to the issuance of building permits. Stacking of materials shall not exceed the height of the screen walls for the Home Depot and Major One Garden Centers. A security patrol plan for the shopping center shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval, PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO · CUP 95-11 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO. September 27, 1995 Page 5 20) 21) 22) 23) 24) 25) 26) 27) 28) A Bus Shelter on Foothill Boulevard shall be installed with the Phase One improvements. The final design and location shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of any building permits for the center. Any phasing plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of building permits. No permanent outdoor storage of shopping carts shall be permitted, unless othenNise approved by the Planning Commission. Provision for bicycle storage facilities shall be installed on the property in accordance with current City regulations· Security racks shall be provided for each storage space and shall be located near the main building entrances in highly visible areas to minimize theft and vandalism. An aisle or other space shall be provided for bicycles to enter and leave the storage spaces with a minimum width of 5 feet to the front or the rear of a standard 6-foot bicycle parked in the space. No restaurant use (other than the two proposed fast food pads) are proposed forthe center. If over 15 percent of the gross leasable area is occupied by food service uses, one additional parking space per 100 square feet of gross leasable floor area used for food service shall be provided. Likewise, if a cinema or offices are proposed, then additional parking may be required. Trash collection shall occur between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. only. The business shall be conducted to comply with the following standards: a) Noise Levels: All commercial activities shall not create any noise that would exceed an exterior noise level of 60 dBA during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. and 65 dBA dudng the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. b) Loading and Unloading: No person shall cause the loading, unloading, opening, closing, or other handling of boxes, crates, containers, building materials, garbage cans. or similar objects between the hours of 10:00 p,m, to 7:00 a.m., unless otherwise specified herein, in a manner which would cause a noise disturbance to a residential area. Truck loading and Unloading zones shall be properly marked to the satisfaction of the City Planner. The final design of the intersection at the terminus to the Rochester Avenue ddveway shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prfor to approval of the final site plan and issuance of any permits for construction. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO CUP 95-11 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO. September 27, 1995 Page 6 29) 3o) 31) 32) 33) 34) 35) 36) 37) 38) 39) The final design of the screen walls, landscaping, and sidewalk along the south side of Poplar Drive shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and City Engineer pdor to the issuance of a rough grading permit. Additional parking shall be provided on the Phase One site plan in order to meet the minimum parking requirements for the development of the Phase One tenant. The revised site plan indicating the minimum parking requirements shall be submitted for review and approval of the City Planner prior to the issuance of any permits for construction. The pedestrian Activity Center shall be continued for a distance West along the Foothill Boulevard frontage, consistent with the project on the south side of Foothill Boulevard, as determined by the City Planner. The extedor treatment used on the pick-up canopy and facades of the Home Depot shall be carried around to the back and undersides of these elements, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. The final design of the focal point and roofing materials for the promenade shall be considered by the Design Review Committee pdor to the issuance of building permits for any buildings in the line of major tenants, as shown on the conceptual Master Plan. The final design of the customer pick-up lane in front of the Home Depot shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits. The final design of the enhanced storefronts for the major tenants shall be considered by the Design Review Committee pdor to the issuance of b~Jilding permits for any buildings in the line of major tenants, as shown on the conceptual Master Plan. The final design of the sidewalk connections from the Foothill Boulevard sidewalk to the pad buildings shall be reviewed by the Design Review Committee as part of each Design Review application for development of the pad buildings. In addition to the required screening of the roof-mounted mechanical equipment by the parapet walls, all roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall be painted to match the building and parapet walls, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Outdoor displays of merchandise for the Home Depot shall be limited to the area under the roof canopy on the front (south) elevation and as to not block or hinder pedestrian or vehicular circulation in front of the Home Depot. Two works of art shall be placed; one at the activity center at the corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue, and one at the terminus of the main driveway from Foothill Boulevard in front of the west side of Major 6. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO · CUP 95-11 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO. September 27 1995 Page 7 40) The art piece at the activity center shall be installed with the completion of Phase One improvement· The art piece at the terminus of the main driveway from Foothill Boulevard in front of the west side of Major 6 shall be installed prior to occupancy of Building 6. 41 ) The property owner and/or trustee shall be responsible to maintain the two art works focal elements for the life of this commercial center. 42) The property owner and/or the tenant shall be responsible to ensure all shopping carts are collected and stored at the approved designated place at the end of the work day. 43) Public telephones shall be placed inside the building. Placement of outside public telephones may be allowed and shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to installation. 44) Placement of newspaper racks and other street furniture, etc. may be allowed subject to City Planner review and approval pdor to installation. 45) A portion of the Activity Center shall be completed with Phase One development. The final design of the Activity Center and the phasing of improvements shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval pdor to issuance of building permit for Phase One. 46) The design of the Activity Center, the two art pieces, the pedestrian furniture, and focal elements such as a water feature, shall incorporate features that exhibit the heritage of the historic citrus industry in the City. This coordinated vocabulary of design features shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permit for Phase One. Engineering Division 1) Foothill Boulevard shall be constructed as follows, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, subject to modification by and approval of Caltrans, with Phase One development: a) Full improvements on the north side from Rochester Avenue to Orchard Avenue, including right-turn lanes for Orchard Avenue and all project driveways and a bus bay at the northwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue. b) c) d) A landscaped median between Rochester Avenue and Orchard Avenue with left-turn pocket lengths to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Thirty-two feet of pavement on the south side of the median, transitioning to existing pavement west of the Orchard Avenue median break. Remove, or abandon in place with a slum/fill, the 18-inch corrugated metal pipe which crosses Foothill Boulevard. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO . CUP 95-11 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO. September 27, 1995 Page 8 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) e) The developer may request a reimbursement agreement for permanent improvements south of the centedine, including half of the landscaped median costs, from future development as it occurs on the south side of the street. If the developer fails to submit for said reimbursement agreement within 6 months of the ' public improvements being accepted by the City, all fights of the developer to reimbursement shall terminate. Construct the main shopping center entry off Foothill Boulevard with Phase One development. A street type ddveway shall align with and mirror the width of the future Masi Ddve, as currently designed. Install a traffic signal, which shall be operational prior to the release of occupancy. The developer may request a reimbursement agreement for one-half the cost of the signal from future development as it occurs on the south side of Foothill Boulevard. If the developer fails to submit for said reimbursement agreement within 6 months of the public improvements being accepted by the City, all fights of the developer to reimbursement shall terminate. Should the Foothill Boulevard improvements and signal referenced in Conditions 1 and 2 above be installed by development to the south, this development shall reimburse its share of those improvements. Install Rochester Avenue improvements with Phase One development. Provide a pavement transition on the west side of Rochester Avenue north of Poplar Ddve to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The bus bay indicated on the Site Plan shall not be constructed. Obstructions such as walls and landscaping shall be located such that lines of sight between trucks in the angled service exit onto Rochester Avenue south of Poplar Ddve and Rochester Parkway trail users are maintained, to the satisfaction of the City Planner and City Engineer. Modify the existing traffic signal at the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue as needed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer with Phase One development. Install Poplar Drive, full width except for parkway improvements on the north side, from Rochester Avenue to the north property line for Parcel 1, with Phase One development. Construction traffic for Phase One shall take access to the site from streets other than Rochester Avenue; otherwise, the Rochester Avenue frontage improvements shall be installed prior to the issuance of permits. Install a traffic signal at Rochester Avenue and Chervil Street with Phase Two development, or earlier if warranted. Install Orchard Avenue, full width except for off-site parkway improvements, from Foothill Boulevard to Church Street, with Phase Two development. Install traffic signals at the intersections of Foothill Boulevard with Orchard Avenue and Milliken Avenue with Church Street. The developer shall receive credit against, and reimbursement PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO CUP 95-11 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO. September 27, 1995 Page 9 12) 13) 14) 2o) of costs in excess of, the Transportation Development Fee for both signals, in conformance with City policy. If the developer fails to submit for said reimbursement agreement within six months of the public improvements being accepted by the City, all rights of the developer to reimbursement shall terminate. Extend the master plan storm drain in Foothill Boulevard from Rochester Avenue to west of Orchard Avenue and install a local storm drain in Orchard Avenue as required by the City Engineer, Exlend the master plan storm drain in Rochester Avenue from Foothill Boulevard to north of Poplar Ddve and install a local storm drain in Poplar Drive as required by the City Engineer. Structures within the storm drain easement north of the Foothill Boulevard right-of-way, like the bus shelter and monument signs, shall be designed such that concentrated loads are not placed on the storm drain. "No Parking/Stopping" signs shall be posted on all public street frontages. The minimum commercial drive approach width is 35 feet at the right- of-way (except as approved by Caltrans along Foothill Boulevard) and the maximum approach radius is 20 feet. Transitions to lesser widths on-site should be smooth and easily driveable, especially for truck service drives. A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated cost of operating all street lights during the first six months of operation, pdor to building permit issuance or approval of the Final Parcel Map, whichever occurs first. An in-lieu fee for one-fourth the cost of constructing special pavers within the Foothill Boulevard/Rochester Avenue intersection shall be paid to the City pdor to the issuance of building permits for Phase One. The fee amount shall be based on the square footage of the intersection. Development shall comply with the Tetra Vista Park Implementation Plan. Park, Nay landscaping along the Rochester Avenue frontage, and trail amenities required by the Terra Vista Community Plan Amendment, shall be compatible with the landscaping theme developed on the east side of Rochester Avenue, to the satisfaction of the City Planner and City Engineer. An in-lieu fee as contribution to the future undergrounding of the existing overhead utilities (telecommunications and electrical, except for the 66 kV electrical) on the opposite side of Rochester Avenue shall be paid to the City prior to the issuance of building permits. The fee shall be one-half the City adopted unit amount times the length from the center of Foothill Boulevard to the center of Poplar Street. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO ' CUP 95-11 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO. September 27, 1995 Page 10 Upon completion of the installation of utility facilities, the developer may submit a request for a refund of any portion of said in-lieu fee for work performed which may be attributed to the ultimate undergrounding of existing overhead facilities on the east side of Rochester Avenue. The amount of refund shall be reviewed and determined by the City Engineer. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 1995. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby cedify 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 27th day of September 1995, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: FlBfl&rlgl COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT .- DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS Those items checked are Conditions Of Approval. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DNISION, (909) 989-1861, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. TIme LImits 1. Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, it building permits are not issued or approved use has not COmmenced within 24 months from the date of approval. 2. Development/Design Review shaft be approved prior to / / . 3. Approval of Tentative Tract No. is granted subject to the al~oroval of C, on,,~ledon Dab= / / __J / ._J / sc- 1o/94 4. The deveiopershall COmrnence, paffictpate in, and COnsummate orcause to be COmmenoed, participated in, or COnsummated, a Mello-Roos Community Facilities DistriCt (CFD) for the Ranche Cucamonga Fire Protection DistriCt to finance COnstn,,ctfon and/or maintenance of a fire station to serve the development. The station shall be located, designed, and built to all specitications of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and shall become the Districts propedy upon COmpletion. The equipment shall be selected by the District in accordance with Its needs. In any building of a Station, the developer shall COmply with all applicable laws and regulation~ The CFD shag be formed by the District and the developer by the lime recordation of the final map occurs. Prior to recOrdation of the final map or the issuance of building permits, whichever COmes first, the applicant shall COnsent to, or participate in, the establishment of a Melio~Roos CommunIty Facilities DistriCj for the COnstruction and maintenance of naceasary school facilIties. However, ff any school district has previously established such a Community FacilIties District, the applicant shaU, in the alternative, COnsent to the annexation of the project site into the territory of such existing District priorto the recordation of the final map or the issuance of building parmils. whichever COmas first. Further, it the affected school district has not formed a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District within twelve months from the date of app~val of the project aild pek:x Io the mcordllk:m of the final map or issuance of building permits for said project, this COndition shall be deemed null and void. 1 __/ / / / This condition shall be waived if the City receives notice that the applicant and all affected .schooldistrictshaveenteredintoanagreementtoprivatelyaccommodateanyanda schoo ~mpacts as a remit of this project. 6. Prbr to recordation of the final map or prior to issuance of building permits when no map is J / involved, written certification from the affected water district that adequate sewer and water facilities am or will be available to serve the proposed project shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development. Such letter must have been issued by the water district wit hin 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to issuance of pan'nits in the case of all other residential projects. B. Site Development V/' 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the al:~roved plans which ~ / include site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping. sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, Development Code regulations, and Specific Plan and /<,-,-= , Planned Community. 2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being cemmanced thereon, all __/ / Conditions of Approval shell be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. __j I 3. OccupancYofthefadlityshallnotcommanceuntitsuchtimaasallUnitormBuildingCodeand Stale Fire Marshell's regulations have been complied with. Prior lo occupancy, plans shall be submittad to the Ranoho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Division to show compliance. The building shall be inspected for cornpllance prior to 4. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be __J / submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. __/ / All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shell be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.). or Im'ior 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 Plans or Specific Plans in effect at the time of Building Peffnit issuance. 7. A detailed on-site lighting ~ shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and / / SherifFs Department (989-6611) prior to the issuance of building permits. Such plan shall indicate sfy~e, illumination, localion, height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely 8. ff no centralized trash receptacles are provided, all trash pick-up shell be for individual units .__/ / with all receptacles shielded from public view. sc- 10194 9. Trash recefXacle(s) are required and shall meet City standards. The final design, locations, J / and the number of trash recelXades shall be subject to City Planner review and al:q~roval 10. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be located out of public view and adequately scmeeed thcough the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, betruing, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 2 ,/ Completion Date: 11. Street names shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval in accordance with ._j / the adopted Street Naming Policy prior to approval of the final map. 12. All building ~umberS and individual units shell be identified in a clear and concise manner, .__/ / including proper illuminailon. 13. A detailed plan indicating trail widths, maximum slopes, physical conditions, fencing, and weed control, in accordance with City Master Trail drawings, shall be submitted for City Rann er review and approval prio rto approval and recordation of the Final Tract Map and prlor to approval of street improvement and grading plans. Developer shall upgrade and construct all trails, including fencing and drainage devices, in conjunction with street improvements. 14. Th? Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shell net prohibit the keeping of equine an~ mals where zoning requirements for the keeping of said animals have been met. Individual lot owners in subdivisions shall have the option ol keeping said animals without the necessity of appealing to beards of directors or homeowners' assoclatlorts for amendments to the CC&Rs. __J / __J / 15. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Articles of Incorporation of the .__/ / Homeowners' Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering Divisions and the City Attorney. They shell be recorded concurrently with the Final Map or prior to the issuance of building permits, whichever ocojrs first. A recorded Copy shell be provided to the City Engineer. 16. Allparkways, openareas, andlandscapingshell pepermanentlyrnaintalned bytheproperty J / owner, homeowners' association, or other moans acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shell be submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 17. Solar access easemonts shell be dedicated for the purpose of assuming that each lot or dwelling unit shall heve the right Io receive sunlight across adjacent lots or units for use of a solar energy system. The easemonts may be contained in a Declaration of Restrictions for !he subclivislon which shell be recorded concurrently with the recordation of the final map or ~ssuance of permits, whichever Comos first. The easemonts shall prohibit the casting of shadows by vegetation, structures, fixtures or any other object, except for utility wires and similar objects, pursuant to Development Code Section 17.08.060-G-2. 18. The project Contains a designated Historical Landmork. The site shell be developed and maintained in accordance with the Historic Landmark Alteration Permit No. · Any further modifications to the site including, but net limited to, exte~or alterations and/or interior alterations which affect the exteriorof the buildings or structures, re moval of landmark trees, demolition, relocafion, reconatnjction of buildings or stNcturas, or chenges to the site, shell require a modification to the Historic Landmark Aiteraticn Permit subject to Historic Preservation Commission review and approval. C. Bulldl6g Design 1. An alternative energy system is required to provide domostic hot water for all dwelling units and for heating any swimming pool or spa, uniese other aitemative energy systems are demonstrated to be of equivalent capacity and efficiency. All swimming pools installed at the timo of initial development shall be suP0lamonted with solar heating. Details shell be included in the building plans and shell be submitted for City Rannar review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. All dwellings shat have Ihe front skle and rear elevations upgraded with amhiteofufal treatmont, detailing and increased delineation of surface treatmont subject to City Planner review and approval pdor to issuance of building permits. sc- ~0/94 /.__/ _._/ / ___/ / / / ,/ 3. Standard patio cover plans for use by the Homeowners' Association shall be submitted for City Planner and Building Official review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 4. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffe red from adjacent pmpedies and streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Details shall be included in building plans. D. Parking and Vehicular Access (Indlcafe detalla on building plane) v/ 1. 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 cur'o). 1/3. Textured pedestrian pathways and textured pavement across circulation aisles shall be provided throughout the development to connect dwe Ilings/units/buiidings with open spaces/ plazas/racreatlonal uses. All parking spaces shall be double striped par City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances, and exits shall be striped par City standards. 4. All units shall be provided with garage door openers if driveways am loss than 18 feet in depth from back of sidewalk. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall restrict the storage of recreational vehicles on this site unless they are the principal source of transportation for the owner and pmhioit parking on interior circulation aisles other than in designated visitor parking areas. Plane for any security gates shall be submitted for the City Planner, City Engineer, and Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District review and approval priori issuance of building permits. E. Landscaping (for publlcty maintained landscape areas, refer to Section N.) 1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscap- ing in the case of 'residential development, shell be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for City Ranher review and approval priorto the ~_~_~ance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. Existing trees required to be presented in place shall be protected with a construction barrier inaccordancewiththeMunlcipalCodeSection19.08.110, andsoootedonthegredingplans. The location of those trees to be presented in place and new locations for transplanted trees shall be shown on the detailed landscape plans. The applicant shall follow all of the arborisrs recommendatlone regarding presentation, transplanting and tdmming methods. A minimum of trees pergross acre, compr~"did of the following sizes, shall be provided within the project: % - 48- inch box or larger, % - 36- inch box or larger, __ % - 24- inch box or larger, __ % - 15-gallon, and __ % - 5 gallon..- A minimum of % of trees planted within the project shall be specimen size trees - 24-inch box or larger. Within parking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-gallon tree for every three parking stalls, sufficient to shade 50% of the parking area at solar noon on August 21. Pecto~_J ;. Coml~e~e,r$ Date: .~/ / .~/ / J / _..J / J / .__/ / / / / / _.J / ___/ / / / / / sc- i0/94 Pmiec~ No.: ~,/6. Treesshallbeplantedinareasofpublicviewadjacenttoandalongstructuresatarateofone Comflcd.~.~Dat~: tree pet 30 linear feet of b~ilding. ---J / 7. AIIprivatesinpebanks5feetoriessinverticalheightandof5:l orgreaterslope, but less than __/ / 2:1 slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for erosion control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. ~'~'8. Allprivateslopesinexcessof5feet, butlessthan8feet invedicalheightandof2:lorgreater ---/ / slope shall be landscaped and iffigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, 1 -gallon or larger size shrub par each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. in addition, slope benks in excess of 8 feet in veflical height and of 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one 5-gallon or larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and van/slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to 9. For single family residential development, all slope planling and irrigation shall be continu- /.__/ ously maintained in a beaithy and thdving condition by the developer until each individual unit is sold and occupied by the buyer. Priorto releasing occupancy for those units, an inspection shall be conducted by the Ranning Division to determine that they am in satisfactory condition. ~/' 10. For multi-family residential and non-residential development, property owners are raspon- __-/ / sible for the continual maintenance of all landscaped areas on-site, as well as contiguous planted areas within the bubllo right-of-way. All landscaped areas shall be kept free from weeds and debris and maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing, and trimming. Any damaged, deed, diseased, or decaying plant matehal shall be replaced within 30 days from the date of damage. 11. Front yard landscaping shall be required per the Development Code and/or __/ / · This requirement shall be in addition to the required street trees and slope planting. ~//12. The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls. landscaping, and sidewalks shall be /.__/ included in the required landscape plans and shall he subject to City Planner review and approval andcoon:linatedforconsistencywithanypadoway landscapingplanwhichmaybe required by the Engineering Division. 13. Special landscape features such as rnounding, alluvial rock, specimen size trees, meander- ----/ / ing is ,eq. i.ed along ~/14. Landscapingandintgmlonsystemsrequkedtobetnstallodwlthinthapubllo dght-of-wayon J / the perimeter of this project area shell be continuously maintained by the developer. V/ 15.Aitwa~~ssha~~bepr~vid~dwlthde~~rativetreatmant.~lo~atedinpub~lomaintenanceamas' __J / the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division. ~/16. Tree maintenance criteria shall be developed and submitted for City Planner review and / / approval prior to issuance of building permits. These criteria shall encourage the natural growth characteristics of the selected tree species. *// 17. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of J / Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. sc- 1o/94 5 F. SIgnS /'/1. Thesignsindicatedonthesubmittedplansareconceptualonlyandnotapartofthisapproval. .__/ / Any. signs proposed for thi~ development shall comply with the Sign Ordinance and shall require separate application and approval by the Planning Division prior to installation of any signs. v/ 2. AUn/formSign ProgramforthisdevelopmentshallbesubmiltedforCityplanner reviewand ._../ / approval prior to issuance of building permits. 3. Directory monument sign(s) shall be provided for apartment. coedominium, or townhomes .J / prior to occupancy and shall require separate application and approval by the Ranning Division prior to issuance of building permits. G. Environmental The develober shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Fourth Street Rock Crusher project in a standard fom~qt as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any proparty. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the City Adopted Special Studies Zone for the Red Hill Fault, in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Foothill Freeway project in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. Com~lcdon Dat~: ____/ / / / / / 4..Afinalac~ustica~reportsha~~besubmittedf~rCityPlannerreviewanc~~ppr~va~pr~~rt~the / / issuance of building parrnits. The finst report shall discuss the level Of interior noise attenuationtobelow45CNEL, thebuildingmatedalsand constructiontechniquesprovided, and ff appropriate, verify the adequacy of the mitigation measures. The building plans will be checked for conforrnance with the mitigation measures contained in the finel report. H. Other Agencle~ 1. EmergencYsscondary-ac~-'~--ssshallbeprovidedinaccordancewithRanchoCucamongaFire ._./ / Protection District Standards. -v//2. EmergencYaccessshallbepcovldad, maintenancefrasandclaar, a minimumof26fastwide / / at all times during construction in accordance with Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District requirements. Prior to issuance of building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District that temporary water supply for fire prolection is available, pending cornptelion of required fire protection system. The apt:icanl shag contact the U. S. Postal Service to determine the al~rol)date type and location of mail boxes. Multi-family residential deveio~nts shall provide a solid overhead structure for mail boxas with adequate lighting. The final location of the mail boxes and the design of the overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the '_,ssjjance of building permits. /__J I / sc- to/~4 For projects using septic tank facilities, written certification Of acceptability, including all supportive information, shall he obtained from the San Bemardine County Department of Environmental Health and submitted to the Building Official prior to the issuance of Septic Tank Permits, and prior to issuance of building permits. 6 / / APPLICANTS SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 989-1863, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: I. SIte Development ',/' 1. The applicant shall cornply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechani- cat Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, anti all other applicable codes, ordinances, anti regulations in effect at the time of issuance of relative permits. Please Contact the Building anti Safety Division for Copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance anti applicable handouts. V/ 3. 4. Prior to issuance of 1oeilding permits for a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition to existing unit(s), the applicant shall pay developmentfees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but am not limited to: City Beautification Fee. Park Fee. Drainage Fee, Systems Development Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees. anti SChool Fees. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new Cornmerclal or industrial development or addition to an existing development, the applicant shall pay doveiopment tees at the established rate. Such tees may include, but are cot limited to: Systems Development Fee, Drainage Fee. SChool Fees, Permit anti Plan Cheddng Fees. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation and prior to issuance of building permits. J. Existing Structure~ 1. Provide Compliance with the Uniform Building Code for the property line clearances cortsidedng use, area, anti fire-resistivecoss of existing buildings. 2. Existing buildings shall be made to Comply with correct building and zoning regulations for the intended use or the building shall be bemelished. 3. Existingsewagedisp~sa~faci~itlassha~~berem~ved~fi~~edand/~rCapp~dt~c~mp~ywiththe Uniform Plumbing Code and Uniform Building Code. 4. Underground on-~e utilities are to be located and shown on building plans submitted for K. Grading ~/1. ~/2. Grading of the sub~ ~ shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code. City Grading Standards, and soceptad grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial oonformance with the approved grading plan. A soils relxm shall be pmparad by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of Calitomia to oedorm suoh work. The development is located within the soil erosion control boundaries; a SOil Disturbance Permit is required. Please contact San Bemardico County Depadment of Agriculture at (714) 387-2111 for permit application. Documentation of such permit shall be submittad to the City sc- 10194 A geological report sham be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of application for grading plan check. The final grading plans shall be completed and approvad prior to issuance of building permits. 7 __J / __/ / /__/ _,J / __/ / J / __../ / __/ / / / ,_/ / .~/ / _,J / 6. AS a custom-lot Subdivision, the following requirements shall be met: a. Surety sttal be posted and an agreement executed guarameeincj completion of all on-site drainage facilities necessary for dewatednq3 all parcels to the satisfaction of the Building and Safety Division prforto fi naf map approval and prior to the issuance of grading permRs. b. Appropriate easements for safe disposal of drainage water that am conducted onto or over adjacent parcels, am to be delineated and recorded to the satisfaction of the Building and Safety Division prior to issuance of grading and building permits. c. On-site drainage improvements, necessary for dewatedng and protecting the subdivided properlies, are to be installed prior to issuance of building permits for construction upon any parcel that may be SUbject to drainage fk:wvs entering, leaving, or within a parcel relative to which a building permit is requested. d. Final grading plane for each parcel are to be SUbmitted to the Building and Safety Division for approval prior to issuance of building and grading parrnits. (This may be on an incremental or compo~e basis.) e. All siopa banks in excess of 5 feet in vedicaf height shall be seeded with native grasses or planted with ground cover for erosion control upon completion of grading or some other aftemmive method of erosion control shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Building Official. In addition a permanent irrigation system shall be Ixovided. This requirement does not release the applicant/developer from compliance with the slope planting requirements of Section 17.08.040 1 of Ihe Development Code. __./.__/ __/ / __/ / .__/ / APPUCANT SHALL CONTACTTHE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 98~1862, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: L Decllcmlon aM vehlcub, r ~ 1. Righht-04-way and easements shal be dediCmed tO the City for all intetk~r public streets, community trails, public paseo8, public landm areas, street trees, and public drainage facilities as shown on the plans and/or tentalive map. ladvale easements for non-publio facilities (cross-lot dmjnage, local feecler trafl, stc,) shai be reserved as shown on the plans and/or tentative map, 2. Oedlcalion shall be made 04 lhe folfowin~ rigits-of-way on the perimeter si~eels (measured from slreel centerline): /,_J __./ / t,if.,o. P et,,v' 'htiw_ 3. An inevocabie Offer 04 dedicalicm for -foot wide roadway easement shall be made for all prlvale streets er dr'we. / 4. Non-vehicular access shal be dedicated to Ihe City for the following streets: / / Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be provided and shall be delineated or noted on the final map. _,J / 7. Thefirml mapshallolearh/dalineatea 10-foot minirnumbuilding mstriction areaon the neighbedng lot adjoining the zero lot line wall and contain the following language: "l/We hereby dedicate to the City of Rancho Cucamonga the fight to prohibit the construction of (residential) buildings (or other structures) within those areas designated on the map as building restriction areas. · __J / v/ A maintenance agreemere shall also be granted from each lot to the adjacent lot through the CC&R'S. 8. Allexistingeasements~yingwithinfuturer~gnts~~~~wayshst~bequitc~aimed~rde~ineated~n the final map. 9. Easements for public sidewalks and/or street trees placed outside the public dgnt-of-way shell be dedicated to the City wherever they encroach onto private property. .J~._l 0. Additional street right-of-way shall be dedicated along right turn lanes, to provide a minimum of 7 feel measured from the face of cures. ff curo adjacent sidewalk is used along the right turn lane, a parallel street tree maintenance easement shall be provided. 11. The developer shell make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site probere/interests necessary to constnjcl the required public improvements, and if he/she should fail to do the developer shall, at least 120 days I:Nior to Submittal Of the final map for al:q:~'oval, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Govemment Code Section 66462 atsuchtimeastheCityaoquiresthepropeftyinterestsrequirndfortheimprovements. Such agreement shell provide for payment by the davelOlNN'of aU costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site property inte rests re ired in connection with the Subdivision. Security for a dortlon of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained by the developer, at dovaloper's corn. The mr shall heve been approvnd by Ihe City prior to commencement of the appraisal. M. Street Improve t 1. All pubic improvements (interior streets, drainage fadlities, community trails, paseos, la_ndsc__~_ped areas, etc.) shown on the INane and/or tentalive map shall be constructed to City Standards. Interior street improvements shall include, but are not limited to, curb and gutter, AC pavement, drtve approaches, sidewals, street lights, and street trees. __/ / __/ / J / ._J_._/ _.,J / ,,,,- 2. A minimum of 26- toot wid/pavement, within a 40 -foot wide died rtghl-ol-way shall be constnjcted tot all hal4eclion ii~iett 3. Construcl the following perlmetof street improvements including, I~Jt not limited to: __J / __/ / STREET NAME C~Re& ~.C. el)E* 0RNE 811qELq' ~ GUrrER PYre' WALK A~NI. UGHll TREE~ v v' c.,V v' v" ¢' v'v'v" v' ¢' v' v'v v' V v/ Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on mete. (b) Pavement reconstmclion and ovedays wgl be determined dudrig plan check. (c) If so marked, side* walk shell be curviiinear per STD. 304. (d) if so marked, an in-lieu of construction fee shatl 4. improvement plans and construction: P,o~,~o,C,d> '~5'oll · Com~cUo~ Daxc; a. Street improvement plans including street trees and street llgMs, prepared by a regis- .--/ / tered Civil Engineer, shell be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteetrig completion ol the pul31ic and/or pdvete street impmve- mems, prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. b. Prior to any work being pedormed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a ---/ / construction permit shell be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any other perndts required. c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic, street name signing, and interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. __/ / d. Signalconduitwithpullbexeeshallbeinalalledonanynewconstructionorreconetruction J I of major, secondary or collector streets which intersect with other major, secondary or collector streets tot future traffic signals. PuU boxes shall be placed on beth sides ol the street at 3 feet outside of BC R, EC R or any other locations applqoved by the City Engineer. (1) AJI pug boxes shall be No. 6 unles~ otbefwise specified by the City Engineer. (2) Conduit shall be 3-inch galvanized steel with pullrope. Wheel chair ramps sham be installed on all four comers of intersections per City Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. .,_/ / /,__/ f. Existing City macis requiring constmclk~n shall rernam open to traffic at all timas with J / adequaledetoursduringeonstnjclicn. Astreetclosumpennitmaybe required. Acash refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction ot the City Engineer. g. Corr, enliaieddrajnagefiowsshalinotuos~sidewaks. Undersldewakdrains shall be J / installed to City Standan:i, except for single family lots. h. HandicaP accesl ramp deign shal be as specified by the City Engineer. i, StreetnamesshallbeapprovedbytheCityPlannerpriortosubmittalfor~r~plancheck. J 5. Street improvement plans per City Standards for al ladvle streets shall be pmvide<l for review and approval by the Cily Engineer. Prior to any wod~ being performed on the vate slreets, fees shal be paid and cortstmcticn permits shal be oofained from the City Engineer's Office in ac~lltlon to any other permits required. __/ / / 6~Streettrees~amirdmumof15-ga~nsizeor~arger~sha~beinsta~edparCityStandarciin J / accordance with the Citys street tree program. sc- 1o/94 10 v/ 7. Intersection line of Me designs mall de reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with adopted IDOlicy. a. On collector or larger streets, lines ot sight sham de plotted for all project intersections, including drivewayS. Wails, signs, and slopes shall be located outside the lines of sigN. Landscaping and other obbl~jotions within the lines of sign shall be aplxoved by the City Engineer. ~=~.. No.C-uP q~ °/I ' .__/ / b. Local residential street intersections shag have their noticeability imgroved, usually by moving the 2 +/- closest street trees on each side away from the street and placed in a street tree easement. 8. A permit shag be obtained from CALTRANS for any work withkt the following right-of-way: J / ~~Aitpubiloimpmvements~n~hef~~~~wingstree~~~ha~be~pera~~~nai~y~~n1)latepd~rt~tha __J issuance of I~jilding permits: N, Public Maintea ANal 1.AseParatesofotlandscapeandlrrlgatlonplanaperEngkteedngPublk~WodmStandan~8 shall be sulxnitted to the City Engineer for revtew and a;q}roval pdor to final map approval or issuance ot building petiTtitS, whichever occurs firm. ~ icgo,adng landscape pakways, LandScape Uaimnence Olstd=: 2. Asignedconsenlandwakericnntojoinand/orfmmtheNqxqcxklleLandscapemxll.lghtlng J Olstrlots srell be filed with the City Engineer Wtoric finai map ai;pmvNor Iseuance of l3uikitng 4. Parkwaylandscaplngmltheicllowing~-eet(s) shilcorloffntothere~ullottherespeotive __/ Bemtlicaticn Maeer Plan: O. Drslnsee sml Flood Conlml .1 / 2. Itshalbelhedev~lreq~tohavethecumenlRRMZone designaUonrermedfrmtbepmleotarea. Tbedevek~w'sengineershalpm;wej necesMqre;~ts, plans, andht~,~crr~wau~caicula~nt A~Lete of Mal) Revision (CLOMR) Ihal Ix o4XNned from FEMA Ixtm' Io find mlp I1~ ot be issued by FEMA pd0rl00Ci:a4atIW0rku~v{.,d.daCCllXln~,wNChBNf_,v~,-iflrlL ._/ / i3. Afinlldr~sludy~albeeul;m~edloand;bytheCly~ Ixkx'icfin/----./ / map apl~oval ot b'~lssuanco of lxdiding pom-im, whlch~vo~o~u~lVoL Nldrainage farjim Shall be inslall~l al re<Nimd by the Cly Engineer, 4, A permit from the Courtly Flood Control District is required for work within its right-of-way. 5. Trees are prohibited willlln 5 feet of the outside diameter of any pubalc StOnTt drain pipe 6. Public storm drain easements sham be graded to convey overflows in the event of a blockage in a sump catch basin on the public street. P. Utllitlel V'/ 1. Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas, electric power, telephone, and cable TV (al underground) in accordance with the Utility Standards. Easemerds shall be Wovided as required. V/' 2. The developer shall be responsibM fo~ the re._v,c;llon o~ existing utilis a8 necessary. ._J.__/ 3. Water and mer plans shall be desigaed and owwtructed to meet the requirements of the Cucamonga County Waler District (CCWD), ~ Cucamo~ga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department 04 the Counly o~ San Bemardlrio, A letter of cornp/lance from the CCWD is required pdor to final map al:q:smval or issuance of permits, whichever Occurs first, ~.The separate pameWcontalnedwltNn the lxolect boundades shall be legi~ycontined into one parcel Ixjor to ismmnce oe I:uildjng perure. 2. Measement forajo~useddveway srud belxovklodl~jortofinaf rr~alX~oval or is_ _wjmnce ol INllding pemf~, whk~ever o~cur8 first, for:, 3-PdortoaPPovalolthefinaimmpadepoMshallbepostedwlththeCItycovedngthe estimmed ~ o~ appoffionlng the mnlm under Asweenem OMdcl among the newly created pmcil, 4. EUwandNSan Sevaine Area Regkm/Mlinl~e, 8e~nda,/Regional, and Master Ran OramrmOwF~andNPm~PtWt_tomWmaPaW~evWorPdorto~iUngpwn~uuamw i .__/ I 6-Asigfadc~xa~ntlndwlkatformtojoinefomttheLawEnforcementCommunity Facilities l)ietct ahali be filed with the City F..ftgine~ l~lo~ to ttai map al~foval or the ~swmwd~mlngl~m~ttWldtwvwo~urmr~. Foffnaecemshdbeemebythe 7. Pdottofinabatjoadanydmb~s~, ,~m d~,sufih:Wnlb,M,,4.,,m.d. pimnlNwlbecom- onthealqxovedtenlalemep. __/ / APPUCANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIR! IAFITY DMSlON, (Me) 98/4408, FOR COMRJANCl wrrH THE FOLLOWING CONOITION~: __~'/~. Meeo Re<~ Com~m~.Fa:mUes ~ requlremems shaft a;;dy to this prateS. / / 2. Fire flow requirement shall be A. A previous fire flow, conducted gpm available at 20 psi. B. C. L~00 ~ gallons per minute. revealed A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department personnel prior to water plan approval. ,Z UP ~5- II ' For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional fire flow test of the on-site hydrants shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by the fire department personnel after construction and prior to oocupancy. /,,~ 3. Fire hydrants are required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed___/___/ and operable prior to delivery of any combustible building materials on site ( .e., lumber, roofing materials, etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire department personnel. 4.Existingfirehydrant~~ca~ionssha~~bepr~videdpri~r~~waterplanappr~va~.Requiredhydrants' __/._.../ if any, will be determined by this department. Fire District standards require a 6" riser with a 4' and a 2-1/2" outlet. Substandard hydrants shall be upgraded to meet this standard. Contact the Fire Safety Division for speciticalions on appmvab brands and model numbers. 5. Pdor to the issuance of building permits for combustibio construction,evidence shell be __J___J s ubmitteq to t he Fire D istrict that temporary water suloply for f re protection is available, pe ndi completion of required fire protection system. · ng 6.Hydrant refleclive markers (blue dots) shall be required for all hydrants and installed prior to final inspection. 7, An automatic fire extinguishing system(s) will be required as noted below: Per Rancho Cucamenga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15. __/ / Note: Sl:)eclal sl:N'inkler densities are required for such hazardous operations as woodworking, plastics manufacuring ,spray painting, flammabla liquids storage, high piled stock, etc. Contact Fire Safety Division to determine if spdnk~r system is edequafe for proposed operations. _Z._8. Sprinkler system manitofing shag be installed and operational immediately upon completion of sprinlder system. / 9. A fire alarm system(s) shall be required as noted below: /Per Rancho Cu~amonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15. California Code Regulalions T~le 24. NFPA 101. Other 10. Roadways within projecl shall coml:iy with the Fire Districts fire lane standards, as noted: madways. Other sc- 10/94 /,__/ / / 11. Fire department access shall de amended to facilitate emergency apparatus, __/ 12. Emergency secondary access shall be provided in accordance with Fire District Standards. 13. Emergency access shall be provided, maintenanc~ free and clear, a minimum of 26 feet wide at all times dudng construction in accordance with Fire District requirements. 14' Ait trees Planted in anY rnedian shall be kept tdmmed a rninimum of14,6- frorn ground ul~ so __j___/ as nol to impede fire apparatus. 15. A building directory shall be required, as noted bek~w: __/_,_/ Lighted director within 20 feet of main entrance(s). . Standard Directory in main lobby. __ Other · / 16`AKn~xrapidentrykeyvau~tsha~~beinsta~~edpd~rt~fina~inspection~Pr~~f~fpumhasesha~~ __/_,_/... be submitted Iratot to final building plan approval, Contact the Fire Safety Division for specific details and ordering information. 17 Gated/restrictedentry(s)requireinsta~~a~~n~faKnoxrapidentryk~ysystem.ContacttheFire __/ / Safely Division for specffic details and Ordering information. 18. A tenant use letter shall be submitted prior to final building plan approvaf. __/ / _,L_/19. Plan check fees in the amount of $ have been paid. _J / An additional $ shall be paid: / Prior to water plan appmvaf. Prior to finn plan appmvaf. Note: Separate plan check fees f~r fire protection systems (sprinklers, hood systems, alarms, etc.) and/or any consultant reviews. will be assessed upon subrrlttaf of plans. L20. Special parmils may be required. alelanding on intended use, as noted below: A. General Use Permit shall be required for any activity or operation not specifically described below, which in the Judgemenf of the Fire Chief is likely to produce conditfone hazardous to life or property. sc- X0/94 8. Storage of readly combustible metedaf. C. Places of assembly (excepl chums, schools and other non-profit organizations) O. Bowling alley and pin refinishing. - E. Cellulose Nitrafe plaaflo (Pyroxylin). F. Com~jstlole fibe~ storage ~nd handling exceeding 100 cubic feet. G. Garages Motor vehiCle repair (H-4) H. Lumber yards (over 100,000 board feet). 14 J_ J J.. / __/ / _J / M. N. O. /P. Q. R. S. //T. U. V. W. Tim rebuilding plants. Auto wrecking yards. Junk or waste material handling plants. Rammable finishes. Spraying or dipping operations, spray booths, dip tanIs, electrostatic apparatus, automobile undercoating, powder mating and organic peroxides and dual com- penent coatings (per spray boolh). Magnesium (more tha 10 pounds per day). Oil burning equipment operations. Ovens (industrial baking and drying). Mechanical refrigeration (over 20 peunls of refrigerent). Cornpressed gases (store, handle or use exceeding 100 cubic feet). Cn/ogenio fluids (storage, handling or use). Dust-producing processes and equipment. Rammable and coml3ustible liquids (storage, handling or use). Liquifled petroleum gas (store, handle, transport or use more than 120 gallons). Matches (more than 60 Matchman's gross). Welding and cutting operations: to conduct welding and/or cutting operations in any occupancy. ~c- 10/94 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: September 27, 1995 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer Betty A. Miller, Associate Engineer TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 14022 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO. - A subdivision of 66.5 acres of land into 12 parcels in the Mixed Use Development District of the Terra Vista Community Plan, located at the northwest comer of Foothill BoUlevard and Rochester Avenue - APN 227-151-18 and 24. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Related files: General Plan Amendment 95-01 B, Terra Vista Community Plan Amendment 95-01 and Conditional Use Permit 95-11. At its regular meeting on September 13, 1995, the Planning Commission continued this item and all related items to allow the applicant sufficient time to complete the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) to the satisfaction of SANBAG and City staff. Became it was not known at the time of preparation of this report (and the advertising deadline) if the TIA will be accepted by SANBAG and City staff in time for the Planning Commission to take final action on September 27, this item has been advertised to be forwarded to the City Council for final action. In addition, the Commission directed the applicant to work with staff to clarify a number of issues raised by the developer during public testimony at the September 13 meeting. Staff met with Lewis Homes and the majority of the issues have been addressed. The resolution has been updated as appropriate. Engineering Condition ld was revised to allow the 18-inch corrugated metal pipe crossing Foothill Boulevard to be abandoned in place with a slurry fill, Engineering Condition 2 was clarified to indicate that the driveway shall align with the future Masi Drive as currently designed, and Engineering Condition 20 was revised to allow the developer to submit a request for a refund of a portion of in-lieu fee for the future undergrounding of existing overhead utilities on the opposite side of Rochester Avenue. Other Engineering conditions were discussed, but wording remains as originally proposed. The applicant may still wish to address several conditions. An additional exhibit has been prepared to show the phasing of public improvements as described in the proposed Conditions of Approval. It is attached as Exhibit "D" after the September 13, 1995, staff report. Also attached, as Exhibit "E", is the Terra Vista Planned Community Street Improvement Implementation Policy. This policy only addresses construction of the main perimeter streets. The proposed Conditions of Approval for Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue do comply with this policy. ITEM D PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TENT PARCEL MAP 14022 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO. September 27, 1995 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Tentative Parcel Map 14022 through adoption of the attached Resolution and recommend issuance of a Negative Declaration. Respect~dly submiRed, Dan James Senior Civil Engineer DJ:BAM:dlw Attachments: Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 13, 1995 Improvement Phasing (Exhibit "D") TVPC Street Improvement Policy (Exhibit "E") Resolution of Approval CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: September 13, 1995 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer Betty A. Miller, Associate Engineer TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 14022 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO. - A subdivision of 66.5 acres of land into 12 parcels in the Mixed Use Development District of the Term Vista Community Plan, located at the northwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue - APN 227-151-18 and 24. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Related files: General Plan Amendment 95-01 B, Tetra Vista Community Plan Amendment 95-01 and Conditional Use Permit 95-11. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Approval of the proposed Tentative Parcel Map as shown on Exhibit "B". B. ParcelSize: Parcel 1 ll.30acres Parcel 7 1.15acres Parcel 2 3.97 acres Parcel 8 1.33 acres Parcel 3 1.09 acres Parcel 9 1.16 acres Parcel 4 1.11 acres Parcel 10 1.35 acres Parcel 5 6.66 acres Parcel 11 10.11 acres Parcel 6 7.94 acres Parcel 12 19.34 acres Total 66.51 acres C. ExistingZoning: Mixed Use (Commercial, Office, Residential), Term Vista Community Plan D. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North- Vacant South - Vacant, approved Conditional Use Permit East - Vacant and Single Family Residential West - Vacant PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT PM 14022 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO September 13, 1995 Page 2 E. Surrounding GeneralPlan and Development Code Designations: North - South - East West - Low Medium and Medium Residential, Tetra Vista Community Plan Industrial Park, Subarea 7, Industrial Specific Plan Office and Low Residential Mixed Use (Hospital, Office), Terra Vista Community Plan Site Characteristics: The site is vacant and slopes to the south at 3 perecru. The existing pavement on Foothill Boulevard accommodates four traffic lanes. The east side of Rochester Avenue, is complete, allowing two traffic lanes, and the intersection of Rochester and Foothill is signalized with curb and gutter on all four approaches. The master plan storm drain in Foothill Boulevard currently extends from Day Creek Channel through the Foothill/Rochester intersection. Church Street has been completed full width from Milliken Avenue to Orchard Avenue. ANAI,YSIS: The purpose of this parcel map is to create 12 parcels, eleven of which correspond to the shopping cemer master plan being reviewed at tonight's meeting as Conditional Use Permit 95-11. The only development proposed at this time is the Home Depot store on Parcel 1, which is referred to in the CUP conditions as "Phase one development". The Conditions of Approval specify that all frontage improvements along Foothill Boulivard and Rochester Avenue shall be installed upon development of Parcel 1, along with the portion of Poplar Drive fronting Parcel 1. Orchard Drive will be completed between Foothill Boulevard and Church Street with any additional shopping center development. The balance of Poplar Drive and Church Street between Orchard Avenue and Poplar Drive will be installed upon development o~ Parcel 12, the future multi-family residential parcel. ' ENVIRONMENTAl, REVIEW: The applicant completed Part I of the Initial Study. Staff conducted a field investigation and completed Part II of the Initial Study. No adverse impacts upon the environment am anticipated as a result of this map. Therefore, issuance of Negative Delaration is appropriate. COR, RESPONDENCE: Notices of Public Hearing have been sent to surrounding property owners and placed in the Inland Valley Dally Bulletin. Posting at the site has also been completed. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT PM 14022 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO September 13, 1995 Page 3 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider all input and elements of the Tentative Parcel Map 14022. If after such consideration, the Commission deems appropriate, then the adoption of the attached Resolution would be in order. Respectfully submitted, Senior Civil Engineer DJ:BAM:dlw Attachments: Vicinity Map (Exhibit "A") Tentative Map (Exhibit "B") CUP 95-11 Site Plan (Exhibit "C") Resolution and Recommended Conditions of Approval CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ENGINEERING DIVISION .51TF- I · I ": IOOO N ~f~l.R_, V I ,~ I AI I T Y N ,R P M' ___ ..........,,, / c , RANCHO CUCAMONGA ENGINEERING DIVISION , ,-,- N y~q,qp /VD22,. ,m ..... . I ........... / ~- ..... CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ENGINEERING DIVISION UPol4 Ek~T CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ENG~G DIYI,~ION I" ~ N CITY OF I~ANCHO CUCJU~ONGA TERRA VISTA PLANNED COMMUMII'Y STREET IJdPROVD~ENT IleLE)E)fTATIOII POLICY Projects within Terra Vista shall be required to construct street improvements as follows: Streets adjacent to projects shall be constructed full width to include curb on the opposite sides. Streets shall be extended (full width) off-site far enough to provide two means of access. Projects within the individual Development Areas shown on the map below shall construct the specific street segments designated as follows: AREA STREET SEGMENT I Foothill - Haven to Spruce and Haven - Foothill to Town Center 2 Foothill - Haven to Milliken ) 3 Foothill - Haven to Rochester Rochester - Foothill to Poplar Rochester - Foothill to Church Rochester - Church to Base Line Base Line - Milliken to Rochester Base Line - Milliken to MOuntain View Same as adjacent area depending upon where access is taken. Milliken - Foothill to Base Line Spruce - Foothill to Elm Most of this area is alrea~ condttioned or developed. Haven - Church to Base Line ~4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Note: Projects that cross area boundaries (at corners in particular) shall construct all segments required for each affected area. LEGEND I Area Baundary :I Area i / Dat~/~/'~ IT'~P,: PA~r-EI_ MAP 1402-7_ TI I_E: lvPc sf. IMp. PoI,Ey EXHIP~IT~ ~'E/' RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF 'THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF ~'HE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NUMBER 14022, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND ROCHESTER AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF APN: 27-151-18 AND 24 WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 14022, submitted by Lewis Development Co., applicant, for the purpose of subdividing into 12 parcels, the real property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bemardino, State of California, identified as APN 227-151-18 and 24, located at the northwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue; and WHEREAS, on September 13, and continued to September 27, 1995, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public headng for the above-described map. NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the following findings have been made: 1. That the map is consistent with the General Plan. That the improvement of the proposed Subdivision is consistent with the General Plan. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed development. That the proposed subdivision and improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or public health problems or have adverse effects on abutting properties. SECTION 2: Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and recommends adoption of a Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows: That the Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the Califomia Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder; that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and. further, this Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the application. That, based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. · PARCEL MAP 14022 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO. September 27, 1995 Page 2 Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission dudng the public hearing, the Planning Commission ' hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the Califomia Code of Regulations. SECTION 3: The Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of Tentative Parcel Map Number 14022 subject to the attached Standard Conditions and the following Special Conditions: Engineering Division Foothill Boulevard shall be constructed as follows, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, subject to modification by and approval of Caltrans, upon development of Parcel 1: Full improvements on the north side from Rochester Avenue to Orchard Avenue, including right turn lanes for Orchard Avenue and all project driveways and a bus bay at the northwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue. A landscaped median between Rochester Avenue and Orchard Avenue with left tum pocket lengths to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Thirty-two feet of pavement on the south side of the median, transitioning to existing pavement west of the Orchard Avenue median break. Remove, or abandon in place with a slurry fill, the 18-inch corrugated metal pipewhich crosses Foothill Boulevard. The developer may request a reimbursement agreement for permanent improvements south of the centedine, including half of the landscaped median costs, from future development as it occurs on the south side of the street. If the developer fails to submit for said reimbursement agreement within 6 months of the public improvements being accepted by the City, all dghts of the developer to reimbursement shall terminate. Construct the main shopping center entry off Foothill Boulevard upon development of Parcel 1. A street type driveway shall align with and minor the width of the future Masi Drive, as currently designed. Install a traffic signal, which shall be operational prior to the release of occupancy. The developer may request a reimbursement agreement for one-half the cost of the signal from future development as it occurs on the south side of Foothill Boulevard. If the developer fails to submit for said reimbursement agreement within 6 months of the public improvements being accepted by the City, all rights of the developer to reimbursement shall terminate. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 'PARCEL MAP 14022 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO. September 27, 1995 Page 3 11. 12. 13. Should the Foothill Boulevard improvements and signal referenced in Conditions I and 2 above be installed by development to the south, this development shall reimburse its share of those improvements. Install Rochester Avenue improvements upon development of Parcel 1. Provide a pavement transition on the west side of Rochester Avenue north of Poplar Drive to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The bus bay indicated on the site plan shall not be constructed. Obstructions such as walls and landscaping, shall be located such that lines of sight between trucks in the angled service exit onto Rochester Avenue south of Poplar Drive and Rochester parkway trail users are maintained, to the satisfaction of the City Planner and City Engineer. Modify the existing traffic signal at the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue as needed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer upon development of Parcel 1. Install Poplar Ddve, full width except for parkway improvements on the north side, from Rochester Avenue to the north property line for .Parcel 1, upon development of Parcel 1. Construction traffic for Parcel 1 shall take access to the site from streets other than Rochester Avenue; otherwise, the Rochester frontage improvements shall be installed prior to the issuance of permits. Install a traffic signal at Rochester Avenue and Chefvii Street with development of any parcel beyond Parcel 1, or earlier if warranted. Install Orchard Avenue, full width except for off site parkway improvements, from Foothill Boulevard to Church Street, with development of any parcel beyond Parcel 1. Install traffic signals at the intersections of Foothill Boulevard with Orchard Avenue and Milliken Avenue with Church Street. The developer shall receive credit against, and reimbursement of costs in excess of, the Transportation Development Fee for both signals, in conformance with City policy. If the developer fails to submit for said reimbursement agreement within 6 months of the public improvements being accepted by the City, all rights of the developer to reimbursement shall terminate. Extend the master plan storm drain in Foothill Boulevard from Rochester Avenue to we~st of Orchard Avenue and install a local storm drain in Orchard Avenue as required by the City Engineer. Extend the master plan storm drain in Rochester Avenue from Foothill Boulevard to north of Poplar Ddve and install a local storm drain in Poplar Drive as required by the City Engineer. Structures within the storm drain easement north of the Foothill Boulevard right-of-way, like the bus shelter and monument signs, shall be designed such that concentrated loads are not placed on the storm drain. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. ' PARCEL MAP 14022 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO. September 27, 1995 Page 4 14. "No Parking/Stopping" shall be posted on all public street frontages. 15. The minimum commercial drive approach width is 35 feet at the right- of-way (except as approved by Caltrans along Foothill Boulevard) and the maximum approach radius is 20 feet. Transitions to lesser widths · on site should be smooth and easily driveable, especially for truck service drives. 16. A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated cost of operating all street lights during the first six months of operation, pdor to building permit issuance or approval of the Final Parcel Map, whichever occurs first. 17. An in-lieu fee for one-fourth the cost of constructing special pavers within the Foothill Boulevard/Rochester Avenue intersection shall be paid to the City prior to the issuance of building permits for Phase 1. The fee amount shall be based on the square footage of the intersection. 18. Development shall comply with the Terra Vista Park Implementation Plan. 19. Parkway landscaping along the Rochester Avenue frontage, and trail amenities required by the Terra Vista Community Plan Amendment, shall be compatible with the landscaping theme developed on the east side of Rochester Avenue, to the satisfaction of the City Planner and City Engineer. 20. An in-lieu fee as contribution to the future undergrounding of the existing overhead utilities (telecommunications and electrical, except for the 66 KV electrical) on the opposite side of Rochester Avenue shall be paid to the City prior to the issuance of building permits. The fee shall be one-half the City adopted unit amount times the length from the center of Foothill Boulevard to the center of Poplar Street. Upon completion of the installation of utility facilities, the developer may submit a request for a refund of any portion of said in-lieu fee for work performed which may be attributed to the ultimate undergrounding of existing overhead facilities on the east side of Rochester Avenue. The amount of refund shall be reviewed and determined by the City Engineer. Building and Safety Division The 60-foot non-buildable easement around the in-line buildings shall exclude all projections, overhangs, and canopies which protrude from those buildings. Prior to approval of the final parcel map, the CC&Rs shall address the following to the satisfaction of the Building Official. The omission of property line wall and opening protection as required for independent buildings. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. · PARCEL MAP 14022 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO. September 27, 1995 Page 5 b. Approval of buildings affected is based upon the "unlimited area" provisions of the 1991 edition of the Uniform Building Code. c. Easement restricts expansion of the affected structures. The outer easement line is to be considered a property line for adjacent buildings. Easement and CC&R language cannot be changed w~thout approval of the Building Official. Plannina Division Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 14022 is granted subject to the approval of General Plan Amendment 95-01B and Terra Vista Community Plan Amendment 95-01. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 1995. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chain'nan ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 27th day of September 1995, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO./,]OZ 7_. Those items checked are Conditions of Approval. A. Dedications and Vehicular Access __ 1. m Rights-of-way and easements shall be dedicamd m the City for all interior public streets, community Irails, public paseos, public landscape areas, sweet trees, and public drainage facilities as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. Private easements for non-public facilities (cross-lot drainage, local feeder trails, etc.) shall be reserved as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way for the perimeter streets (measured from a ~v~l¢ off~ of dedica6on for roadway p~s shall ~ m~e for ~e p~vate Comer property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards. 5. Vehicular access rights shall be dedicated to the City for the following sUeets, except for approved openings: _V 8. V/ 9. _/ 10. _/11. Reciprocal access easements ensuring access to all parcels shall be recorded prior to or concurrent with the final parr~l map. [l~s~.J~ f~li..~e~ /,,~ ~/ $c~ ~ s tl 54 l~z At C Reciprocal parking agreements for all parcels end maintenance agreements ensuring joint maintenance of all common roads, drives, or parking areas shall be provided by C C & R's or deeds and shall be recorded prior to or cencmTent with the final parcel map. All existing easements lying within future fight-of-way are to be quitelaimed or delineated on the final parcel map per the City Engineer*s requirements. Easements for public sidewalks and/or sweet trees placed outside the public right. of-way shall be dedicated to the City. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be provided and shall be delineated or noted on the fmal parcel map. Additional su'eet right-of-way shall be dedicated along right mm lanes, to provide a minimum of 7 feet measured from the face of curbs. If curb adjacent sidewalk is used along the right tun~ lane, a parallel street tree easement shall be provided. 1 12. The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property interests necessary to consm~ct the required public improvements and, if he/she should fail to do so, the developer shall at least 120 days prior to submittal of the final parcel map for approval, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Code SectiOn 66462 at such time as the City acquires the property interests required for the improvements. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security for a portion of thase costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained by the developer, at developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal. This condition applies in particular, but not limited, to: Street !~rovements All public improvernen~ (interior sweets, drainage facihties, community wails, paseos, landscaped areas, etc. ) shown on the plans and/or tentative map shall be conslructed to City Standards. Interior sweet improvements shall include, but are not limited to, curb and guuer, AC pavement~ drive approaches, sidewalks, seeet lights, and s~reet ~rees. 2. Aminimum, of26-foot wide pavement within a 40- foot wide dedicated right-of-way shall be constructed for all half-section sweets. 3. ConsU'uct the following missing perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: Street Name Curb AC Side- I~ve Street Staler Comnt Median Bike I ~ walk . Appr. Lights Trees Trail Island Trail Gutter Notu: (a) Median bland includu landsc~ing and inignlion on tr, ctgr. CII) Pavcment consltuclion and overlays will be determined du~ng plan click. (c) Is so led, sidcwalk will be curviii per STD. # 114. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu of co/fee shall be provided for this item. Other 2 DI7 V 4. Improvement Plans and Construction: a. Street improvement plans including street l~ees and street lights, prepared by a registered Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. b. Prior to any work being performed in the public right"of-way, fees shall be paid and a consn'uction pelTnit shall be obtained fi'om the City Engineer's office in addition to any other permits required. c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic, st~ect name signing, and interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed on any new consn'uction or reconstruction of major, secondary or collector streets for future signals. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the sweet at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR or any Other locations approved by the City Engineer. Notes: (1) All pull boxe~ shall be No. 6 unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer. (2) Conduit shall be 3-inch galvanized steel with pullrope. · e. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all comers of intersections per City Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. f. Existing City roads requiring construction Shall remain open to n'a~ic at all times with adeq-nt_e detoum during construction. A street closure permit may be required. A cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. g. Concenn'at~d drainage flows shah not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains ~hnll be installed to City Standards, except for single family lots. h. Street names shall be approved by the City Planner prior to submittal for first plan check. 5. Street improvement plans per City Standards for all private streets shall be provided for review and approval by the City Engineer. Prior to any work being performed on the private streets, fees shah be paid and construction permits shall be obtained from the City Engineer's office in addition to any other permits required. 6. Street trees, a minimum of 15 - gallon size or larger shall be installed per City Standards in accordance with the City's street tree program. 7. Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with adopted policy. On collector or larger street, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project intersections, including driveways. 8. A Permit shall be obtained from CALTRANS for any work within the following right-of-way. 9. All public improvamonts on the following su'eets shall be operationally complete prior to the issuance of building permits. 3 C, Public Maintenance Areas ~ I. A separnte set of lnnclscape and irrigation plans per Engineering Public Works Standards shall bc submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to rmal parcel map approval. The following landscaped pazkways, medians, paseos, easements, trails, or other ~reas shall be annexed into the Landscape Maintenance DisU'ict: · 2. A signed consent and waiver form t9 join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final parcel map approval. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. ~ 3. All requimt public landscaping and irrigation systems shall be continuously maintained by the developer until accepted by the City. _V''/ 4. Parkway landscaping on the following street(s) shall conform to the results of the respective Beautificalion D. Drainage and Flood Control 1. The project (or po/tions thereof) is Ioc, at~l within a Flood Hazard Zone; therefore, flood protection measures shall be provided as certified by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer. __ 2. It shall be the developer's responsibility to have the current FIRM Zone designation removed from the project area. The developers engineer shall prepare all necessary reports, plans, and hydrologic/hydraulic calculations. A Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) shah be obtained from FEMA, prior to occupancy or ',~nprovement af. ceptance, whichever occurs first. 3. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior m final parcel map approval. All dra~age facilities shall be installed as requi~d by the City Engineer. .=~ 4. Adequatoprovisi~ns~h~|bemadef~racceptenceanddispenal~fsu~cedrainageenteringthepropew/ f~om adjacent areas. 5. A permit fzom the San Bemasdino County Flood Control District is required for work within ifs right-of- way. 6. Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe measured from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk. 7. Public storm drain easements shall be graded to convey overflows in the event of blockage in a sump condition. 4 '7 A4 IqoZ E. Improvement Completion 1. If the required public improvements are not completed prior to approval of the final parcel map, an improvement security accompanied by an agreement executed by the Developer and the City will be required for: 2. If the required public improvements are not completed prior to approval of the final parcel map, an improvement certificate shall be placed upon the Final Map, stating that they will be completed upon v' Utilities 1. Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas, electrical power, telephone and cable 'IV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility Standards. Easements shall be provided as required. 2. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet requiroments of the Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamongn Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Depamnent of the County of San Bernardino. 3. Approvals have not been secured from all utilities and other interested agencies involved. Approval of the final parcel map will be subject to any requirements that may be received from them. 4. The developor shall be nsponsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necr=sary. G. General Requirements and Approvals I. The tentalive map approval is valid for the 24 month period following the approval rlm,~, Time exlensions may be granted by the Planning Commission, ifrequasted prior to the expiration dat. V/ 2. Final grading plans for each parcel shall be as required by the Building and Safety Division prior to issuance of grading permits. ~ 3. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions, end Restrictions (C C & R's) appwved by the City Attorney is required prior to approval of the final parcel map. 4. Aneasementforajointusedrivewayshallbeprovidedpriortofinalparoelmapapprovalfor: 5. Pri~rtoapproval~fthefmalparr~e~mapadep~sitsha~bep~stedwiththeCityc~veringtheestimatedc~st of apportioning the assessments under Assessment District , among the newly created parcels. 6. A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated operating costs for all new street lights for the fu~t 6 months of operation, prior to final parcel map approval. 5 7'PM lqozz 7. Prior to fmalization of any development phase, sufficient improvement pians '~hall be completed beyond the phase boundaries to assure secondary access and drainage protection to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Phase boundaries shall correspond to lot lines shown on the approved tentative map. 8. Etiwanda/San Sevaine Area Regional Mainline, Secondary Regional, and Master Plan Drainage Fees shall be paid prior to final parcel map approval. 9. Permits shall be obtained from the following agencies for work within their right-of-way. 10. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the Law Enfomement Community Facilities District shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final parcel map approval. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. 11. Prior to recordation of the final parcel map, the applicant shall consent to, or participate in, the establishment of a M~llo-Roos Community Facilities Dislrict for the consU'uction and maintenance of necessary school facilities. However, if any school dislrict has previously established such a Community Facilities District, the applicant shall, in the alternative, consent to the annexation of the project site into the territory of such existing dislrict prior to the recordation of the final parcel map. Further, if the affected school district has not formed a Mello-Roos Community Facilities Disu'ict within twelve months from the date of approval of the project and prior to the recordation of the final parcel map for said project, this condition shall be deemed null and void. This condition shall be waived if the City receives notice that the applicant and all affected school districts have entered into an agreement to privately accommodate any and all school impacts as a result of this project. 12. M~~~~RoosC~mmunityFa~i~iti~sDis~.ictmquirem~ntsf~rtheRan~h~Cucam~ngaFirePr~tecti~nDis~rict shall apply to this project. 13. Pursuant to provisions of Califoroia Resources Code Section 21089(b), this application shall not be 'operative, vested or final, nor will building permits be issued or a map recorded, until (1) the Notice of Determination (NOD) regarding the associated environmental action in filed and posted with Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Beroardino; and (2) any and all required handling charges, a/e paid to the County Clerk of the County of San Bernardino. The applicant shall provide the Engineering Deparunent with a stamped and copy of the NOD together with a receipt showing that all fees have been paid. In the event this application is determined exempt from such filing fees pursuant to the provision of the California Code, or the guidelines promulgated thereunder, except for payment of any required handling charge for filing a Certificate of Fee Exemption, this condition shall be deemed null and void. Rev. 8/1/95 6 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: September 27, 1995 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer Mafia Perez, Assistant Engineer MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PARCEL MAP 12959-1 - CAPELLINO - A request to modify certain conditions of approval for a previously appmved subdivision in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southeast comer of Arrow Route and White oak Avenue - APN: 209461-01, 02 and 06 through 10 and 209-471-03 through 10. BACKGROUND: On January 8, 1992, the Planning Commission conditionally approved Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) 12959, for the subdivision of 45.01 acres of land into 22 parcels, at the southeast comer of White Oak Avenue and Arrow Route. Engineering Condition Number 6 requires the installation of the at grade rail crossing on Arrow Rome at the eastern boundary of the project. At the time the TPM was conditioned, it was anticipated that the cost to reconstruct the crossing would be comparable to the Jersey Boulevard crossing. The Jersey Boulevard crossing was roughly $120,000. AT&SF has estimated reconstruction of the Arrow Route crossing to be in the range of $300,000 due to the extensive mount of track that must be removed and relayed. The applicant has been reluctant to deposit the $300,000 with the City to initiate the improvements. Engineering staff informed the applicant that building permits for future buildings may be withheld until the $300,000 is deposited. After further discussions, the applicant submitted a request to be relieved from the requirement to deposit the funds before his development is allowed to continue. The transportation fee credits that have been granted to date total $132,256.29 with only 18% of the project developed. Since this is a transportation fee eligible improvement, staff intends on going forward with the improvements in house. Funds already in the transportation fee program will be utilized to construct the crossing. Ultimate development of this site will provide approximately $735,000 in transportation fees. Staff is recommending Engineering Condition Number 6 be rewritten to provide for payment of transportation fees. This will allow for a more timely completion of the Arrow Route widening at the crossing and the applicant to continue the development of his site. ITEM E PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT PARCEL MAP 12959-1 CAPELLINO September 27, 1995 Page 2 The applicant has agreed to staffs proposal to pay Transportation Fees for his development. He has begun the process of reimbursing the fees that were previously credited by depositing a check covering the Transportation Fees for the development on parcel 10, approved Development Review 94-08. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the modification to Engineering Condition Number 6 of TPM 12959. A Resolution of Approval containing this condition has been attached for your adoption. Respectfully Submitted, Senior Civil Engineer DJ:MP:dlw Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letter from Applicant Exhibit "B" - Site Plan Resolution Approving Modification to Tentative Parcel Map 12959 AUG ~2 '95 89: 00 CAP BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION CO 20309 Gramercy Place, Suite G Torrance. California 90501 (310) 320-1234 (909) 948-5517 August 17, 1995 Joe O'Nei[ CITY OF RANCliO CUCAMONGA 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, C.,alifomia R,E: Railroad Construction and Maintenance Agreement - PM 12959 Dear Joe, Per our conversation, Capellino/Galleano requests modification of Special Condition #6 Section-3 of Resohrtion NO. 92-04 Tentative Map Number 12959. At presesn, Condition #6 sta~es "The developer shall "obtain a license agreement from the AT&SF Railroad and construct the railroad grade crossing within Arrow Route at the ~starn project boundary. The construction shall include crossing guard ~a~es and ~asher lights, a raised median, and rubberized pads. The Arrow Route pavement shall be widened to its ultimate width on both sides of the ~'ade crossing, with a transition to existing pavement on the north side of An'ow Route to the satisfaction of the City Trafiio Engineer. The developer shall he eli~ibW for fee credits toward and reimbursement of costs in excess of the Transportation Development Fee, in conformance with City policy." Capellino/Galleano requests relief of our obligation to "immediatel~ satidly Specie! Condition ~6. As diacuss~l. our project (18% developed) has not progressed enough to generate the funds ne~.~-~sa~ to ~x~cute this agreemere. We have discussed and .remain open to the specifics of an a~reemem acceptable to the City of Rancho Cucarnon~a.. Our only objective is to structure an ~greement which will allow our development tO COntinue forward - providing us the opportunity to satisfy the condition. Joe, our COmpany is appreciative of the time you and your st~ff have aireach/devoted to this maxteL ff you have any q,_,_,~.jons or require Kinher inform~on. please contact out o6iCO. Thank you, again. for your consideration of this Mark V. Capellino CITY OF RANCHO CUOAMONGA ENGInERING DIVISION Legend E Existing A Approved M Master Plan I ": 3C0 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 12959, A REQUEST TO MODIFY A CONDITION OF APPROVAL FOR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SUBDIVISION IN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (SUBAREA 8) OF THE INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF ARROW ROUTE AND WHITE OAK AVENUE - APN: 209-461-01, 02 AND 06 THROUGH 10 AND 209-471-03 THROUGH 10. A. Recital.~. 1. On January 8, 1992, the Planning Commission approved Tentative Parcel Map 12959, subject to certain conditions, through adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 92-04. 2. August 17, 1995, Capellino/Galleano filed a request for a modification to Condition No. 6 of the appreved conditions of Tentative Parcel Map 12959. 3. On the 27th day of September 1995, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing regarding Condition No. 6 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 92-04 and concluded said headrig on that date. 4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission dudng the above- referenced public headng on September 27, 1995, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The requirement to reconstruct the at grade rail crossing on Arrow Route at the eastern boundary of the project is consistent with City Policy; and b. The cost of the reconstruction will be much greater than was originally anticipated; and c. The City's pursuit of the crossing reconstruction will provide for a more timely completion of the Arrow Route widening between Haven Avenue and Interstate 15. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the January 8, 1992, and the above-referenced public headng on September 27, 1995, and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The modification to the condition will allow for the completion of the at grade rail crossing on Arrow Route. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PARCEL MAP 12959-1 - CAPELLINO September 27, 1995 Page 2 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 above, this Commission hereby approves the modification of Engineering Condition No. 6, of Planning Commission Resolution Number 92-04, for Tentative Parcel Map 12959 as follows: The developer shall reimburse all Transportation Fee Credit allowed to date for Tentative Parcel Map 12959. Neither building permits or occupancies shall be issued until all Transportation Fee Credits are paid back to the City. All future projects shall pay apprepdate Transportation Fees upon issuance of building permits. The City will initiate and provide for the AT&SF railroad grade crossing. All outstanding public improvements required of the original conditions necessary to join the at grade crossing improvements are still the responsibility of the developer. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 1995. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Bred Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed. and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 27th day of September 1995, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: DATE: TO: CITY OF R,A~qCHO CUCA/~IONGA -- STAFF REPORT September 27, 1995 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Bullet, City Planner BY: Dan Coleman, Principal Planner SUBJECT: GRUBB &jELLIS - A request to consider initiation of text changes to add thrift stores as a Community Commercial use within Subarea 3 of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Grubb & Ellis Company, acting as the leasing agent for.the Foothill V'~lage shopping center located at the southeast comer of Foothill Boulevard and Hellman Avenue, is requesting that thrift stores be allowed. This requires a text change to include thrit~ stores as a commercial use in the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. The property is zoned "Community Commercial." Specific Plan text changes can only be initiated by the Planning Commission or City Council. BACKGROUND: Staff's preliminaxy research indicates that thriR stores, sometimes called "second- hand stores," and pawn shops were intentionally excluded from the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. The Development Code allows second-hand stores and pawn shops as a permitted use within the General Commercial zone. When the Foothill Boulevard Spedfie Plan was draRed in 1987, thrif~ stores and pawn shops were deemed not consistent with the goal to create a high quality commercial corridor. To emphasize this point, the text specifically states that antique stores do not include second-hand stores. ANAI,YSIS: At th~ Planning Commission's direction to initiate, staff will review existing uses allowed within the "Community Commercial" designation for Subarea 3. An analysis will also be prepared of the existing uses within Subarea 3. Staff will research whether there are any thrift stores elsewhere along Foothill Boulevard or in the community. RECOMMENDATION: If the Planning Commission desires to initiate such an amendment, then direction to staff and the applicant by minute action would be appropriate. BB:DC:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Exhibit "B" - Exhibit "C" - Exhibit "D" - Letter from Applicant Location Map Subarea 3 Zone Map Subarea 3 Uses ITEM F 4Bhrubb llis August 17, 1995 City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 FOOTHILL VILLAGE 9359 Foothill, Suite B-H Rancho Cucamonga, California RECEIVED AUG 2 1 1995 City ot Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division Dear Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission: The Grubb & Ellis Company represents Westrust Financial in the leasing of Foothill Village located at the southeast corner of Foothill and Hellman. We have received interest from the Salvation Army to place their approximate 10,000 S.F. thrift store concept into the project. I have been advised by the planning department that the use is currently not allowed and to convert it to an approved use would require a development code amendment to the Foothill Specific Plan. Prior to filing our application I request your review, consideration and feedback on this opportunity for the project with the following in mind. Foothill Village has had difficulty in maintaining occupancy of its shop space due to lack of Foothill Boulevard exposure from its below grade orientation. Salvation Army Thrift Store would create additional needed foot traffic into a struggling project. Salvation Army Thrift Store has the same retail appearance as most discount stores and merchandises in a professional style. Salvation Army would occupy space never leased since the original development of Foothill Village in 1989 · The store would not be visible from Foothill or Hellman Grubb & Elli, Company C, immercial Real Estate Sen'ices 2151 Ea,t "D" Street. State 101-A. Ont,mt,. CA 91764 (909) 98~-4565 Fax (909) 983-886} City of Rancho Cucamonga · - August 17, 1995 Page 2 · The use would be good for Foothill Village and the community with no adverse effect to the intent of the Foothill Specific Plan Thank you for your consideration and please advise me how to best proceed on this matter. Very Truly Yours, GRUBB & F,I-LIS COMPANY ~VICES Retail Properties Division SUMMARY LAND; PARK'O. PROV'D4433 el. PARK'G, RATIO; 4,g5 I1000 ,-~f ~!Illlll~lliiIF'~llllllllli;i;nlll~llllllllllllr-illllllllllllllllr~--,, . ~ I ~ RESJDERTIAL AREA I i 30 LEASE PLAN RETAIL COffiffiERCIAL USES AntiQue ShoOS APparel a) Boutlques ~i~i~::~i~::ii::i p p ADO I lance Stores anQ ReOa Ir p Art, MUSIC, Photographic StUQIOS erie SUpply Stores ~i~ii~:i p p Auto Service StaUon ~iii!i~:~iiiC C motorcycles. Doers, campers): a) 5ales (with ancllla~ repair ::~:~ facilities) c) ,Inor ReOalr (aPes not Include major engine wo~. muffler sno~s. ~alnUng. eo~ wo~. upholster. etc.) ~) com-op wasrang e} Automatic W~lng ~.~:~? ~] Parts an~ Supplies :::Q;~ p BaKeries (retail only) i!i!~ii p p BarOer and Beauty Shops !:.~!~i~ p p Bed and BreaKfast E~!i~i C BIcycle Shops i!~;;;ii~i P P Blueprint and PhOtocopy Services ~iii~i:~ p RooK, Girt and Statlona'y Stores (other than adult related materlalli~!i~:~i P P Candy and Conrectlonertes p p Catering Estadllahments p p China ano Glassware Stores p p Christmas Tree/PumpXm Sales LOts (operating on a tempora~ oasis) P C~urcnes C Cleanlnq and PresslnO EstaOllshment~ P P ~UMM~R~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~;~ Sugared one;::: Subarea Two" BuDarea Three ,~:~:~Suoarea Four ~;~?:~::~ ......... P C p P CocKtail Lounge (Bar, lounge,tavern) Including related entertainment Commercial RecreatlNt a) Indoor uses such as and OII lards O) Outdoor uses suc~ u ter~ls and DesKarl}el I Convalescent Facilities aftel Hospltlls Curtain and Drapery CCC .frfr c c C C P p p ?=ii~ p p p ...........pp C C C P P P p p r P C C I:} P p Day Care Centers Delicatessens an~ Specialty Food Stores a) ever 10.000 SQ. ft. D) Pharmacies with or without specialty retail under 10.000 sd. rt. C P ........ ppp C C C ...... ~ P P ........ P P P ppp rPP P P P c c i !i:!ii c c c CCC CCC wt # r C C C e'r 'rtr' ,e'fe'r P P ':ii~i~ p p ii~ CCC C CC PP Ppp ii!i P P · ~;::'ii C .... C I V-9.4 C C C C C ..... ~ PP p p .i~ p p* p C Oil C P ii~ P P C p pw :'!i::::::i:: ,~ C !~ C C ~' C C . C cc >~ p p C '~ ~ C C C P '~ P P~P P ~.:,~:::~ ~P SUMMARY TABLE OF PERMITTED fPI AND CONDITIONALLY PERMITtED (C~ RETAIL COMMERCIAL USES (CONT.) Eaucatl~)~al Ins~'ltutlons, Pat~ochlal, Private (Inclualng col leges ana universities) Floor Covering 5noDs Florls~ 5hoDs *Furniture 5~ores Hataware 5totes Health and Athletic Gyms ano Weight ReOucln9 Clinics HODDy 5hoDs Ice Cream Stores and Soda Fountains ,Janltorlal Services and Supplies Jewelry Stores Laundry (Self Service) Leather GOOds and Luggage Stores Lffirarles anO Museums, public and private LIQuor Stores r~essenger and wire Services Mortuaries and Cemetarles MusIc. Dance, and Martial Arts StudtOS Newspaper and MagaZIne Stores Nurseries and Garoen Supply Stores within enclosed area Office. Business Machine aria ~,~.~o~n tar, C onent Stores .... Paricing Facilities (commercial wnereii~:ii fees are cl~arge~) Parlos ano ' ...~.. aria Recreation Facilities, Private Pet ShoOS Photocopy (Xerox) Political or Philanthropic Heao~uarte PuPlit and Private Clubs ano LoDges, Including YMCAo YWCA. an~ Slmllal Youth Group USes !i~!i!;~ii~i 5uDarea One.! :! 5uDarea Two:; ~ SuParea Three :iiihiSuuarea Four ~ 2 P P :~:~ P P P ~ p P P P ~ p P p :::~ p p p p p p p ~ p p* PP PP pp pe F? Record and Tape Stores Recreational vehicle Storage Yor{~s Restaurants (sit a) wlt e,gtf. rtal~,m,e no/or D) InclOental serving of Deer wine (without a cocktail lounge Par. entertainment or Oanclng) C) Care. limited to 20 seats ( Inc luO Ing puttloot seat o) Fast Fooch with (Irlve-thru without orlve-tnru ~evlsea: ~ 't o C C C C C C C P P RETA!L COHMERC AL USES (Cont.) Shoe Stores and Repair Shops 5Petlaity Retail 5Dotting GooDs Stores: a) Specialty; backpacking, tenms. skiing. rlountaln- eating, Fishing, etc. D) General; encompassing a variety or sports e(lulpment 5upermar~ets 5wlrnmlno Pool Services and Suppile Tailor Shops TOy Stores Variety Department Stores, Junior Department Stores Veterinary (Domestic): a) Non-boaroing P) BoarOtng Vocational or Business Trade School! watch and Clock Repair Stores YarOaQe GOOOS Stores ENTERTAII~IENT AND CULTURAL USES Arcdoes Cultural/Artist Exhibits: a) Indoor Gallery ana^rt Sales b) Outdoor Art ExhlDIts Dlscochedues Theaters: a) DInner Theater b) ~ovle Theater Includlnd HultlD OFFICE AND ADHINISTRATIVE USES SUMMARYTABLEOFPERMITTED(RANDCONDtTIONALLy PERMFFrED(CIUSES '.:.. ........ Hn?~:~,;?:sc cc co Lr~R ,R U ,Uiiii~CC nnC ,n LI 0 P P P P P P P P P P P P P C C C C P P p P E~:ii:.~ Subarea 0~ Subarea Two :.::iif:ii~ Suoarea Three if:is~ili SuParea FOUr ii~iiii~SC CC 0 rIR p iii~ii~SC CC O r'lR r,IHRi~5C CC CO LMR MR U MU~GC RRC I"lR LI c !'.ii~i c c':~ii'i;i~ c c c p c p c ~:~i~;ii p c c c c c c :::i~ii~ c c c c c Administrative. Busmesa. and Professional Offices Banks. FInance Se F s and wl""',,, dr"'e-lrw~ Business and Office Services P P P Interior Decorating FIrms p p p ~ledlcal/Dental Offices and Related Health Clinics p p p OPtlclanandOpt0metrlcal ShoOs P P P Realtors and Real Estate Offices ::;,,~ pp p Adenties :!~2~ p p p Revised i~ Suearea o~e~ Subarea Two ~:!i!i:i~;~ Subarea Three iii~si~igSubarea Four p pw p ::~ P P P :: :.i: p p p P !~i:!:iii!ii P P" D I V-9.4 (l~c, SUMMARY TABLE OF PERMITtED (1~ AND CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED (C~ USE~ RESIDENTIAL USES SIngle Family Detached Single Family Attached (duPlex, triplex, rourplex) r'lultI-Famlly Dwellings Ancillary Residential Uses: a) Home-care Facilities (6 or less) D) On-site Private Recreation Facilities Accessor,/USes: a) Accessory Structures D} Home Occupation PUBLIC USES Transit Facilities PUPlie Utility Installations HOTEL USES Hotell/Motel Hotel Facilities (major) Ancillary Uses: a) 8eauty/Baroer Shop I~) Cares c) Catsring Services d) CocRtall Lounge e) Conrerence/Convenuon Facilities r) FloriSt Shops g) GIft Shops h) NewsPal)ell/Magazine Stores I) Pharmacies J) Restaurants (sit down) R) Tourist Informerloll I) Travel AGenCIeS SuBarea Four iiii~ SuParea On~i~ SuParea Two i~"'r Subarea Three ~ SuParea Four C P P P P P P P P P P P All Industrial uses and development standards shall I)e as Provided In Sul}-area 7 o/f the Industrial Area SPeCIfic Pllt (ISP). ,,, · Refer to RRC ( · ) Section 9.9.2 Revised: ~ IV-9.4 a