No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998/09/23 - Agenda PacketCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA WEDNESDAY SEPTEMBER 23, 1998 7:00 PM Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center Council Chamber 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California I. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance Swearing in of Commissioners Mannerino and Stewart Roll Call Chairman McNiel __ Vice Chairman Macias __ Com. Mannerino __ Com. Stewart Com. Tolstoy __ II. ANNOUNCEMENTS Ill. APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 11, 1998 IV. CONSENT CALENDAR The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non- controversial. They w~l be acted on by the Commission at one time without discussion. If anyone has concern over any item, it should be removed for discussion. A. TIME EXTENSION FOR DESIGN REVIEW OF TENTATIVE TRACT 14509 - INLAND C~TIES CORP. - A request for a time extension for the design review of 18 single famiiy lots of an approved Tentative Tract Map on 3.84 acres of land in the Low Residential District {2 to 4 dwelling units per acre), Jocated on the east s de of Hermosa Avenue, between Wilson Avenue and Banyan Street -APN: 201-183-01. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS The following items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice their opinion of the related project. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address the Commission by stating your name and address. A~ such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. Please sign in after speaking, B. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 98-02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the regulations for second dwelling units for consistency with changes in State law. (Continued from September 9, 1998) (TO BE CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 14, 1998) C. DIRECTOR'S REVIEW 79-24 - FRANK H. AYERS & SONS (ALBERTSONS) - A request to determine if a commercial center is being operated in a manner not detrimental to the pubtic health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties in the vicinity, and a request to consider modifying the conditions of approval for the commercial center in the Neighborhood Commercial District, located at the southeast corner of Base Line Road and Archibald Avenue - APN: 1077-011-45 and 47 through 52. D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-45 -MASI - The development of three auto service buildings totaling 20,400 square feet on 2.23 acres of iand within the Masi Plaza in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southwest side of Masi Drive and Sebastian Way - APN: 229-011-56 through 60. (TO BE CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 14, 1998) E. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 98-03 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend Title 17 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code (Ordinance No. 522) to delete the requirement for new developments over a certain size to provide telecommuting centers or video conferencing facilities. VI. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS F. MULTI-FAMILY TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS - Review of recommendations for future residential land use changes. G. SIGNAGE TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS VII. PUBLIC COMMENTS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Commission. Items to be discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda. Page 2 VIII. COMMISSION BUSINESS IX. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 1 ~ :00 p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission. I, Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on September 17, 1998, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at ~0500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. / Page 3 VICINITY MAP -k CITY HALL CITY OF RANCHO CUCANIONGA CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ' g STAFF REPORT DATE: September 23, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buffer, City Planner BY: Brent Le Count, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: TIME EXTENSION FOR THE DESIGN REVIEW OF TENTATIVE TRACT 14509 - INLAND CITIES CORP. - A request for a time extension for the design review of 18 single family lots of an approved Tentative Tract Map on 3.84 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre), located on the east side of Hermosa Avenue, between Wilson Avenue and Banyan Street - APN: 201-183-01. BACKGROUND: This request was considered along with the time extension request for the Tentative Tract Map by the Planning Commission on August 12, 1998. The Commission approved the time extension for the Tentative Tract Map but deferred consideration of the design review time extension to allow time for the Design Review Committee to review the record of the previous design review approval. On September 1, 1998, the Design Review Committee (Macins & Fong) met to review the previous approval. The Committee members also visited the subject site and surrounding neighborhood prior to the meeting. The Committee observed similar conditions between neighboring homes in the area. The Committee was of the opinion that the approved design review for the tract does not require revisions and adequately addresses neighborhood concerns related to being located adjacent to two story home~ in a fair manner. Mr. Macins indicated, for the record, that he had not discussed the issue with his fellow Committee MembedPlanning Commissioner Larry McNiel who did not attend the Design Review Committee meeting. The members of the public that addressed the Planning Commission at the meeting on August 12, 1998, were invited to the Design Review Committee meeting. Mr. Robert Flores of 10121 Kernwood Court (directly to the north of Lot 8 of TT 14509) was present. He stated that he was concerned that the lots in the subject tract are not staggered relative to the existing lots in the tract he lives in directly to the north, that he will have a view down into the living room of the home built on the lot south of his property, and that the home is proposed to be located closer to the rear (north) property line than other homes in the tract. The Committee indicated that the lot configuration is not unique to the subject tract and that, if anything, the burden of reduced privacy is on the home below the Flores' property. The Committee also stated that the approved design review includes a condition of approval requiring re-plotting of the home below the Flores' property as far to the south as possible to provide maximum allowable rear yard depth. Mr. Jim Ahmad, Inland Cities Corp., was also present. He indicated to Mr. Flores that he is open to further discussion on the issue with him and his neighbors. ITEM A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT I TE FOR DR FOR 71' 14509 - INLAND CITIES September 23, 1998 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: The Design Review Committee recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Time Extension for the Design Review for Tentative Tract 14509 through adoption of the attached Resolution. Brad Buffer City Planner BB:BLC/jfs Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Planning Commission Staff Repor~ dated August 12, 1998 Exhibit "B" - Design Review Committee Action Comments dated September 1, 1998 Resolution of Approval CITY OF RANCHO CUCA~MONGA ' g .~~ STAFF REPORT DATE: August 12, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buffer, City Planner BY: Brent Le Count, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TIME EXTENSION AND CONDITION MODIFICATION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 14509 - BAAYOUN CORPORATION - A request for a time extension and condition modification for a previously approved Tentative Tract Map and design review of18 single family lots on 3.84 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre), located on the east side of Hermosa Avenue, between Wilson Avenue and Banyan Street - APN: 201-183-01. BACKGROUND: Tentative Tract 14509 was approved by the Planning Commission on April 22, 1992. Since that time, the State has granted automatic time extensions for several years during the recession. This extended the expiration of the subject Tentative Tract Map to April 22, 1998. Prior to expiration, the applicant filed the subject extension request. Per State law and the City's Subdivision Ordinance, the Tentative Tract Map may be extended one additional year. ANALYSIS: Staff has analyzed the proposed time extension and compared the proposal with current development criteria outlined in the Development Code. Based on this review, the Tentative Tract meets development standards for the Low Residential District. CONDITION MODIFICATION: The applicant has requested that the City delete a condition of approval requiring construction of the City's Master Plan Storm Drain Line in Hermosa Avenue extending from the Alta Loma basins and instead pay the required drainage fees. The applicant has submitted a Hydraulic Capacity Study for staffs review. The study shows that the project will not cause flows on Hermosa Avenue to flow onto the project site and that construction of the subject Master Plan Storm Drain system will not provide additional flood protection. Staff is in concurrence with the applicant's Hydraulic Capacity Study and agrees that the condition should be eliminated. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Part I of the Initial Study was prepared by the applicant. Staff has completed Part IL the Environmental Checklist. In completing the Environmental Checklist, staff noted that the property is located in an area identified as potential habitat for endangered or threatened species. A habitat assessment and biological protocol survey was required to determine potential impacts, particularly to the federally-listed, threatened California gnatcatcher and the site is not at all suitable for the kangaroo rat and is so fragmented by surrounding development and improvements, that it does not represent optimum gnatcatcher habitat. In addition, none of the two endangered species were obsen/ed on the site during the surveys. Therefore, there should be no significant adverse environmental impacts on the site relative to the proposed Tentative Tract or time extension. If the Commission concurs with staff's findings, issuance of a Negative Declaration would be in order. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 'IT 14509 - BAAYOUN CORPORATION August 12, 1998 Page 2 CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 300 foot radius of the project site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission grant a one-year time extension for the subdivision map and design review for Tentative Tract 14509 and delete Engineering Division Condition of ApprOval Number 3 requiring construction of storm drain facilities through adoption of the attached Resolutions and issuance of a Negative Declaration. Brad Bullet City Planner BB:BLC:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Resolution 92-20A (Approving Tentative Tract Map 14509) Exhibit "B" - Letter from Applicant Exhibit "C" - Site UtiliZation Map Exhibit "D" ~ Site Plan Exhibit"E"- Elevations Exhibit "F" - Sight Line Analysis Exhibit "G" - Planning Commission Minutes dates April 22, 1992 Exhibit "H" - Initial Study Pad II Resolution of Approval: Tentative Tract Map Time Extension Resolution of Approval: Design Review Time Extension ,~SOLUTiON :;0. 92-20A A RESOLUTION OF THE PLA_WNING COY_MiSSiON OF THE CiTY OF RANCEO CUC~.ONGA, C.~LiFOKNiA, ~2PROViNG TENTATIVE TRACT 2~AP NO. 14509, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF HERMOSA AVENUE BET~Y~ WILSON AVENUE AND B.'-_~]'AN STP~EET iN THE LOW RESiDSN. TIAL ( 2-4 DWELLING O~.~iTS PER ACE) DiSTR/CT, .~ND ~A/<iNG FINDINGS IN SU.~PORT THEEOF - APN: 201-183-01. A- Recitals. (i) Baayoun Deve!opmenZ has filed an application for the approval of Tentative Tract Map No- ~4509 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Tentative Tract Map request is referred to as "the application." (ii) On the ]2th day of February ~992, the Planning Com~/ssion of the City of Rancbo Cucamonga conducted a duly noniced public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. (iii) On the 22nd day of April 1992, the Planning Co~dssion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted an additional duly noticed public hearing on th~ application ~cause of an inadequate Notice of Hearing for the first hearing and concluded said hearing on that date. (iv) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THERSFO.~, it is hereby f0~nd, dete~m/ned, and resolved by the Planning Co~m/ssion of the City of Pancho Cucamonga as follows: 7- This Co~ission 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 Com.~-dssion during the above-referenced public hearing on April 8, 1992, including wrinten and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application applies to property located on the east side of Hermosa Avenue between Wilson Avenue and Eanyan Street with a street frontage of 223.59 feet and lot depth of 627.61 feet and is presently vacanz; and (b) The property to the north of the subject site is existing Low Residential, the property to the south of the site is vacant San Bernardino County Flood Control DistricE !and, the property to.the east is existing Low-Medimm Residential, and the property to the west is very Low Residential. P2L~WZNG COmmiSSION -~SOLUTiO~ NO. 92-20A TT 14509 - B.~YOU~ DT~'ELOP>~NT April 22, 1992 Page 2 (c) .The project includes the! deve!opmenz of 18 single fa~!y residences; and (d) There are three floor plans within the project, each of them having three different building elevations which vary in color, style, and material; and (e) The single family lots range in size from 7,472 to 11,696 square feet. The average lot size within the project is 9,279 sGuare feet; and (f) The site is bounded to the south by a local equestrian trail; and (g) The subject property lies greater than 15 feet below the grade of the existing residences to the north. 3. Based upon the s'ubstantia! evidence presented to this Com-~ission during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findines of facts set forth in paragr_aphs I and 2 above, this Com=~nission hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) The tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and specific plans; and (b) The design or improvements of the tentative tract is consistent with the General P-an Development Code, and specific plans; and (c) The site is ohvs!ca!!v suitable for the type of develop proposed; and (d) The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to hmmans and wildlife or their habitat; and (e) The tentative tract is not ~k~v to cause serious public health problems; and (f) The desi%m of the tentative tract will not conflict with any easement acquired by the public at large, now- of record, for access znrouga or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. 4. This Cont~ssion hereby finds and certifies that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Co,m_mission hereby issues a g Ne ative Declaration. 5. Based upon the fi.-.dings and conclusions set forth in paragr_aphs I, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Com_mission b~-~bv approves the aDO ] { c~ti O~ subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereno and incorporated heroin by this reference. TT 14509 - 3~,YOU.~q DEVELOPmeNT April 22, 1992 Page 3 Planning Division 1) The developer shall apply for a Minor Exception to reduce the front yard setback standard to 29 feet for Lots 2, 8, and 9. The Minor Exception shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits. Engineering Division 7) The existing overhead utilities (te!ecom~.uni- cations and electrical) on the project side of Hemnosa Avenue shall be undergrounded along the entire project frontage extending southerly =e_ {~ n _ at ~ne north property line of the single fam/!y parcel at the northeast prior to public improvement acceptance or occupancy, whichever occurs first. The to recover one-half the City adopted cost for mndergrounding from future development (redevelopment) as it occurs on the opposite side of the street and adjacent oO the same side of the street. 2) Construct the 40-foot wide community trail/landscaped area along the south project boundary in accordance with the Common Use Agreement - Alta Loma Basin No. 2 (Contract No. 289). The landscaping shall be consistent with · ~e existing portion to the east. ~~ruct the City's Master Plan Storm. Drain Line in Hermosa Avenue extending from the Alta ~ Loma Basins to north of the north project bomndary. Sufficient catch basin capacity shall be provided to protect the site from · flows from the north and intercept an equivalent flow that was intercepted by the ~ existing inlet facility south of the project. The project shall be eligible for drainage fee credit and reirbursemenz for permanent master D!an facilities in accordance with City DO~4CV. 4 ~ .... ' S uen. f ~he project shall be excavated to provide sufficient storm. water rezention capacity to development of the projecn. PL~N'N'i.N'G CObLMSSSiON PSSOLUT/ON NO- 92-20A TT 14509 - B~-~YOD'qj DEVELOpMSNT April 22, 1992 Page 4 5) prainage from Lots 10-1a shall not flow directly onto the City maintained landscaped area to the south. A concrete swale shall be provided on the south side of the project's perimeter wall with connector swa!es (minimtum number possible) to ~e swa!e between the landscaped area and trail to the south. 6) The pedestrian access to Hermosa Avenue from Corkwood Court shall have additional concrete provided to make a 90-degree connection to the sidewalk on Hermosa Avenue and the access opening shal~ not be gated. 7) Every effort shall be fade to minim/ze the length of tilt cross-section along Hermosa Avenue as dete_nnlned during plan check. 8) The storm d/ain m~nho!e located within the equestrian trail shall be re!ocated to the satisfaction of the City Engineer so that it does not interfere with the use of the equestrian trail. 6- The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. B ~ L~r9 T. McNiel, Chair~n B,~! e~, Secre ary i,' Brad Bu!!er, Secretary of the Planning Com~ssion of the City of ~ncho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and reg!ar!y introduced, passed, and adopted by She P!annin~ Com~ssion of the City of Pancho Cucamonqa, at a r&~!ar'mee:i?ic of the P!an~inq Com~ssion held on :he 22nd ~y of April 1992, by the fo!!owi~g vote-to-wit: A2~S: CO~_MiSSiONERS: '~iEL, 2~LCHER, TOLSTOY NOES: COM~iSSi0b~ERS: 'V~LLETTE AESE4T: CO~iSSiOWEp3: DEPARTMENT OF CFI~' O.;~ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS I, ! APPUCANT SHALL CChN"rACT THE PLANNING DiVISION, ('714) ~,89.-18a61, FOR CO4~PHANCE WTTH THE FOLLOWqNG CONDI"RON:S: i · AppmvaJ shall exp4re, unk~s.s exlended by the Ran~ng C, omm~ion, i' b~itd~ permi~ are J / not iss~jed or a.p,pmved use ~ net comrr~nced w~hin 24 monks from the d~e of approval. 2. E:~,,'ek:>pr'~n~O.es~n Review s, nall be asppmve,cl ~ I0 / / ~ / 3. ~aJ o/Ter'~T~e Tr-a~ Ik,~. . ~s gra~ed S.L=~eC~ tO the a.pp<'ovai ,::ff ._.J / 4. Thedevetopefshalc~"nmerce,partk::ipa:te~n, ar~c~ns..~'=l~i:teo(r_.aJ.seto~~, J / paslic~ed in, or mns.~mma~ed. a Medo-Roos ~rV~f Faoibles E)~u-ict (CFD) for the Ras'~cho Cuca.rr~nga F~t~ Pro(e<:~ion [Z)tstr~ (o ~nar~ cz:h"~tru<:fion and/or rnai~enance of a fire station to Serve the d, ev,e4optnef~. h s~ s,hi~ be located, 3~ne,d, and l:xzit't to (~strk~'s ~ LipOn COtTX:~. Tn.e equipme1 st',a.I be se,lected by the DL.~ in ~ ~,qtn i1.s r',etdL lit arty t::=jilding o~ a s~.,~j3n. the develoOer st',ajl cornph/with all ~icabitiw$1ttdP. e.g. ilatk)nl. TheCFDshallbefon"rmdbytheD~s:b'~andthedevek:>per I 5. Pdor lo reco~i,:>n o~he f',nat n",a~orth,e lss~ar,~of t:~i:llng pen~L$, w'hk:;hevefcornes .__/ / first, the aDplicarx s.t',ai cortsefl to, a' pa~ in, ~ est~ o,I a Mello-.Roes Co~nrnunffy F~c~i,e$ O~s~:rt,~ k~r t~ co,nstr'ucaon and ~ o~ necessary school fac~k~. Ho'wevef, ~f any ~::noo4 di~ ha..1 pre,no,us.~ e.~ su~ a Con'm'~ni~y Facfi~lies Dislr'i~. the ~ s.~, in the a~em, zfl~e, co,-csent to the an,n~xa~lon of the p,"o~::~ .s/re inlo the terd~ry ~ s~c.n exis~ng O~t:ri~ pno,r to the reo:x'd~ion of the funaJ map di~tnct ha~ n~ fon'T,.,ed a Meilo-Roos Con"v"n~n~ Far~es O~s~r't~ w~hin t'we~ve rn~nths from ~he d.ate of approval of the p,n3~<:t and pr~>r to the re~ic..n of ~ f~'~.aJ ma.p or Lss.uan<e ~f bu~i n, g perrn~ for .~ pro~ea. this o3ndrhon sr. ajl be deemed nut and void. ~. P~rtor~noft~fi~or~rto~ua~of~i~i~swhen~p~ i~ot'~. ~en ~bn from ~ aff~ 'w~er di~ th~ ~ate s~er and water ~acil~ies are or will ~ ava~l~ to sere t~ ~ ~ s~ll ~ ~b~ to t~e De~me~ of Com~n~ ~veb~. ~c~ ~er ~ have ~n ~ ~ the water d~ w~hin ~ days ~r of ~s in the ~se of a~l ol~r reS~em~ B. S~~ ~ram. ~ gr~i~ on fi~ in t~, P~ ~, ~ ~ ~mai~ ~rein. Pl~n~ Co~n~. 2. P~r to a~ use of t~ pm~ s~e or ~s~ ~ ~ ~ t~r~n. all S~te Rm M~s r~l~ D~n ~ a ~. ~ ~i~ ~ ~ ~ f~ ~a ~ to su~ for C~ P~r r~ 5. A~ s~e, gr~ ~, i~, ~n, a~ ~i~, ~c.). or ~ to f~ ~ ~ in ) ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~bn. or ~ use ~ ~, ~r 6. ~ ~ ~ r~ Pa in ~ ~ ~ t~ s~s ~ (~ 1) ~ ~ t~ ~ of ~i~ ~. ~ ~a s~u 8. lf~~t~~am~,~l~¢~ ~f~un~ ~~~ ~ ~l~to C~P~f ~ ~t~ ~t of ~( v~ ~ ~ae~ ~ee~ 1~ t~ u~ ~ a ~a~n of .~r~e or ma~n~ walls, ~i~, ~'~ ~ ~ ~ ~n of t~ C~ ,ann,r. 11.Sb'eet p, ame~ s,"~ll be subrn~,ed for C;'ty Ranner review ar'~d approv81 in a~rdar'ce w~3 the adoted S~re-et Naming Foiic/pdor to app~aval of the final map. 12. A)I building nurnta.ers and individual units snatl be ~enti'fied in a c!ear and ~n,c~e manner, ~,/ inchcling proper itlu minalion 13. A detailed p~an ind~;-ating frail widIbs, maximum sb. pes, physical Gandifi.ans, fen~ng. and weed control, in accordance witb City Master Trail drawing.s.s.haJI be sub. raft'ted for City Planner m',~ew and apptovaJ prier to a. ppmvaJ and recurclarion of the Final Tract Map and prior to approval of slreet improvement and grading p~ans. Developer shall up~rade and c~nstnac~ all traits. including ten,cing and drainage devic. e~, in c~njur'.c~lon with s~reet imCfovemenls. 14.The~venar.rLs~C~nditi~nsandRe~rk;~i~ns(~&Rs)st`alln~tpr~hibit`;~ekeepir~fequine anirnaJs where zoning requirements for the keeping of .f. aid animal~ have been met. Indi,,4d~J al tot owners in subdivisions shaJl have the c.~i.a~ ol kee.pir~ sajd at~imais wttho~ the necessity ot appealing fo boards of dire.~ors or h~ame~wners' a~.se.ciations for amendment~ fo the \ 5.errands. Conditions. and Restrictions (CC&Rs) ~ Ar~:ide-~ ot [nc~rperaI~on of the Hoaners' ~ia'tion am sub~K:"l to the apptovaJ of the P~ar'~jr~ ar.d Er.~ineering Divisior'~s and fi',e C~'7 A~omey. They shall be regarded c~n,a.~rrer'~y w'~h bhe Rr, aJ Map or pdor to the ~ssuart. e of I:~lldjng permits, whic~ever ~rs firsl. A reca'ded c~.py shall be provided to the City Engineer. 16. AJlpark'ways. openarea_~,and~shall bepe'manentlymajmaZ~ed b,/tbe~operty owner. h~r'neowner~' as..~x;ia:fi~n, or other meat~ a:~epta~le to the Ci~/. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall be sut::,rn~ed for C~ Platter and City E~neer r~iew and approval prior to issuance of building 17. Solar acce.~ easemerr~ shaJt be dedicated for the purpo.f~ ~ ast~umit~ ti"'~:l ead'~ tot or dwelling unit sha~ have ~he rtg~ Io recede a solar energy syslem. The easements may be ¢o~a.ieed ~ a ~io~ ~f Ret~'i~ions for the subdivis ian whic. b st',.al be rec~a rded co. ncurremly ~ tfie ~ion of the ~ map or issuance of permits, whic. he~' come~ fir~. TT~ ea.~en',e~s shall pro~iait ~ casting of shade~s by ve~eta:lior~, ~ruc~ure~. fbrtum.~ or any ot~"~r oia~. e:~ce~ for u'titi'b, wi~-~ and similar oO,je~s, plJrsua,n'l t0 De~eloprne~ ~ .~n 17.D S.06,0-G-2. 18. Tt'~pm~:::~cont~in~ad,~gna~edHi~'o,"icalLandrnark. Tn.~t"~'~a. llbede~bCedand maintained in ~ ,,,~lh the Hi~loric ~ Al~-a~ion ~ N~. · An,/further n",a<~a to the site ind~dir~, b,u'l ~ limited I0, e~ed.or aj~era"tier~ and/or imed~ra~e~a~Ii~..~`~`'~hic~".~:~hee~1ed~r~tbeb'ui~din~g~or~ructum~mrreva.~ar~dmark ire e~, de rr~iti:x~. rek:t_.~brt, r~:~:x.~ruction ef b~itding~ or $1ructure~, or c~ to the site s,hall req~Jltl I rrediftr_.~to~ 10 ~ Hi~loric Landark/~eraio~ PerTl'~ $t.~.ecl ~a Hi~or~c Preser'va:t:i~'~ Co,"f,tni~...~o~ ~ and a.p.pro~,aJ. 1. An~erna.tiveenen;;Nsy~`~`mi~r~:~ir~b`~d~p`~`~k:~d~m'e~tici.~of`~`a:~e`rf~ra~d"~e~.~units aad for beating art/~'~irr,tring ~ or ~ unie.~l o~f'~ef al~er'na~ ener~/s~err~ are time ~f initial devebpm,erl ~ he ~.~pp~n'~tled ~ ~a.r heair'~. D.e{a.i~ shall be inc-~ded in tl~ buildir~ ~ and ~,all be ~u~atnit'ted for C~ Ra.r,,,'~r review ar~ app"ovat prior to the is.suance of buitdif~ permi(s. _ 2. A~I d~ellin,g~ s,%all have the from. sid~ and rear e~evations upgraded ,~ith architectural tmalme~. detailin~ and increa.f...,.-.d befin.~at~o~a ~ ~rfac~ tm~rn. ent ~e,c:~ to C,ty Pbanne r rev;.e.~ and appro..,,al prior to i:ssuarf. e of l:xaii,~n,~ perrr~s. 3. Star'~d,a~'d p~io cove_r pta. ns for use by the Home,awners' A~s.~",cia'~bn shall be su~ for /__,/ C~ P~nr~r ~ ~i~i~ ~1 rev~ a~ ~p~va~ ~r to i~a~ of ~i~i~ ~s. 4. AIt~f~ne~s, ind~i~air~bnem a~oth~rr~f~m~m a~zor j / ~je~bns, s~l ~ shie~ from v~ a~ t~ ~ ~er~ from ~j~nt pm~es ~ ~reets as r~uir~ .by ~ P~ni~ Div~n. S~ ~'~ni~ s~l ~ amh~urally im~ra[~ wffn t~ ~i~i~ des~n ~ ~ [o l~ s~i~n of the C~ Plan~r. ~a~r~ea~b~ uses. 4. Allunffss~l~v~w~h~r~r~mff~ays~ ~t~18f~ in J / ~h from ~ of _3. Am~m~__.~g~,~~f~~,~p~ j / 6. Treessr',ailbePlame~inareasc(publ~c'~ewadiacemtoar. dabngstruc~uresa~ara~eefone tree per 30 liP, ear feet of bui~in, c:j. J / 1 7. AllPdvatesbC'eba'~ksSfeetor~es~inver~k:alhek~htar,,dofS:lorgmmersbpe. but~e~than j / 2:1 sbpe, sbait be, ~t rr~nirnum, irr~aled and lands.aped with a4>proCdate grc-und cover for erosion c~ntml. S4ope p~aming required by th~ se.~ion shall include a perre. ahem irrigation b// system to be ir~al~,d by the devebC,er prior to 8. Allprivale slopes n~xcessofSfeef, t:x.rt l.essthan8 feet in vert~.al heigt"~andof2:l orgrealer J / slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soflen lbeir appearance as follows: one 15-gallon or larger size free per each 150 sq. ft. of slope am a, 1 -gallon or larger size shrub per each 1 130 sq. fl. of sbCe area. and a. ppropdale ground c~ver. In addition, slope bar'~s in excess of 8 feet in verfic. al 5--gallon or larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. ~ sbC.e area. Trees arid shrub~ shall be plamed in slaggered cbslem to soften and vat,/slope p~.ne. Sbpe p~amlng required by this section shall include a pemm irr~ion system to be installed by the developer ]:x$or to 9. For single family residential devebpment, a~ sbpe pla. r~ing a",d irfi~i.an shall be confir~u- __/ / ously majrrl alned in a he a~l"~/and t.hdving aand~lJ~n b~ the de v~ leper until each ind~'iduaJ uni~ is .s~ldandoo:~p4edbyti-~ebuyer. Pdorto relea~ingoccupar~."'/fortj".a~.~un~s. anir~;~,~lion shal~ be aanducled by tb~ R&nnin.g r.~ndifion. 10. For rr~ff i-famiiy residential and noraresidential developmenl, property o~ne r~ are respon- J / si:~e for the cominual majmenat~e of all ~'~dst~ atea~ on-si~e, a~ welt as contiguou.~ p~amed area~ witbi~ me p~t~i¢ rigi'd-of-way. All la/~r~a¢~ area.~ s~all be kept free from weeds and del:x~ and rn.airlai,"~d in a healby ~ ~ oa"~dit~n. and shall re.cei~e regular pruning, fertilizing. n-e~i.~g, and ~ A~y da/f~,~ed, dead, diseased. or decaying pla.m rn~edaJ sfiall be rep4at_..8~ 11. From yard landst_.a.p;a'~ '~hal he required per the De~ek::~:x'nen:t Code and/o¢ / / · Tn4s m,q~imn",errl .~'~.al be in addi't~n to the required slreet trees and siop~ p~antir~. 12. The fir~al design o-f the perimeter paA"~ay,~. wa.~. ~l,r't~.~'~c.a;ping, and side~a,bk~ shall be j / inck.,ded i~ the required ~ ~ ~ ~ be ~ to CIty Raz,,'~r re~ie~ and approval and cootdirtied I~r cot~i~ency wlh at~ p~k~ay ~d~t~-~pi-~ p~an ,,fhicfi may be required by the Er~it, e~rir~ 13.Speda~andst.`a4:~featur~a~rreur~di.~.a~taf~r~k.~peci`nen~izetree.~meandef. J /__ ir'.g sidewal~ (w~th ~ ~), 14.Landscapir~ar~r~h~t.1'ga1k>nsys~err`~srequiredi~bek,`~:~a~edw~:~kntI~*~r`~.x-~cf-way~n fhe pedme,,er ot tt~ pm~cl az'~ sha.I be co~'Xknu<~sjy rnak-r~ned by the devek:,~gr. ,15. Aft wa~shalbe provided wthdeo3rzffi~trea~rr~l. ffk3c~ed kn~,h&c majn~en,ance ama~, the design sJr'~al be co,ch,~,~.a.te~ ~ the Er~ir,.~;.,,dng Di,nsk~. 16. Tre~ ma~len-ana~ cnter~i st'~l be d~i.~a~:l and ~_~h"'r~ed for Clf~ Planter f'f~f and app'oval p,nor ~ ~ance c~ b~ildir~ perm~s. ~ c,tert~ shaft eP, o~raQe bhe natural 17, Landscaping ar~ irr~ion ~al be designed to c:>n~rve ,~ater tl~ the pdr~ip4es of Xensc..ape a~ defined in Cha.~er 19.16 crf th~ Ra/'d"~ C. uca~ ~uniapaJ Code. 219 ! ~ or i: _ 1. T~es,~ir~icaedontl~esubrnittedplansarec~nc, e~Uaton~yandnotapa,.laf thisapproval. / /__ Atny signs pccC, aseci for Ibis devel.cpm, en! shall can"oh' with the S;gn O~inance and shaft require sa~c~le a.~::~ica~i~n ard a4:9-aval by the Plannin. g Divisbn p,'~r ~o instal~tion of any skJr'~. 2. AUnfformS~gnPro~ramforthisdevebomemshallbesubmilIedforCh'yplanner rev,ewand J I a.pC. roval prior to issuance of bgiloing permits. 3. Directory m,an~merrt sign(s) shall be provided for a.partmerit. c~nd~amini~m, or townh~mes J / pd~ar to occu~ and shall require separate al~loaion and a, pp~vaJ by tl"~ Planning DN'i~bn prior to ~s.s.uance of b,Jiloing permit.,~. G. Environmental 1. The developer shall provide each prospective l~yer written notice of b~e Fourth Street Roc~ __J / Crusher projecI in a ~an~ar'd format,as detectfined by me City Pla..~r~f, pl"~to acc~p(jng a cash de.p~si~ on any property. 2. The devek:>per shall pna,Hde eac~ ~maspective b~Jyer ',~"filen r,~ic.e of ~ City Ado~ecl J Spedat Sl:udie~ Zone for me Red Hill Faait, in a sland_.atd form. a a.~ de~ermif, ed by tJ'~e City ~1 Planner, l~lo¢ to acc.e~ing a cast~ deposi~ on arty ~. 3. The de~'ek:~o,er shall provk:~. each p.naspec~i,.,e t:~,et wri~e.n notlo~ of the FoeSill Free'way / 7' / I:~"o~'".~ in a standa. rd formal a..s determined b7 the Cty Pla.nrer, prior to acc. e~lteg a cas~ , depart on any p,"~oerty. 4. A fir,aJ aco.usficaj report st,aft be submitted for C~1,/Rannef re,,'k=,w and a,ppm~aJ prior to the / / issuam._.e ol buitdtng permits. The finaJ refx:~'t ~ dt~:~s~ the ~,~el of i~edor noise atlenua:t ian to below 45 CNEL. the b~iloing n'~erfa~ and cc. nsl~ I~ provided, and it apple, veri~ the adequacy 04 the rl'~i~,~iorl rn~a_~.ure-~. The I:~ildtng plar~ will be ct'~ec~ed for co~orrnanc~ with the rcil~a:~m rnea~.~res ca~a~-',ed in the finaJ refxxl. H. Ott'~-r Agenct.~ 1. EmergencY.secandarya~::~,.altbe~acca-di~-~c~.,,nlhR~C, uc,=~r~or~aFire J , Prote~ion D~ric~ S~andan::~. 2. Ernergency access sf',.all be p. ro~ided, ma~enanc~ ree a~d deat,'a rnirin'~m of 261eet wide J / .~ all times dunr~ con=~b't~io~ in accordance wlh Ranc~ Cucam,oT~a Fi~e Pf'oteclion Di~ric~ requirere, eft. 3. Prix to e of bm~ii:ln~ pea for ca'r'e..t~ com~ruction, ev~:~er',c~ st',aJI be _.J /,I ~ed~l:~e ~ C.,t.~r,nor',.~ Ere Pro~e, ction Di~r'tcltl'~l t~rr6,~caO, w~t~-~pp',7, for tit,9 pt'ote.c~:~ i~ i, pef'~ing aim c,l required fire pro{ec~ton syslem. 4. Theapplc~nlg.halcor~,e~tt~ U.S. po~aj..~r,~lod~em-i.~tbe,,X:~pro,p(~ety~and __/ /, bc.alion of ~ boxes. Mull-fan'i,/re~i::ten~a.l be~e~ 9.b~l p.rof~e a ~old o~rnead sln.~:ture for rnal boxe~ ~ ade<~a:le tig~ing. ~ rr~ to.c~io~ of I:~ rn~ boxe~ a.r~d the design of tb~ oremead Sr'lx~re ~t~all be ~ub~ect to City Rannef re~e~ az',,d approvaJ pc, or to the e=~.uar, c~ o4 b,jiidin~ berrr~s. APPUCA~ SH~ C~A~ ~E BUI~ING AND SAF~ DIVISION, g14) ~1~, FOR COMP~ANCE ~ ~E F~LO~NG ~DJ~NS: S~e ~ve~ 1. ~e~ll~yw~h~e~Un~i~i~,Unffo~M~hani_ ~l ~, Un~o~ R~W ~, Nat~ EI~ ~e, a~ all ot~r a~ ~s, o~ina~s, a~ r~lm~ in eff~ ~ t~ ~ of ~m of re~e ~s. Piease ~m~ the Bui~i~ a~ S~eW D~n tor ~es oJ t~ ~ ~n O~ina~e a~ ~ ha~s. 2. P~r to ~a~ ~ ~i~iW ~ for a n~ r~l ~ela~ un~(s) ~ ~r a~n to ex~Ji~ un ~(s), ~ ~ ~all ~y ~e~ JM ~ tM ~1~ ~e. ~ fee s ~y i~e. ~ a~ ~t lim~to: C~ ~n FH, P~ F~, D~ Fee, Sy~e~ ~ve~m Fee, Pe~ ~ P~ C~ FM, ~ ~ FM. 3. P~r ~ i~a~ of ~i~i~ ~m~ f~ a ~ ~ ~ i~ ~ve~m or e~ ~e. ~ f~s ~y i~e, ~ ~e ~ I~ ~: Sy~e~ ~m Fee, Drain~ F~, ~1 FMS, Pem~ ~ P~n Ch~W FM. 4. S~ta~~l~p~by~i~i~,~t~l~r~m~n ~ ~rto i~a~ ~ ~i~iW ~. 1. P~v~ ~ wffh tN Unffo~ ~ ~ ~ ~e ~ I1~ c~a~s ~d~ u~, ~ea, ~ ~M~N~ ~ ~ ~i~ 2.5~W ~i~i~ s~ ~ ~e to ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z~ rWu~ for 3. ~~dt~J~~,J~a~~o~yw~ht~ Un~ ~ ~ ~ U~ ~i~ ~. 4. U~ o~e ~t~ ~ ~o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~i~ ~ ~ for ~i~ ~ ~n. K. G~JW 1. ~I~~I~~~hNU~W~,C~ 2. A~~~a~~~~e~C~om~to .3. ~e ~eM ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: a ~ D~e P~ ~ r~. p~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ of ~ ~ (7~ 4) ~7-2111 t~~n.~~~~ tot~C~y 4. A~r~ns~M~a~~~~~ at ~ ~ ~ ~ for ~i~ ~n ~. 5. ~ef~g~~aN~{~a~~r~mo~i~i~s. a-~l~a~anagree~ntex~t~gu~a~eei~t~nofallo~s~e drain~ l~i~ ~ for d~ed~ all ~rce~ to the s~i~bn of t~ Bui~i~ ~ S~ O~n ~r to final m~ ~mval a~ ~r to the ~a~ of gr~i~ ~s. b. ~pm~e eas~me~s for s~e d~ of d~i~ w~er that are ~ omo or over ~ ~r~ls, a~ to ~ ~i~a~ a~ r~ to t~ s~i~bn ot the Bui~i~ a~ S~e~ D~n ~r to i~a~ of gr~i~ ~ ~i~i~ pea~. c. ~-s~e dai~ i~ove~s, ~e~ for ~aled~ a~ ~t~i~ t~ ~ ~d~s, ~e to ~ i~all~ pdOr to i~ ~ ~i~i~ ~a ~r ~nsi~bn any ~el ~at ~y ~ ~ to dr~ f~ e~e~, ~i~, or wffhin a arcel re~e to wh~ a ~i~i~ ~ ~ r~e~. d. R~I g~di~ ~ for e~ ~1 are to ~ ~ ~ ~e ~i~ ~ S~ p~n for ~val ~r to ~e of ~i~ ~ ~ ~. (~s ay ~ on an ~ea~ or ~e ~.) e. ~1 s~ ~ in ex~ d 5 fe~ in ve~ ~ s~ ~ ~ ~h n~ ga~ or ~ w~h g~ ~ver for e~sbn ~1 ~ ~ ~ ga~ ~ ~ omer ~e~e ~t~ of e~s~ ~1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~e ~ of ~e ~i~i~ ~. In ~n a ~ i~n ~ ~a ~ ~. ~ts ~eme~ ~s ~ re~ t~ ~~ f~m ~ ~h ~ s~ ~mi~ APPUCANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENCdNEER!NG DIVISION, (714) 989-1862, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDI'I'K}NS: L ~l.n m.nd Vehtculr Acc~m · Rights-~-way and easemen'a shag be dedc~ed k> thi City f~ al interim' pu, bac streets, / comrnuni~y trai~, pu~tic i;:~k,~.o~. ~lic ~ ar~a.a, :~refl tre~s, ar~ p~b~c drainage I' facilille~ a.s shew~n on the plans and/of tenta:Itv~ map. Prtvzle ea..*,~'THmls for non-t1:x~i:4ic facil~ie~ (cross-hi drajnage, local feeder trails, etc.) shall be reser,,'~d a.~ shown on me I~an~ ar~i/or lerrlali',,e map. 2.Dedication shall be made o( ~he folow~ng F,,,/is--of-~/on tt~ t~rn~er slr~rl~ (measured ~'c-m s~reet c~qledln~): tolll feet on . tola,,I feel o-n 3, An irrev~x:ablec:~/erGldedi"-,-!ionfor -foolwi:~roadwayea. semenlst"allbemade J /, for all l:mvale ~mets or drlve~. /' 5. RecC.n:>calacz::e~ease,merrls sha~bepnavideclen:sur'r~l::ce.~allpa. ncet~ ~ CC&Rs /_ or ~ Oee<::~ and shall be recorded c~rcuar'~ ~r~ ~.e ma~ or pttc.' to tJ'~e i's.~uance ol i,/6. Pdva~edrainc--geeaserr.emstor~mss-b~cJrainagesnafibep-ovided 8p.esnall~e ¢enneated c.~.~;=~.- or r. oted on ~,~ final map, J / 7. Tnefinalm-a~st'~J~c~eadyc~fin.eateal0-foe~minin'~umbui~dinc~res~r;~nareaonthe __/ / nekjhi~dr~ bt adjoining th, e zero bt line wall ar'd c~ain t~e folk~wing lan<:2d~: 'Mi, ve h~reby dedjc.~te to the City of Rar~ch~ Cuc, zrr~nc~.a th~ r~,ht to p,'~hl?~t tfie consmj~n of (res~dentiaJ) t~ildir'x;s (or o~r sD'ucfures) wrYbin ~osa areas des~gr~*ed on the map as building reEzT~n areas. ' A maintenance agreemere shall atr:~ be gramad from each ~ to the ad~.,~nt bt through the CC&R's. t'/// 8. All existing easements ~'ying w~hin future dgh~s--of-way sh. aJl be quitc~ain'~ecl or delineated on / / the final rna~. b/'/ 9. Easements for pu~ic sidewal<.s arid/or street I~ees p~ac~d outside the p~b~ic right-of-way J / shaJi be dedica:~ed to t~e C~'y wherever they ~ or~o I;xi,,,a~e t;:~'~c~'. 1~.Additi~najstmetri~Tt`~f~wayshaj~bededic~dak:H1righttumLane`~J~t~i::x.~v~arninirnum J / of 7 fee{ measured from the face of c:~rl:~. ff c:~do ad~j. acent sk:je,,rak i~ used atong the ~ turn lane. a paraJlet street b'ee rna~enance ease rrem sh.a~ be proyided. 11.Thedevei~persha~ma~eag(x>dfaj~e~rt~C~uiretherequired~tep~-~pertYir~erests n~,,essary to c:z~"~mc~ ~e required public in'~vemen(3, arx:l i h~/r~,e s~outd faj to do .so, the devek:~:~er shal, al fea.~ 120 days pdor ~o ~ of the C-,naJ rn~ ~' a~aJ, e~er inlo an agreemer~ to cernp~e{e the k'nprovemen~s ~jm. uant to GovernrnerX Co<~ Sectien Such agreement shall pmv~e br payment b~ ff~e devei3pe- of all costs hcurred b~ the City to acquire the otf-s~e p, ro~erty interests required In c~xf. sc~ion with ff~e su~dvisi:m. Security foraP~adionoftt~esecostsst',aJlbelntheformo4a~d. eCosl in bh,e ~rno~r~ given in an aDp,raEsaJ repod o~Xajned by the develoC,er, a~ dev~,o~s cos:t. Th~ aep~;xaj:s~f s.hajl have V///3. ~ff~313wi~pedr'neter~reetlmpmwrrter~tl~b~ncXirritedto: / / ~'7' ~""'~ ?~.~_.. ,,..~: Notes: (a) Median i..~ar~ inc~,des iar',dsc,a~ncj ar',d irdgaIk:,n on meter. (b) PaveinerT[ rec~p. slruc~icn and ovedays will be determined dudrig plan ched,:. (c) ff so marked, sk:J~ ii wal~ shai] be ~r,'ilin, ear per STD, 304. (d) If so marked, an irrtk~u of c~nstrucIjon fee shall be i:~ovid,ed for this ~tem. i, L/'///~.. Improveam p~ans and construction: a. Street impnavemem p~ans inchcling slreel trees and stree! Ik;]h'Is, prepared by a regEs- ...--Y / jl feted Civil Engineer, shaJl be submitted to and ,a,q::lroved by the Ch'y Engineer. Security shall be p~s~ed and an agmernem executed to the satisfaction of the Ci~/Engineer and the C/b/A~orney guaranteeing c~mpietjon of me public at, d/or pdva~e street irn.pmve- rnents, pnor to final map app'oval or the issuance of building permits, w~hichever occurs 5. Priar to any w~rk being perforrm~ in public r~i1-of..~ay, fees shaJ~ be paj.d and a c~ns~ruc~on benmit shall be obtained from me Ci~7, F_ngin.eer's Office in addition to any other pern'its required. c. Pavement s~p4ng. marking, traffic, s/zeet name signing, and inlen:~nnec~ c~ndui~ __/ / s.ha~ be ins:~aJ/ed to the s.~s~s, ctk~n of the City ~r. d. Signa~c~3nduitwihpu~b~xe~sha~bein:~1ajk~d~nanYn'ewc~ts1ruc5~norrec~structbn of mafo~, sec~nda~, or colle:~or s~re~s which in~ersec~ wi~h ~her inapt, se<~ndary or collector s~'ee~s for future baflic sign.a~. Pull bexes shall be placed on botch ~des of the slreet at 3 feet o~side of BC R. E~ R or any othe~ bcatbns a4Ppmved by the City Engineer. Notes: / (1) A~I pg~ boxes sha be No. 6 un4es~ o~hen,,'isa spectk~d by the Cil'/Er'~nee~. (2) Conduit shaJJ be 3-incfi gaJvanized s~e~ w/b pullrope. e. Wheetchaj,rrarf'ep,sshaJ4hetr~s~2dledo.nalkx~rco,--ne~ofi~.Xersecdonspe-City / S~andarc~ or a.~ directed by the C~b/Er',.gene~-r. t. Existing City road~ requirir~ cof~n.x;tio~ shall r~'r~in o,pe~ Io traffic ~ al time~ with J / adequate deto~r~ dudng G:m~n.K::~on. A ~tre~ dosur~ pem'tl may b.,I required. A cash retiredeel upon complsOon ol ~ 'con~ruc~n to ~ sa~acllo~ o~ ~,e C~/Engm.eer. g. Coor~rrlr~sddrajnag,$fiowssha~nc~cn3s. ssk:le~z~s. Unde'sidewa~drajns sh~l be / h"~ale<:l to Cib/S~'~w~, sxce~ f~r ~ fam~ h. Handic~ _v:o~__~ ramp design ~ be ~ ~ by the Cib, E~. J / i. Stn9.e`trt~m~T~ss~ha~be`~pp-~vedbytt~CityP~az~nefpd~rt~subrn~[8jfor~r~:tp~inChed~. 5. Sb'eet ~ pi..l ns per Cibf ~ fc< aJI pn'v~e s~r,efLs s.h. aj be pmvi::t, ed for J / rev~ and approv~J b,/the City Eng.'~'. Prix to ~ work ~ ~ on t~e vale s'0"e~t~, fees shall be paid ~ co,,".stn.~io~n perrr~s ~ be o~b,~n,ed from tt',e Ch*-y V/,/ E~s Office in add/tjon m any ot't',~r p,efrn~s ng<:~it'~,d. ~S~Tee~trees~amm~rrumc`41`.5H~2Ji3n~iz~or~a:g`e~.~s~h.a~beins~edp'erC~Standardsin j /:L accord.arr. e wi~h the City's slreel tree program. .lntersec~bnlineafs~,edesigp-4 .~hall be revie'wed by ~he C;t'/ £,'Yjineer ~or confcrmanc2, wlln r.,~-~z c,:: aOo.pted ~icy. i__/ a. CXn c~tlec~T or Lazg~r s~reets, tin~s of sight shall be pk~t~ed for all pm{_--~:t ~t~,erseci~ns, J I including d.t~eways. WaI~, signs, and sbpes shall be bc,=-te<~ outside ;he lines of sight. Landsc_,.a~aing az~ other obstruc~idns within the lines of s~ht st'aJl be a~c, roved by the Ci'b/ Engineer. b. Local resld, er'ffial s~reet intemecl~r~s shall have their noticaability imc. z~ved, u~jally by __/ / moving the 2 +/- cto se ~ stree~ tre~s on each side away from the street ~ placed in a s~reet free easeam. 8. A pern'~ shall be o~lained from CALTRANS Io~' any w~rk within tbe following dgil-of-way: __.J / 9. AJI p~l~ic irrepmvements on the following ~tre~ts ~ be operaionally come, ere pri~r to the ~ / iss, uanc~ of l:~J ildi ng be rrt~ts: 4. A perrn~ from ~be Cou,m'y Fidod'Comrcl Oist~cz is reiuired for wor',< w~thin ~tsr:<jn[-of-way. I 5.Trees are p'-ohib4ted within 5 feet of me outside dia,,'T~.ter of any pu~id storm drain pipe measured from the outer edge of a mature tree tmnk~ 5. Pub/k; slorm drain easernems s,hall ~ graded to ~_~nvey overttc.ws in the event of a J / bbckage in a sun'~. catch basin on l,'ne pjbfic slreet. 1. Provide separate ulilh'y se~ices to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water. / / gas, electrt: power, telephone. and cab~ TV (aJl underground) in accordance with the Utili'b/ Standards. Easemems shall be provided as required. 3.Water and sewer p4.ans shall be designed and con~r'ucted to me-et the requimrnents of the / /, Cuc_.arnor'~ Co~r'fZ7 Water Dis"dicl (CCWD), Ranc~h~ Cuc=3rnonga Fire Pnatect~n District. and the Env~ronr'penlal Heailh Oe.parlrnem of the C_,o, unty of San Bernardino. A ketter of corn~iance Horn th.e CCWD Ls required pal. or to final map a.pp~vaJ or issuance of permits, whichever occurs firs1. O. Gen, era l Req~lr,e,rn~n~ and Apf)rovall t. The separa~e parcets cor~ained within 2. ~ e~e~m for a ~im use d~w~y s~l / 4. Et~a~San ~a~ ~a R~b~l M~, ~ R~I, ~ M~er PI~ / Oeve~. on me a~v~ ~e~e ~p. INLAND CITIES CORP. 1 [490 Orum Road Los Angeles, California 90049 Tel. (310) 476-4763 Fax. (3 t0) 472-0457 E-Mail Address: inlandcit~,_.ol.c0m 20 April 1998 Hand Delivered Mr. Brad Bulier City Planner City ofRancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 9I 729 RE: Request for Time Extension on Tentative Tract 14509. This letter shall represent our formal request to extend the time on tentative tract map 14509 for one additional year. Baring any unforeseen delays, and provided we can modify, the condition regarding the utility under~ounding beyond our property boundaT, we expect to begin development of the site immediately upon map recordation, which can be as early as fall of this year. We are in receipt of the Notice of Endangered Species, dated March 5, 1995, stating that the property may be within habitat which may be affected by US Fish and Wildlife Service's listing of the California Gnatcatcher and San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat, and we are in the process of conducting the survey in compliance with the required protocol. It will be delivered to you imsnediately upon completion. If you have any questions or need further information, please do not hesitate to contact Jim A..A2unad, MSCE at (310) 476-4763. Thamk: you in ad,.'ance to your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Bayoun Corporation Yehya Baayo~m SITE UTILIZATION MAP F2J2E_PABE[:) BZL o,~,,,E PiREPAIII-iD FOR: FLOOD CONTROL RKT~T -, REAR SECTION C - C EE)--i .... SECTION D - D .... ,,~j__ _j. ,...  SECTION A -~s{d=~-~l subdivision and deafen review of !S sin~!e ==m~l',' lots cn 3.34 acres cf land in uhe Low Res_dentia_ Diszrisz (2-4 dwelling units per and Banyan S~reea APN: 20!-!S3-0!.! Staff recor_uende issuance of a miaigated Negative Declaration. Co~issioner He!chef a~ked how !B' out of 57 people had not received the original public hearing notice for the previous meetigg. Brad Bu!!er, City Planner, explained that it was a clerical error; the person sending out the notices thought tha~ two of ~he rows of address labels were identical because the first t~'o labels in each ro~ were the same name and address. Chairman HcNie! opened the public hearing. Debbie F!ores, 10121 Kemp-cod Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she did receive ~he original notice of public hearing for the previous meeting that was held. She stated her house was only 37 feet from the property line of the new deve!opmenz. She cor_~ented her main concern ~as her lack of privacy because the proposed house is a two-story. She fe!z a one-story house would have been a beE~er choice given the close proximity of zhe houses. She asked the Com.mission to consider this when ~hey make ~heir decision. Ange!o F!ores, 10203 South Ridge Drive, Rancho Cuc~monga, stazed he o~ned and renaed property approximately !0 feez from the proposed development. He had concerns ~o-~d~- ' safety, Do!!ution, and the possibility thau he would have a problem renting his property out now because of the lack of privacy experienced problems with the proper?/ in its vacant state because it is unkempt and !ar~e animals roam ~here freely. Commissioner He!chef pointed out that if zhe area were developed he would no longer have problems with ~eeds and animals. Er. F!ores replied that many of tenters preferred ehe lot vacant because the'/ liked the privacy. jim Long, 10191 Kern~ood Court, Rancho CuCamonga, stated he had concerns regarding aesthetics and views also, buz his main concern ~as with the 3aayoun is an unethical builder. He ccrnenzed that his house was bui!z by the s~me developer a couple of years ago and he is still tryin~ zo get ahem take care of repairs that should have been done prior zo his moving in. He several peop!~ in his deve!op~enz have had prDb!ems with faulzyfirep!aces and Planning Ccmr. ission Minutes -5- April 22, 1752 him, but he had cormacted Mr. Sul!er and found ouc ~hat there were plans workmanship by the developer and the claim has recently been settled through arbitration. He also felt the .Com.mission should be aware of the poor reputation the developer'has acquired. Regarding the issue of close proximity to other houses, he stated that people moving into the new development will undoubtedly have the same concerns he has regarding their privacy. jerry Wilson, Engineer for Saayoun Deve!opmenz, 223 N. !st Avenue, Upland, without making the driveways too steep. Chairm. an Mct~l closed the Dub!it Chairman McNie! asked Mr. Bu!!er if there were any other ilems that should be brought to the Com.m. issicn's azzention :haz they did not hear a~ the !as~ receive the initial notification of ~he firsz meeting an opportunity zo speak Chairman HcNie! asked what has been done to prctecz the City and potenzia! Mr. Bu!!er responded that the Building Department and the City Council have Ccm.missioner Me!char ccm.menzed that the proximit'/of the house on Loc 8 zo the apart than other garages on the street. Be wondered if iZ would be appropriate, in the future, Eo diminish front yards on the cul-de-sac the space in the back lyard where pesp!e 'use it. He felt that should be she had expressed a~ Design Kevie~. She remarked =hat she did nca think i~ was appropriate in this area., which is designated !cw residenzia!, ~o have such small back yards. ' " Dan Coleman, D-~n-{Da] planner, com~mented he thought Com_T. issicner Me!chef was referring to ~he Minor Exception process ~,hich would a!!cw the front seaback to be moved to 29 feet rather =hat 32 fee=. He stated the Co;_mission could initiate a Minor Exception for whichever !o=s ~hey deemed appropriate.. Com.missioner Me!chef asked {~ ~ Minor Excep%icn was already granted for this tract, and if so, which !one were affected. Mr. Coleman replied Lot 2 had Seen changed already. Com.missioner Me!chef asked if the homes on Lots 8 and 9 can be moved forward to the minimum frets yard setback and also be granted a 3-foot Minor Exception. Barrye Hanson s~ated that there could be some grading differentials created by shifting the setbacks, which in turn ma!F cause the need zo increase ~he heigh~ of the back retaining we_!. Com_missioner Tolstoy asked if the retaining wall could be "stepped" ~o suit Mr. Bu!!er responded affirmatively. an application for a Minor Exception for the t~'o isis). Mr. Wilson stated he preferred to move ahead ~'izh an approval tonight and work ou~ the rest with staff. Chaiman McNie! closed the pub!'ic hearing. addressing the preservation cf view corridors. She also stated the possibi!it'f exists ~o introduce a differeni product type no address Ihe concerns of the residents and her prior sonterns regarding back yard setbacks. minimum front setback and further suggesned that staff, with =he app!icant's under that permit. Additional!?', he felt it ~'su!d be acceptable in %his case :he nor=h side. apprcving Tentative Tract 14509 as ~sdifie!. Hc~ion carried b!/ ~he following Co~_~issioner va!!ette stated she vozed no .for the reasons previously stoned. ~he firso discussion on the projecl ~ she did no~ =~ informed enou-h eo discussion bet~'een zhe Cor_~issieners. mas~er plan for the Perry's Shopping Cen~er in ~he Cor~uniz}. Co~s,e- ~a! Di_ -ict of the Foochi!! sou!e:'ard Specifis Plan, !ocazed a~ ~he s~ corner = FootbAll Boulevard and Ha!ashite Avenue - AP}i: 20~- '_-!!9, 22, 37 tkr~ -h 40, and Chairman Hs~ie! opened ~he ~ub!ic hearing. Sinl~-~here ~as no one ~here address the item, Chairman HeN_ ! closed ~he Dl'' tic hearinc. Commissioner He!char s~ated he h_ c.~erns regarding !he projest. He building. He ccrs~en~thac the bask s~ree~ and yard areas f the projec~ are could be turns'- into a cu!-de-sar street so :raffic from the -ear of sheDoing ce~ er will have %o use Helms rather %han soing %hrcugh %. fragile City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: Tentative Tract 14509 (Time Extension) 2. Description of Project: TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 14509 A request for time extension for a previously approved Tentative Tract Map and design review of 18 singte family lots on 3.84 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre), located on the east side of Hermosa Avenue between Wilson Avenue and Banyan Street - APN: 201-183-01 3. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Yahia Baayoun, Baayoun Corporation 11490 Orum Road .. Los Angeles, CA 90049 4. General Plan Designation: Low Residential (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre) 5. Zoning: Low Residential (2 to ,4 dwelling units per acre) 6. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Existing single family detached dwellings to the north, east, and west, and vacant Flood Control District land to the south. The site is vacant with some native vegetation. The site slopes to the south at approximately six percent. 7. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 8. Contact Person and Phone Number: Brent Le Count (909) 477-2750 9. Other agencies whose approval is required: None Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Time Extension for 3"F 14509 Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentiafiy affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ( ) Land Use and Planning (v') Transportation/Circulation (v') Public Services ( ) Population and Housing (V) Biological Resources (V) Utilities and Service Systems ( ) Geological Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources ( ) Aesthetics (v) Water ( ) Hazards ( ) Cultural Resources ( ) Air Quality (V) Noise (v*) Recreation ( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: (V') I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ( ) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project, or agreed to, by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ( ) I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ( ) I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based upon the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ( ) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that eartier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Brent Le Count, AICP Associate Planner July 14, 1998 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Time Extension for 7]' 14509 Page 3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quafity Act Guidelines, an explanation is required for all "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact" answers, including a discussion of ways to mitigate the significant effects identified. 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) ( ) ( ) (V') b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') c) Be incompatible with e~isting land use in the vicinity? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposaL' a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ) ( ) ( ) (V) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of maior infrastructure)? ) ( ( (v') c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ) ( ( (V) 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ( ) ( ) ( ) (V) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Time Extension for 7F 14509 Page 4 b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) ( ) ( ) (¢) c) Seismic ground failure. including liquefaction? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') d) Seiche hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') O Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) ( ) ( ) (V) h) Expansive soils? ( ) ( ) ( ) (¢) i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) ( ) (V) 4. WATER. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns. or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? ( ) ( ) (v') ( ) b) Exposure of people or properly to water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) ( ) (v') ( ) c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? ) ( ) (¢) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? ) ( ) (v') e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ( ) (V) O Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations. or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ( ) (v') g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) ( ) (V) h) impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) ( ) (v') Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Time Extension for TT 14509 Page 5 Comments: a and b) The project will increase runoff because the site is currently vacant and the project will add impervious surfaces such as street improvements, driveways, and rooftops. The approved Tentative Tract Map includes conditions of approval requiring certain storm drain system and ground surface conveyance improvements that will handle the increased flows. The impact is not considered significant. 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposak a) Violate any air quaiity standard or contribute to an existing or projected ,air quality violation? ( ) ( ) (¢) b) Expose sensitive recept0rs to pollutants? ( ) ( ) (V) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ( ) ( ) (¢) d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ( ) (¢) 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULA'I'ION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) ( ) (¢) ( ) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ( ) ( ) ) (¢) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ( ) ( ) ) (v') d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) ( ) ) (v') e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) ( ) ) (v') O Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ) ( ) ( ) (v') g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ) ( ) ( ) (v') Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Time Extension for TT 14509 Page 6 Comments: a) The project will increase the number of traffic trips in the area since it entails adding 18 new homes. The approved Tentative Tract Map has conditions of approval requiring certain public street improvements to handle the increased traffic. The impact is not considered significant. 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? ( ) (v') ( ) b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees, eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? ( ) (v') d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? ( ) (v') e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) (V) Comments: a) The property is located in an area identified as potential habitat for endangered or threatened species. A habitat assessment and biological protocol survey was required to determine potential impacts, particularly to the federally-listed threatened California gnatcatcher and the endangered San Bemardino kangaroo rat. The habitat assessment and protocol surveys were conducted by Planning Consultants Research (Dated June 8, 1998, and July 6, 1998). The results of the surveys indicate that the habitat on site is not at all suitable for the kangaroo rat and is so fragmented by surrounding development and improvements, that it does not represent optimum gnatcatcher habitat. In addition, none of the two endangered species were observed on the site during the surveys. Based on the this information, the project will not Ilkely result in adverse effects. There is no knowledge ofother unique, rare, sensitive, or endangered animal species potentially living on project site. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Time Extension for TT 14509 Page 7 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposak a) Conflict with adopted energy conseNation plans? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? ( ( ) ( ) (,/) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? ( ( ) ( ) (v') 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? ( ) ( ) (v') b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergpncy evacuation plan? ( ) ( ) (v') c) The creation of any heaith hazard or potential health hazard? ( ) ( ) ( (V) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') e) Increased fire hazard in areas with ~ammable brush, grass, or trees? ( ) ( ) ( ) (V) 10. NOISE. Will the proposal result'in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) ( ) (V) ( ) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Time Extension for l'F 14509 Page 8 Comments: a) The project will add new sources of noise such as automobiles because it entails construction of 18 new homes on vacant land. The increase in noise levels however is not excessive and not expected to exceed City established noise level limits. The impact is not considered significant. 11, PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the fo~owing areas: a) Fire protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (V) b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') c) Schools? ( ) ( ) (,/) ( ) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') e) Other governmental services? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Comments.'. c) The project will increase demand on schools since it will add 18 new homes. The approved Tentative Tract Map has a condition of approval requiring the developer to consent to or participate in a MeHo-Roos Community Facilities District for the construction and maintenance of necessary school facilities. The impact is not considered significant. 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or substantial alterations to the fo~owing ut~ities: a) Power or natural gas? ( ) (V) b) Communication systems? ( ) (V) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ( ) (¢) d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) (V) e) Storm water drainage? ( ) (V) ( ) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Time Extension for ~' 14509 Page O Solid waste disposal? ) ( ) ( ) (¢) g) Local or regional water supplies? ) ( ) ( ) Comments: e) The project will increase runoff because the site is currently vacant and the project will add impeNious su~aces such as street improvements, driveways, and tooflops. The approved Tentative Tract Map includes conditions of approval requiring ce~ain storm drain system and~ ground surface conveyance improvements that will handle the increased flows. The cost of these improvements will be borne by the developer. The impact is not considered significant 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposak a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( ) ( ) ( ) (V) c) Create light or glare? ( ) ( ) ( ) 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal.' a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (V') b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) c) Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') d) Have the potential to cau,se a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Time Extension for 17 14509 Page 10 15. RECREATION. Would the pmposah a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) ( ) (V) ( ) b) Affect existing recreational oppo~unities? ( ) ( ) ( ) Comments: a) The project will increase demand on parks in the area because it involves construction of 18 new homes. The developer will be responsible for payment of park fees at the time of building permit issuance to offset any impact on parks. The impact is not considered significant. 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate impo~ant examples of the major periods of California histo~ or prehisto~? ( ) ( ) ( ) (V) b) Sho~ term: Does the project have the potential to achieve sho~-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A sho~-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time. Long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (¢) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Time Extension for TT 14509 Page 11 , ....... ...... c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that are individually limited; but cumulatively considerable? ('Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a ,project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past, projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects,) ( ) ( ) ( ) d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ( ) ( ) ( ) (¢) EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiedng, program E[R, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The following earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning DiviSion offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply): (v') General Plan EIR (Certified April 6, 1981) (v')Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH #88020115, cer[ified January 4, 1989) (v') Negative Declaration for Tentative Tract 14509, approved by Planning Commission April 22, 1992 APPLICANT CERTIFICATION I certify that I am the applicant for the project described; in this Initial Study. I acknowledge that I have read this Initial Study and the proposed mitigation measures. Further, I have revised the project plans or proposals and/or hereby agree to the proposed mitigation measures to avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where ctearly no significant environmental effects would OCCUr, Signature: Date: Print Name and Title: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A TIME EXTENSION FOR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 14509 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 18 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 3.84 ACRES OF LAND IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (2 TO 4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF HERMOSA AVENUE, BETWEEN WILSON AVENUE AND BANYAN STREET, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 201-183-01. A. Recitals. 1. Inland Cities Corp. has filed an application for a time extension for the approval of the Design Review for Tentative Tract Map No. 14509, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereina~er in this Resolution, the subject Design Review Time Extension request is referred to as "the application." 2. On April 22, 1992, this Commission adopted its Resolution No. 92-21A, thereby approving, subject to conditions and time limits, the Design Review for Tentative Tract No. 14509. 3. On the August 12, 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a meeting on the application and referred the Design Review Time Extension request back to the Design Review Committee. 4. On September 1, 1998, the Design Review Committee reviewed the project design. The Committee recommended approval without any changes to the plans approved by the Planning Commission in 1992. 5. On September 23, 1998, the Planning Commission considered the application. 6. 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 forLh in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced meetings on August 12, and September 23, 1998, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The previously approved Design Review is in substantial compliance with the City's current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans, codes, and policies; and b. The extension of the Design Review approval will not cause significant inconsistencies with the current General Plan. specific plan, ordinances, plans, codes, and policies; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TE FOR DR FOR TT 14509 - INLAND CITIES CORP. September 23, 1998 Page 2 c. The extension of the'Design Review approval is not likely to cause public health and safety problems; and d. The extension is within the time limits established by State taw and local ordinance. 3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, and 2 above, this Commission hereby grants a time extension for: Desiqn Review Applicant Expiration Tentative Tract 14509 Inland Cities Corp. April 22, 1999 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby adds the following condition of approval: Planninq Division 1) The applicant shall agree to defend, at his sole expense, any action brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, oremployees, may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action; The City may, at its sole discretion, participate, at its own expense, in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve the applicant of his obligations under this condition. 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 1998. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the PlanningiCommission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duIy 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 23rd day of September 1998, by the following vote-to-wit: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TE FOR DR FOR 'Ff' 14509 - INLAND CITIES CORP. September 23. 1998 Page 3 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ' ~ STAFF REPORT DATE: September 23, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad BulleL City Planner BY: Rudy Zeledon, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 98-02-CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA- A request to amend the regulations for second dwelling units for consistency with changes in state law. (Continued from September 9, 1998) BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission has continued this item four times, on July 10, June 8, August 12, and September 9, 1998, at the request of staff in order to allow staff more time to research and review state law for second dwelling units. Currently, staff is reviewing the various alternatives for the development of appropriate criteria for second dwelling units. Staff requests a continuance of two weeks to allow time to complete the research work. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission continue Development Code Amendment 98-02 to the meeting of October 14, 1998. Respec~ully submi~ed, 8r City Planner BB:RZ:gs ITEM B CITY OF P,.~XNCHO CUCAN,~ONGA -- STAFF REPORT DATE: September 23, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Nancy Fong, AICP, Senior Planner SUBJECT: DIRECTOR'S REVIEW 79-24 - FRANK H. AYERS & SONS (ALBERTSONS) - A request to determine if a commercial center is being operated in a manner not detrimental to the public, health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties in the vicinity, and a request to consider modifying the conditions of approval for the commercial center in the Neighborhood Commercial District, located at the southeast corner of Base Line Road and Archibald Avenue - APN: 1077-011-45 and 47 through 52. ~,BSTRACT: The purpose of this report is twofold. First is to determine whether the shopping center is operated in a manner that is detrimental to the adjacent residential properties. Second, determine whether there are additional control or mitigation measures that could address the negative impact, which would require a modification to the Director's Review Permit. BACKGROUND: At the September 9, 1998, meeting, Pamela Thompson and Mr. and Mrs. Paul Davies, residents adjacent to Albertsons, spoke about continued nuisance problems they experienced from the store. They stated the continued nuisance problems were: truck noise, the loss of privacy, odor and soot from diesel fuel, and the loss of the use and enjoyment of their backyard. The Commission directed staff to prepare a report informing them of the options they have in addressing the nuisance problems. The Commission also directed staff to contact the air Quality Management District (AQMD). ANALYSIS: This section of the report summarizes the history and chronology of the site, examines the effectiveness of the control measures that were in place and recommends additional control or mitigation measures to address the nuisance problems. A. Current Code Provisions: The shopping center was approved by the County in June of 1978 and was developed under the County standards. The Director's Review Permit is equivalent to the City's Conditional Use Permit. Because the shopping center is a pre-existing conditional use, the provision of the Conditional Use Permit will apply to the shopping center. Therefore, the Planning Commission may review the center to ensure that it is being operated in a manner consistent with the conditions of approval or in a manner not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties in the vicinity. Pursuant to Development Code Section 17.04.030, the Commission may modify conditions of approval to mitigate detrimental impacts. B. A Brief History of the Site: The two major anchors of the center at the time it was developed were Albertsons and a hardware store (Exhibit "B"). By the late 1980s, the hardware store moved out and the building was vacant for several years. In October 1994, Albertsons submitted a request, which was approved by the City, to take over and expand the hardware store's building by enclosing the ITEM C PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 79-24 - ALBERTSONS September 23, 1998 Page 2 garden nursery and recon~gerating the loading dock area (Exhibit "C"). In September 1995 exterior and inte:rior improvements were completed and Albertsons was in business at the new iocationlj staff learned of the nuisance problems in January 1996 and requested that Albertsons submit an action plan to address the problems. Albertsons did not submit an action plan with long terr~ solutions to the nuisance problems but responded by voluntarily compressing the deliver9 schedules, requiring trucks to have engines and refrigeration units tuned off while loading and unloading, and removing unnecessary wallpak light fixtures that produced glare. No c p 'nt~~ om were received after October 1996. In July 1997, residents requested the Commission discuss the nuisance problems they continued to experience with the Albertsons store. The Commission directed Albertsons to prepare a nois~ study and directed staff to work with Albertsons and the property owner in addressing the problemsJl Albertsons submitted a Noise Study in October of 1997, which was reviewed and accepted by staffi! Albertsons continued to adhere to the control measures mentioned above. Also. security gates and fences have been installed to block access to the rear of the building except for delivery, which ~s between 8 a.m. and 9 p.m. Last February, the residents, representatives from AIberstsons, th~ acoustical engineer, representative from the property owner, and staff met and discussed the result~~ of the noise study and the last remaining issue of the loss of privacy. Because the existing block! wall is not designed to be raised in height, Albertsons proposed to install a free standing fence nex~ to the existing block wall to address the privacy issue. The residents agreed to the proposal. Exhibits "D" and "E" are detailed chronology of the site. C. Effectiveness of Existinq Control Measures: The section of the report examines the effectiveness of the control measures in addressi.ng :~he nuisance problems: 1. Compressed Delivery Schedules: A major complaint was truck noise from Albertsons and other vendortrucks. Albertsons agreed to compress the delivery schedules to between the hours of 8 a.m. and 9 p.m. The residents stated that this control measure only worked intermittently because delivery trucks continued to arrive either too early in the morning or too late in the evening. Staff believes that the success of the compressed delivery schedules is dependent upo'n the conscientiousness and availability of the store manager and other staff in adhering to the program. 2. Turninq off Truck Enqines and Refriqeration Units: To further address the noise problems, Albertsons agreed to require their truck drivers to turn off the engines and the refrigeration units during loading and unloading. This control measure is effective if the truck drivers are conscientious about it. Again, enforcement depends upon store management. 3. Security Fences and Gates: Albertsons installed security fencing and gates at the west and east side of the delivery driveway access to reduce the incidences of loitering in the rear of the property and to ensure that early or late arrival of delivery trucks would be kept away from the back of the building. This control measure should deter any unwanted and loitering activities in the back of the building. However, it is only effective if the gates are kept locked when the delivery hours are over. 4. Trash Compactor: Albertsons also agreed not to operate the trash compactor after 10. p.m. and before 8 a.m. to lessen the disturbance to residents. This control measure has contributed in reducing some of the noise. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 79-24 4 ALBERTSONS September 23, 1998 Page 3 5. Proposed Free Standinq Fence Next to the Block Wall for Privacy: To address the loss of privacy issue, Albertsons proposed to install a free standing fence next to the existing block wall. The proposed materials for the fence are chain link and green mesh. Staff agreed that a free standing fence would work but did not agree with the proposed materials. Staff believes that a more durable material should be used for privacy and for further reduction of noise. Chain [ink and mesh may not withstand high seasonal winds. A product suggested by staff to AlberLsons was woodcrete. D. Results of the Noise Study: A Noise Study for Albertsons was prepared by an Acoustical Engineer, Robert Kahn of RKJK & Associates. According to the Noise Abatement Section of the Development Code. the exterior noise cannot exceed 75 dBA at any time, and cannot exceed 74 dBA for a cumulative period of not more than 5 minutes in an hour, 65 dBA for a cumulative period of not more than 10 minutes in an hour and 60 dBA for a cumulative period of 15 minutes in an hour. The study showed that the noise level measurement was taken at approximately 7 feet away from the property line of the adjoining residences. The measured noise level is 74 dBA for 1 minute, 68.0 dBA for 5 minutes and 55.0 for 15 minutes. Therefore, the study concluded that the noise generated by the trucks is below the maximum level allowed by City Codes. Based on the measurements, the study projected the noise level at the property line (block wall) to be 66.1 dBA maximum at any time, 58.6 dBA for 1 minute and 52.6 dBA for 5 minutes. The Residential Noise Standards is 60 dBA for exterior noise between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. Again. the study concluded that the projected noise level at property line is just below the maximum level allowed by City Codes. The study, however. recommended that to reduce the noise level at the second story window facade, the existing 6-foot high block wall should be replaced with a 12-foot high one or the windows of the second story should be replaced with upgrades. The Study stressed that this recommendation is not required based on City's Standards. One homeowner testified that her windows were upgraded to double glazing with financial assistance from Albertsons as part of a small claims court settlement. E. Proposed Additional Control and Mitiqation Measures: The following are additional control or mitigation measures that should be considered by the Commission: 1. Replace the existing 6-foot block wall with a 12-foot high one. The lineal distance should be reviewed and approval by the City Planner. Comments: This mitigation, which was suggested back in 1996 by sta;ff, would permanently reduce exterior noise in the back yard and noise at the second story facade and provide privacy. Albertsons has stated that this mitigation is too costly; however, no construction estimates have been submitted. 2. Reorient the loading dock where truck engines would be at the west Side and provide a 10- foot landscape buffer along the east and south property boundaries. Comments: This mitigation would permanently reduce the exterior noise as the trucks' engines would be facing the west side, away from the residences. The 10-foot landscape buffer would provide privacy and deter anyone from jumping the east property block wall. By requiring the 10-foot buffer and reorienting the loading area, parking spaces along the east and south sides of the building would have to be eliminated and/or reduced. The reduction of parking spaces may necessitate a Variance. Staff observed that the parking spaces in these areas are seldom used. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 79-24 ~ ALBERTSONS September 23, 1998 Page 4 3. install sound dampening material to the loading dock, building walls'and site boundary walls:! Comments: This mitigation could reduce exterior noise. A study by an acoustical engineer would be needed to determine specific recommendations and to analyze their potential effectiveness. Ii 4. The following control measures should be placed as conditions of approval for the shoppin center along with the above-mentioned mitigation: a. No delivery, loading and unloading, or the use of trash compactor between the hours of 9 p.m. and 8 a.m. Monday through Friday, and 8 p.m. to 9 a.m. Saturday and Sunday. b. Maintain security fences and gates at the east side of Albertsons and at the southerl~ drive entrance and lock the gates between the hours of 9 p.m. and 8 am. Monday through Friday, and 8p.m. and 9 a.m. Saturday and Sunday. c. Provide security personnel within the shopping center to deter unwanted !citering~ activities in the back of the center and to ensure early or late arrival of delivery truck~~ would not be let into the back. d. Prohibit the queuing of delivery trucks along the east property boundary wall. 5. Albertsons should replace the 'windows of the rear elevation of the adjacent properties (7390, 7380 London Avenue) with dual glazed windows for interior noise abatement. F. The Issue of Diesel Fumes and Odors from Delivery Trucks: A concern of the residents was the odor and soot from the diesel engines of delivery trucks. According to the Performance Standards in the Commercial District of the Development Code, any business activity or operation shall not be permitted to emit odorous gases or matter in such quantities as to be dangerous, injurious, noxious or otherwise objectionable and readily detectable without the aid of instruments at or beyond the property line. Staff initially contacted representatives of AQMD to obtain information on the emission standards for diesel fuel and to find out if the District has an enforcement procedure. According to representatives of AQMD, the District handles only stationary sources of emissions and not mobile source (emissions from trucks). Staff learned that California Air Resource Board (ARB) handles mobile sources of emissions. At the writing of this report, information about emission standard for mobile source and enforcement procedure from ARB is not available. Staff will provide information if available, at the meeting. G, Conclusion: Based on the above analysis, staff concludes that the operation of Albertsons store creates a negative impact to the adjoining residences. The existing controls are dependent upon human intervention several times a day, 365 days a year, which has proven to not be effective. Staff also concludes that there are additional control or mitigation measures that could reduce or alleviate the impacts to an acceptable level. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 79-24 - ALBERTSONS September 23, 1998 Page 5 OPTIONS FOR COMMISSION: The Planning Commission, after conducting a public hearing, may take one of the following actions: A. FindthattheC~nditi~na~Usepermitisbeingc~nductedinanappr~priatemannerandthatn~acti~n to modify or revoke is necessary. B. Find the Conditional Use Permit is not being conducted in an appropriate manner and that modification to conditions are necessary. C. Find the Conditional Use Permit is not being conducted in an appropriate manner and that modifications are not available to mitigate the impacts and therefore revoke the permit which requires the operation to cease and desist in the time allotted by the Commission. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in theInland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the project site. Notices and staff report were sent via certified mail to Albertsons and the property owner. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Commission determine that the shopping center is not being operated in an appropriate manner and that modifications to the conditions are necessary. Staff also recommends that the Commission direct staff in preparing a resolution modifying the Director's Review Permit by adding the appropriate conditions of approval and the time line in completing the mitigation. Respectfully submitted, er City Planner BB:NF:mIg Attachments: Exhibit "A" Location Map Exhibit "B" Original Site Plan Exhibit "C" Revised Site Plan Exhibit "D" Chronology of the Site December 1993 to June 1997 Exhibit "E" Chronology of the Site June 1997 to September 1998 Exhibit "F" Letter to Albertsons dated August 27, 1998 Exhibit "G" Noise Study Exhibit "H" Noise Abatement and Residential Noise Standards ,nor Cucamonga Fruit Lands, J ~,. T' ...... , ~--~',.,;, , ~, ~ I~ I~ '~I~ ~ ~i'a L, ~ - d'.,,,,,' ~ . t,~ -.. . CA 'L9Tg ,!9'Lg ,09: S,NOSJ_~Z]87,¢ ! · ! ,.OGq8 DNiZSIX3) SZIX2/AON30~'a!,N3 ,0£ m ,~cg'LOL ?"f..,~'T~,.t' D,,,,..,., .~\ , ,, ,, , :,r,,,,al C' ? '-hobo Cucarnort a ~ -- CHRONOLOGYI FOR ALBERTSONS SHOPPING CENTER SWC OF BASE LINE ROAD ANDIARCHIBALD AVENUE FROM DECEMBER 1993 TO JUNE 1997 DATE COMMENTS/STATUSI 12-93 to present A review of the Code Enforcement files show that the site has been plagued with nuisance problems such as graffiti and illegal dumping of trash. Code Enforcement staff has worked with the property manager, Craig Doorson, to have the graffiti and trash removed in a timely manner and develop a plan of action to discourage the nuisance. 2-94 Staff met with representatives of Albertsons. They proposed to take over the unoccupied Builders Emporium building at the east side of the center because they needed a bigger facility. The existing Albertsons store at the west side of the center would have to be closed. They stated that Albertsons still has a long term lease for the existing store and it would be in their interest to sublease their building. To use the Builders Emporium building, they would have to modify the loading area and enclose the outdoor nursery area. Staff informed them that the use is permitted and the expansion would need a Minor Development Review application. 8-94 Albertsons submitted a Minor Development Review application (MDR 94-17). 9-94 Staff reviewed three alternatives to the parking scheme in the back of the store submitted by Albertsons. 10-6-94 City Planner approved MDR 94-17 with conditions. 10-19-94 Albertsons submitted revised design to the loading area. The revised loading area showed it to be at an angle. 3-15-95 City issued building permits for tenant improvements. 9-95 Albertsons store in business. 1-8-96 Planning Division received a letter dated December 27, 1995, from Dave Thompson. He described the nuisance problems consisting of constant streams of trucks and their noises; very early and late hours of deliveries; disturbances'; and excess light and glare that spill over onto his property. He attached a copy of the time log for the nuisance problems in October in his .October 30, 1995, letter to Albertsons. 1-22-96 Staff responded with a letter to Mr. Thompson and informed him of the pending investigation on whether Albertsons has violated the City's DATE COMMENTS/STATUS 2-96 to 3-96 Staff reviewed files and conducted site investigations. 4-4-96 A letter was written to Albertsons. Staff identified the code violation of excess light and glare from the wallpak light. Staff cited the intense frequency of delivery trucks, which would create an adverse impact to the adjacent residents. Staff suggested mitigation forthe noise impact and encouraged Albertsons to look into long-term solutions. 5-96 through 6-96 Staff spoke with Dave Rumley, Albertsons' District Sales Manager, and Scott Thayer, Real Estate Manager, several times. Staff requested their cooperation in being a good neighbor. They agreed to continue the compressed delivery schedule, reduce the light bulb wattage, and provide shields to prevent light and glare spillages. Staff also requested a meeting with Albertsons to discuss long-term solutions. 6-10 through 6-18-96 Staff continued to receive calls from adjacent residents. 6-27-96 Staff arranged a meeting with Mr. Thayer of Albertsons and the adjacent residents, Dave Thompson, Bob Brush, and Mr. & Mrs. Davies, at the site. The residents told Mr. Thayer of their concerns. Mr. Thayer agreed to work with staff on finding solutions to meet the residents' concerns. 7-96 through 8-96 Staff had several phone conversations with Mr. Thayer about setting up a meeting to discuss some suggested mitigation, such as reorienting the loading area, providing a landscape buffer, and/or raising the height of the block wall. Mr. Thayer stated that he would like to have a trial period of the continued compressed delivery schedule and requiring their truck drivers to turn off their engines and refrigeration units while loading or unloading. He stated that Albertsons is reluctant to change the orientation of the loading dock because of their interiorfloor plan. He believed that the property owner should address the landscape buffer and the block wall. 9-3-96 Code Enforcement Division received a complaint from Mr. Thompson about the parking lot sweepers coming too early in the morning (6:45 a.m.) Code Enforcement staff contacted the property manager, Mr. Dootson, who stated that the new contract services started last week and that he would inform them of the restricted time (between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m.) for sweeping the parking lot. 9-30-96 Another complaint regarding the parking lot sweeper. Code Enforcement contacted Mr. Dootson. He stated he has hired another company for sweeping the parking lot. 10-3-96 Because of repeated complaints, staff sent another letter to Albertsons requesting an action plan to address the nuisance problems. Page 2 of 3 DATE COMMENTS/STATUS Albedsons has not responded to the letter and has not provided an action plan as outlined in the attached letter. 10-96 through 6-25-97 Staff did not receive any fu~her complaints from residents regarding noise issues. Page 3 of 3 CHRONOLOGYFOR ALBERTSONS SHOPPING CENTER SWC OF BASELINE ROADAND ARCHIBALD AVENUE FROM JUNE1997TO PRESENT DATE COMMENTS/STATUS 6-25-97 Mr. Thompson spoke at the Planning Commission meeting about the continued nuisance problems, 7-9-97 Planning Commission reviewed the nuisance problems associated with Albertsons' operation at this hearing. The Commission received comments from several residents as weil as from representatives of Albertsons. The Commission directed Albertsons to prepare a Noise Study and directed staff to work with Albertsons and the residents to resolve the issues, 8-18-97 Albertsons submitted a Noise Study. 8-26-97 Staff reviewed the Noise Study and responded that the study was incomplete and inadequate in addressing some of the identified issues. 9-10-97 City Planner approved the security fencing for Albertsons with a condition of approval requiring gates to be locked between the hours of 6 p.m, and 8 a.m, 9-18-97 Albertsons objected to the condition requiring gates to be locked between the hours of 6 p,m. and 8 a.m. 10-15-97 Albertsons submitted revised Nosie Study, 10-29-97 City Planner extended the hours from 6 p.m, to 9 p.m, after Albertsons agreed to have all deliveries completed by 9 p,m. and Mr. Thompson did not object to the temporary new curfew time ifAIbertsons continued to work towards a long-term solution. 11-18-97 City issued building permits for the security gates. Staff reviewed and determined that the revised Noise Study was complete and adequate in addressing the issues, The results and findings of the study stated that the noise levels did not exceed the City's standards. The Noise Engineer stated that the following recommendation would not be required based on the City's noise standards, but would further reduce interior noise: the existing wall could be replaced with a new wall up to 12 feet in height in order to block second floor windows or the second floor windows be upgraded. 2-23-98 A meeting was held with representatives of Albertsons, the property manager, and adjacent residents to review the result of the Noise Study and any remaining issues. The consensus of the residents was that the security gates and fences helped in reducing the impact of the Page 1 of 2 nuisance problems. The es dents also stated that the lot sweeper still r,~ came too early in the morning. The property manager responded that they were in the process of hiring a new company for c ean ng the parking area. The consens, us of the residents was that the remaining issue was loss of privacy. fMr. Scott Thayer of Albertsons offered to install a chain link fence wit,h green mesh materials for address ng the privacy issue. Staff stressed the importance of using more durable material for the free-standibg fence. 4-98 to 6-98 Staff called Mr. Scott Thayer and stated that a free-standing fence would be acceptable but would recommend Albertsons look into using more durable materials forthe fence. A product suggested by staff was Woodcrete material. Staff also reminded him to send details of the free-standing fence for City Planner review and approval. Attachment: Letter to Albertsons dated August 27, 1998 Page 2 of 2 .- : C 7 v O : tk .....s~ 27.19gB Mr. Scott Theyet, Real Estate Manager Albertsons, Inc. 1180 West Lamberl Road P.O. Box 7500 Bran, CA 92822-7500 SUBJECT: ALBERTSON'S STORE NO. 506 AT 9775 BASE LINE ROAD Dear Mr. Theyerr Iwould like to take this opportunity to recap our las~ phone conversation regarding the issue fencing along the east proper~y bounden/. · You believed that privacy was the only issue left to be resolved for the adjacent residents because they did not mention that noise was stiif an issue at the Febfunny 23 meeting. You proposed to install free standing wood posts v,ith wood fences attached to them that. extend above the height of the existing block wall for addressing ~he privacy issue. The reason for a free standing fence '.'.'as because your engineer determined that the existing block wail not designed to accept the increase En height. · I a"'r~ ~o re, ,r ores. coal to install a free standing f~n^~ .. 9 ..- existEng ~[ -'.- '.'zafl Howe,rat. i recommended ~hat Alber:scn's considered usFna a - ' "' ' ' material :a funher reduce any noise from ~rusks, and to increase privacy. An example decorative and durable material tf"ac I memocried is wscdcre~e prcduc,'.s. · You a-reed [,a send a letter to the Cir.7 acreeinc to do ~h: fr~ st. an_cling fencing alone the east prope,qy boundany and v,,'ill proseed ta install it. On ,August 25. 1998. I received a call from one of the adjacent residents. the Thompson fami complained abou( continued noise and privacy issues. The,/{n.."ormed me that the new store manager is not as conscientious as the previous one in ensuring !he restri:tions of t~me for truck =: : f', c' :, ' ~ e~c, They s!sa 'eauested Planning Commission re',' e,v de!i,,'eries. the turning o,, o,., u K _ngln_s, . , , , As a result of the request, the City Planner has scheduled the ~ssues for Commission d/szussion a: the Sealember 9. i998, mee:ing. The City Planner in:ends cs so'no_rule =- Dublie h=r-=znt- :st ~"': shoppZng cen~er Condi=.ional Use Permi~ to re'.'ievz v,,hether k is o~e.'acing in ssnformance v,'i:h Codas and who!her a.d.ditionar conditions of approval are neede: :3 address cerr. ain nufsanse sr opera!io'~a~ problems. The ~entatZ,.,e da~e ."st !ha pusZ:: hearin_.: :s Sea~emSer 23 and ~;'~e Ci~,.,, sen.: an ageride notifying you sf ~he mee~inL:s ': ':""-'." ._-::.: _::--: _- :-. .'::-::.;---=''. :.-:-: ';::2 :C+-eZ'e , :Z -:: f:' · :::::::::::::::::::::::: . :::-"Z':: · :- ,'.:R. ,':'L~ERT THA, YER ALBERTSON'S STORE A. ugust 27, 19~ Page 2 We encourage you to continue :o work ',vith the adjadent resi-'en;s in resolving ~he nuisance problems. If you have any questions abcu: the reviewi process, or if you would like ~o discuss solu~.ions to address the residents' concerns, please coltime at (~09) -'77-2750. Sincerely, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT : P~.J, NNING DIVISION Senior Planner N'F:m!g ca: Brad Bullet, City Planner W. Craig Doorson, CPM ~ Dave and Pamela Thompson, residents I I ALBERTSONS STORE ,,606 o, ', I I . _ BASELINE 'ROAD I ROBERT KAHN · JOHN KAIN'~ ~ ASSOCIATIES INC. I October 1, 1997 I I Mr. Scott R. Thayer Real Estate Manager ALBERTSONS, INC. J 1180 West Lambert Road Brea, CA 92622-7500 J Subject: Albertsons Store #606, Rancho Cucamonga Noise Study (Revised 10/1/97) I Dear Mr. Thayer: ROBERT KAHN, JOHN KAIN & ASSOCIATES, INC. (RKJK) has completed a revised noise assessment for your Albertsons Store #606 located in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The existing store is located at the southeast corner of the intersection I of Archibald at Baseline Road in the City of Rancho Cucamonga (Exhibit A). The site plan for the existing store is shdwn on the attached Exhibit B. The site currently consists of an Albertsons supermarket - located in the southeast portion of the site J with a loading dock and trash compactor located at the rear of the store. The purpose of this noise study is to determine noise impacts from delivery trucks and trash compactor operations at the Albertsons store to the adjoining residential area. There are existing two-story and one-story residehtial homes located to the east of the loading dock and trash compactor. The homes to the east are located approximately 4 to 5 feet below the grade of the Albertsons Shopping Center, and there is a 5' 8" to 6' 4" block wall along the east property line. The backyards and first floor facade of the homes are generally blocked as a result of the existing block wall, however, second floor windows of the homes are exposed directly to line-of-sight from the loading dock/trash compactor area. The trash compactor is enclosed within an 8 foot high metal wall with a door. The loading dock accommodates two tractor trailer trucks for loading and unloading purposes. On July 29, 1997 (Tuesday), RKJK obtained noise measurements at the site to determine potential noise impacts to the adjoining residential areas. The location of the noise meter is shown in Exhibit B. During the measurement period, it was not possible to measure noise levels ~directly within the residential property, therefore, noise measurements were made approximately 7:feet west of the wall adjacent to the residence. Based upon this information, noise projections were made to determine noise levels in the adjacent residential development. TRANSPORTATION pLANNING ' GIS · TRAFFI,C,/ACOUSTICAL ENGINEERING 1601 Dr>re Stre't't. Suite 21)0 Ne;vpllrt Beach, CA 92660 · IPhone: (714) 474-0809 · Fax: (714) 474-0902[ I 'EXHIBIT A LOCATION MAP 8ASEUNE RD. SITE CHURCH ST. The instrument used was a LARSON-DAVIS Model 700 precision integrating sound level meter, programmed, in "slow" mode, to record noise levels in "A" weighted form. The sound level meter was calibrated before and after the monitoring with a LARSON-DAVIS calibrator, Model CA 250. The sound level meter and microphone were mounted on a tripod, five feet above the ground and equipped with a wind screen during all measurements. The above instrument automatically calculates the "percent noise levels" (Ln) for any specific time period. The percent noise level "Ln" is useful to evaluate intermittent noise sources. The percent noise level is the level exceeded "n" percent of the time during the measurement period. Lso is the noise level exceeded 90 percent of the time measured, commonly used to estimate the "ambient" noise level. L5o is the noise level exceeded 50 percent of the time measured and can be seen as the "average" noise level. L~o is the noise level exceeded 10 percent of the time measured, and represents the peak or intrusive noise level. Based upon our discussions, truck deliveries are supposed to be restricted to 8:00 AM to 10:00 PM to minimize noise impacts to the adjoining residential areas. A summary of truck activity during the measurement period is shown in the attached Table 1. It should be noted that two smaller DSD trucks did arrive before 8:00 AM. All of the larger Albertsons delivery trucks arrived and departed after 8:00 AM. During the measurement period from 7:45 to 9:11 AM, three large Albertsons trucks (18 wheelers) arrived along with one other Kibbler 18-wheeler truck. During the same period, approximately 5 of the smaller DSD trucks arrived delivering such things as pastries, beer and other small packaged items. During the measurement period, the trash compactor was operating as noted in Table 1'. The number of truck operations that occurred during the noise measurement period represents the maximum number which are expected to occur at the site. RKJK discussed the truck delivery operations with Albertsons staff and confirmed that the four larger trucks (18 wheelers) that arrived during the noise measurements represented the maximum number which was to be expected (see Appendix "A"). Noise measurements were made for several conditions during the study. Prior to the arrival of any trucks, ambient noise levels were measured and are shown in the attached Table 2. The Leq during this period was 50.3 dBA with an L~.~ level of 64.5. A measurement was also made prior to the 8:00 AM start time for a short period, however, it was influenced by dogs barking in the adjacent homes, airplane overflights and two small DSD trucks which arrived during this period. The major noise measurement was started at 8:10 AM and ran through 9:10 AM. These measurements were made during the period that the majority of the large delivery 4 I ! TABLE 1 I ' ALBERTSONS ' 9775 B/~,SEUNE RANCHO CUCAIVION, GA JULY ~, 1997 ~ESDAYI  l~epe~ent 7:45 8:30 Coors 7:47 8:17 ~ 9:03 Pa~ along ~de wall for  Albedsons fl (Dock) 8:10 ~5 ~n. Hostess Cake 8:13 8:~ I. ~ Taparia 8:28 Albedsonl f2 (O~k) 8:42 _ S~ In ~e d~ w~n  Ca~e{ 8:54 9:11 Keebler (Dock) 8:58 9:11  Albe~sons f3 (Dock) 9:11 _ S~8 in t~ do~ after 9:11. TRASH COMPACTOR START I STOP GENERAL NOTES 8:31 8:32 8:49 8:50 ~ 8:51 8:56 Car went by at 8:58 9:07 9:08 5 I I TABLE 2 pNOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS Project: Atber~sons Date: 7/29/97 FFuesdav) I Nqi~e ~U~fY ' Job No.: 742-~}7-QQ1 IS~orq #60(~ Kahn Job Location: Rancho Cucamonoa I ~775 Basellne " ,~- TIME STARTED Leq L.,, L,~ Lt L~ I.~ L~o COMMENTS 7:41 50.3 64.5 45.5 54.0 52.5 50.5 49.0 No Trucks 7:55 53.7 70.0 45.0 63.0 55.5 52°5 49.0 Dogs, airplane, people, 2 tNcks 8:10 63.8 81.9 43.5 74.0 68.0 55.0 50.5 Ran for 1 hr.: several trucks arrived 9:~ 1 74.3 85.0 46.5 82,5 79.5 74,0 68,5 3-minute aho~t-term measuremen; with tmck engine mnnlng dlrecdy ...... ediecent to noise SITE LOCATION MAP: See attached Exhibit B I I 6 trucks arrived and departed within the area. T~uck drivers did their best to minimize the operational time of the trucks and turned off their engines once they had parked at the loading dock. Both engines, refrigerator Units and other mechanical equipment associated with the trucks were turned off once ;they were parked at the loading dock. During the major noise measurement period, the Leq was 63.8 dBA with the L,~ being approximately 81.5. Other noise measurement parameters are also shown in Table 2. It should be noted that the noise measurement values shown in Table 2 are the noise levels within the Albertsons parkin! lot approximately 7 feet from the property line of the adjoining residences. i -- In order to assess noise impacts to the. adjoining residential areas, noise measurements included in Table 2 were utilized to project noise levels within the backyard, first floor building facade and second floor of the adjoining homes. RKJK · analyzed the home that was closest to the Albertsons loading dock. This location represented a worse case noise impact with respect to the location of the trucks. The noise assessment did take. into account:the grade difference between the Albertsons Shopping Center and! the homes and also the existing block wall...The projected noise levels at the closest adiacent~e~idendal dwellino unit~ are shown in tl~e attached Table 3~The max mum no se level; projected at 1;he first floor facade or ~ackyard was 70 4 dBA and approximate y'76:Z.4_~_dBA"'~p.ts de_of,__ffi_e se,cond f oor winc~ows of the second floor homes. ~The second floor outdoor noise level is not consi"~ered an outdoor living area, however, i't is used to determine 2nd floor, interior noise levels. Other noise projections are als~ shown in Table 3 and the noise worksheets are included in Appendix "B". According to the City of Rancho Cucamonga D~velopment Code Section 17.02.12 Noise Abatement, noise standards have been developed with respect to one property impacting another. The noise standards adopted by the City of Rancho Cucamonga are included in the attached Table 4. According to the Development Code, the maximum noise level which cannot be exceeded.~for any ·time within an adjacent residential property is 75 dBA, 74 dBA not to b_e_eX_ceede~for=5_min_ut~es, 65 dBA n. ot to be exceeded for 10 minutes, and 60 dBAnot to.be exceeded ~or 15 minutes. According to the Development Code, these stand'ards are-based on the outdoor are;~s of the adjacent residential development. The int,erior noise standards with windows closed are also shown in Table 4. Bas~ed uooq gut revip~v, the noise projections and the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code standards, the current Albertsons delivery oper~l;ions do no,t exceed the noise levels within the .backyard areas of the adjoinin¢l homes, as long as truck operations are restricted to 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM. Also, the City of Rancho~ ; TABLE 3 ..oJEcTEDNo,sE AT THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL DI \ NOIS~VEL : E~erior let Root ~ilding Fac~e 52.7 70.4 62.9 56.9 43.9 39.4 2~ Roor ~i~ing F~ez 58.7 76.4 68.9 62.9 49.9 45.4 ~ckyard 51.7 69.4 61.9 55,9 42.S 38.4 (10 h. from w~l} ~ckya~d ~.3 68.0 ~,5 54.5 41.5 37.0 {5 ft. frm wil) ~ckyBrd along eas~ pfope~ line 48.4 66.1 58.8 ~2.8 38.6 35.1 (1 foot from wall) w ~ Interior - ~ows CIos~ 1 st Roor 32.7 ~.4 42,9 36.9 23.9 19.4 2~ Root 38.7 56.4 ~.9 42.9 ~.9 25.4 Includes noise reduction from grade differential and existing wall. This location is not considered an exzerior living area and is utilized to determine 2rid floor interior noise levels. 8 TABLE 4 RANCHO CUCAMONGA STATIONARY SOURCE NOISE ORDINANCE STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT~ N~ISE LEVEL CRITERIA (dBA) SYMBOL L,., Le ~, L~ MAXIMUM CUMULATIVE 0 ~ 5 10 15 TIMEFRAME DURAT1ON MINUTES .MINUTES MINUTES MINUTES Extedor 7 AM- 10 PM 75 74 65 60 Interlot~ 7 AM- 10. PM 60 59 SO 45 Based upon Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Section 17.02.120 - Noise Abatement for residential development. Based upon a windows closed coaditlon. ; Cucamonga interior noise standards for either the first floor or second floor within the homes are not exceeded for daytime hours (7:00 AM to 10:00 PM). In order to minimize noise impacts to the adjacent area, all deliveries for the Albertsons Shopping Center should occur after 8:00 AM in the morning and should terminate before 10:00 PM in the evening. This should also apply to the operation of the trash compactor during the same period. Albertsons should request all of the independent trucks to restrict their deliveries to these hours. Truck drivers should also attempt to maneuver their trucks as far away from the existing wall as practical. Although not required by City of Ranch Cucamonga code requirement, the only way to further mitigate the second floor dwelling units of the adjoining residential would be 'to: (1) construct a noise control barrier along the east property line of Albertsons from the southerly property line northerly approximately 180 feet with a height of approximately 12 feet. This height of wall would be required to block the line-of-sight from the second floor homes to the adjacent loading dock area or (2) upgrade the second floor windows for those two story homes located from the southerly property line northerly 180 feet. Again, these are not a requirement to meet City standards, but would be the only method of minimizing noise impacts to the second floor of the adiacent residential area. RKJK has completed a noise study for the existing Albertsons//606 in the City of Poncho Cucamonga. Based .upon our analysis, current noise level~ do not ~pp~_~r to exceed the City Of Poncho Cucamon~la standards for the adjacent residential are.as. It doe'~ appear that Some of the DSD trucks do arrive prior to the 8:00 AM time period, and these should be restricted to the appropriate hours of 8:00 AM to 10:00 PM. Althou~lh not require based on City standards, the only method to further mit_igate truck impacts to the adjoininR area would bq to reolace the existin_n w~n t~ a_height of approximately 12 fCe~ to block second ~!.o_or~w_wi~dows~to the adjoining two stbry res dential units or UDararl~ the wlntln~--~fthese-units. These are'hot required fro'~ a noise '~tandards standpoint, but would minimize noise impact to the interior of the second floor units. RKJK appreciates this opportunity to work with ALBFRTaONS, INC., and if you have any questions, please give me a call at (714) 474-0809. Sincerely, ROBERT KAHN, JOH~ CliTES, INC. .. ~: N0. 20285 Robert Kahn, P.E. 't EXP. 91301131 Principal RK:kgd/7096 142-97-001 Attachments APPENDIX. ,,,A; ALBERTSON'S STORE iNO. 606 TRUCK OPERATIONS CHRONOLOGY FOR ALBERTSONS SHOPPING CENTER SWC OF BASE LINE ROAD AND ARCHIBALD AVENUE FROM JUNE 1997 TO PRESENT DATE COMMENTS/STATUS 6-25-97 Mr, Thompson spoke at the Planning Commission meeting about the continued nuisance problems. 7-9-97 Planning Commission reviewed the nuisance problems associated with Albertsons' operation at this hearing, The Commission received comments from several residents as well as from representatives of Albertsons. The Commission directed Albertsons to prepare a Noise Study and directed staff to work with Albertsons and the residents to resolve the issues. 8-18-97 Albertsons submitted a Noise Study. 8-26-97 Staff reviewed the Noise Study and responded that the study was incomplete and inadequate in addressing some of the identified issues. 9-10-97 City Planner approved the security fencing for Albertsons with a condition of approval requiring gates to be locked between the hours of 6 p.m. and 8 a.m. 9-18-97 Albertsons objected to the condition requiring gates to be locked between the hours of 6 p.m. and 8 a.m. 10-15-97 Albertsons submitted revised Nosie Study. 10-29-97 City Planner extended the hours from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. after Albertsons agreed to have all deliveries completed by 9 p.m. and Mr. Thompson did not object to the temporary new curfew time if AIbertsons continued to work towards a long-term solution. 11-18-97 City issued building permits for the security gates. Staff reviewed and determined that the revised Noise Study was complete' and adequate in addressing the issues. The results and findings of the study stated that the noise levels did not exceed the City's standards. The Noise Engineer stated that the following recommendation would not be required based on the City's noise standards, but would further reduce interior noise: the existing wall could be replaced with a new wall up to 12 feet in height in order to block second floor windows or the second floor windows be upgraded. 2-23-96 A meeting was held with representatives of Albertsons, the property manager, and adjacent residents to review the result of the Noise Study and any remaining issues. The consensus of the residents was that the security gates and fences helped in reducing the impact of the Page 1 of nuisance problems. The rjsidents also stated that the lot sweeper still came too early in the morning. The property manager responded that the w ' ~ " ' y ere ~n the process Of h~rlng a new company for cleaning the parking area. The consent;us of the residents was that the remaining issue was loss of privacy. ~ Mr. Scott Thayer of Albertsons offered to install a chain link fence wi!h green mesh materials for addressing the privacy issue. Staff stressed the importance of using more durable material for the free-standi,hg fence. 4-98 to 6-98 Staff called Mr. Scott Thayer and stated that a free-standing fence would be acceptable but would recommend Albertsons look into using more durable materials for the fence. A product suggested by staff was Woodcrete material. Staff also reminded him to send details of the free-standing fence for City Planner review and approval. Attachment: Letter to Albertsons dated August 27, 1998 Page 2 of 2: CHRONOLOGYFOR ALBERTSONS SHOPPING CENTER SWC OF BASELINE ROADANDARCHIBALDAVENUE FROM DECEMBER1993TOJUNE1997 DATE COMMENTS/STATUS 12-93 to present A review of the Code Enforcement files show that the site has been plagued with nuisance problems such as graffiti and illegal dumping of trash. Code Enforcement staff has worked with the property manager, Craig Dootson, to have the graffiti and trash removed in a timely manner and develop a plan of action to discourage the nuisance. 2-94 Staff met with representatives of Albertsons. They proposed to take overthe unoccupied Builders Emporium building at the east side of the center because they needed a bigger facility. The existing Albertsons store at the west side of the center would have to be dosed. They stated that Albertsons still has a long term lease for the existing store and it would be in their interest to sublease their building. To use the Builders Emporium building, they would have to modify the loading area and enclose the outdoor nursery area. Staff informed them that the use is permitted and the expansion would need a Minor Development Review application. 8-94 Albertsons submitted a Minor Developmept Review application (MDR 94-17). 9-94 Staff reviewed three alternatives to the parking scheme in the back of the store submitted by Albertsons. 10-6-94 City Planner approved MDR 94-17 with conditions. 10-19-94 Albertsons submitted revised design to the loading area. The revised loading area showed it to be at an angle. 3-15-95 City issued building permits for tenant improvements. 9-95 Albertsons store in business. 1-8-96 Planning Division received a letter dated December 27, 1995, from Dave Thompson. He described the nuisance problems consisting of constant streams of trucks and their noises; very early and late hours of deliveries; disturbances; and excess light and glare that spill over onto his property. He attached a copy of the time log for the nuisance problems in October in his October 30, 1995, letter to Albertsons. 1-22-96 Staff responded with a letter to Mr. Thompson and informed him of the pending investigation on whether Albertsons has violated the City's performance standards. DATE COMMENTS/STATUS 2-96 to 3-96 Staff reviewed files and cojqducted site investigations. 4-4-96 A letter was written to Albe;'tsons. Staff identified the code violation of excess light and glare from the wallpak light. Staff cited the intense frequency of delivery truckS, which would create an adverse impact to the adjacent residents. Staff suggested mitigation forthe noise impact and encouraged AlbertsonS to look into long-term solutions. 5-96 through 6-96 Staff spoke with Dave Rumley, Albertsons' District Sales Manager, and Scott Thayer, Real Estate Manager, several times. Staff requested their cooperation in being a good neighbor. They agreed to continue the compressed delivery schedule, reduce the light bulb wattage, and provide shields to prevent light and glare spillages. Staff also requested a meeting with Albertsons to discuss long-term solutions. 6-10 through 6-18-96 Staff continued to receive Sails from adjacent residents. 6-27-96 Staff arranged a meeting with Mr. Thayer of Albertsons and the adjacent residents, Dave Thompson, Bob Brush, and Mr. & Mrs. Davies, at: the site. The residents told Mr. Thayer of their concerns. Mr. Thayer agreed to work with staff on finding solutions to meet the residents' concerns. 7-96 through 8-96 Staff had several phone conversations with Mr. Thayer about setting up a meeting to discuss some suggested mitigation, such as reorienting the loading area, providing a landscape buffer, and/or raising the height of the block wall. Mr. Thayer stated that he would like to have a trial period of the continued compressed delivery schedule and requiring their truck drivers to turn off their engines and refrigeration units while loading or unloading. He stated that Albertsons is reluctant to change the orientation of the loading dock because of their interior floor plan. He believed that the property owner should address the landsc'~pe buffer and the block wall. 9-3-96 Code Enforcement Division: received a complaint from Mr. Thompson about the parking lot sweepers coming too early in the morning (6:45 a.m) Code Enforcement staff contacted the property manager, Mr. Doorson, who stated that the new contract services started last week and that he would inform them of :the restricted time (between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m.) for sweeping the parking lot. 9-30-96 Another complaint regarding the parking lot sweeper. Code Enforcement contacted Mr. Doorson. He stated he has hired another company for sweeping the parking lot. 10-3-96 Because of repeated complaints, staff sent another letter to Albertsons requesting. an action plan to address the nuisance problems. Page 2 of 3 DATE COMMENTS/STATUS Albertsons has not responded to the letter and has not provided an action plan as outlined in the attached letter. 10-96 through 6-25-97 Staff did not receive any further complaints from residents regarding noise issues. Page 3 of 3 OCT S '~? 8:~_~ FROM ALBERTSONS PAGE.g01 OC~ ~, ]~9~ :' Ms. Ntncy Foug, S~or P~r C~ of ~o Cp~-~nga 105~ Ci~c ~ D~ve ~on's Sto. ~ No~ Study SEC B~e & A.~b~d ~o Cuc~ong~ C~o~a ~ N~y: ~ k re~ to ~c ~isc ~dy ~g p~ for ~ a~.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ for a ~ of ~ 's T~ti~ M~ pt~ ~ ~ ~ ~11~ ~: a) M~d~v~~~ofT~, b) Pr~u~ dc~ ~ m~ ev~ ~cr ~ c) G~ ~ ~ ~c ~ ~ ~. off ~ p~uct ~ tim pr~u~ ~ ~ ~ su~ly. ~ ~ TE~ ~ ~ ~ ~: ~ Bmler~ Mu~/~ ~e APPENDIX B NOISE LEVEL PROJECTIONS NOISE BARRIER CALCULATIONS - BASED UPON FHWA - RD-77-108 PROJECT: ALBERTSONS - 9775 BASELINE JOB #: 742-97-001 SOURCE: DELIVERY TRUCKS DATE: 31-Jul-97 LOCATION: 1ST FLOOR FACADE BY: R. KAHN OBS DIST= 68.0 DT WALL= 38.0 DT W/OB= 30.0 HTH WALL= 6.0 ******** BARRIER = 0.0 (0=WALL, I=BERM) OBS HTH= 5.0 NOISE HTH= 8.0 BARRIER+ OBS EL = 0 . 0 TOPO SHIELDING = -6.00 NOISE EL = 4.0 NOISE HTH EL= 12.0 DROP-OFF= 15.0 (15 = 4.5 dBA PER DOUBLING OF DISTANCE) COFF NOISE LEVELS (dBA) DIST (F Leq Lmax L2 L8 L25 L50 REF LEVEL 31 63.8 81.5 74.0 68.0 55.0 50.3 PROJ ~L 68 58.7 76.4 68-9 62.9 49.9 45.4 SHIELDING 68 -6.0 -6.0 -6.0 -6.0 -6.0 -6.0 ADJ LEVEL 68 52.7 70.4 62.9 56.9 43.9 39.4 NOISE BARRIER CALCULATIONS - BASED UPON FHWA - RD-77-108 SOURCE: DELIVERY TRUCKS DATE: 31-JUl-97 LOCATION: 2nd FLOOR FACADE BY: R. KAHN OBS DIST= 68.0 DT WALL= 38.0 DT W/OB= 30.0 HTH WALL= 6.0 ******** BARRIER = 0.0 (0=WALL,i=BERM) OBS HTH= 15.0 NOISE HTH= 8.0 BARRIER+ OBS EL = 0.0 TOPO SHIELDING = 0.00 NOISE EL = 4.0 NOISE PITH EL= 12.0 DROP-OFF= 15.0 (15 = 4.5 dBA PER DOUBLING OF DISTANCE) COFF NOISE LEVELS (dBA) · DIST (F Leq Lmax L2 L8 L25 L50 REF LEVEL 31 63.8 81.5 74.0 68.0 55.0 50.5 PROJ LEVEL 68 58.7 76.4 68.9 62.9 49.9 45.4 SHIELDING 68 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ADJ LEVEL 68 58.7 76.4 68.9 62.9 49.9 45.4 NOISE BARRIER CALCULATIONS -~BASED UPON FHWA - RD-77-108 PROJECT: ALBERTSONS - 9775 BASELINE JOB #: 742-97~002 SOURCE: DELIVERY TRUCKS DATE: 31-Ju1~97 'LOCATION: BACKYARD BY: R. KAHN OBS DIST= 48.0 DT WALt= 38.0 DT W/OB= 10.0 HTH WALL.= 6.0 ******** BARRIER = 0.0 (0=WALL, I=BERM) OBS HTH= 5.0 NOISE HTH= 8.0 BARRIER+ OBS EL = 0.0 TOPO SHIELDING = -9.30 NOISE EL = 4.0 NOISE HTH EL.= 12.0 DROP-OFF= 15.0 (15 = 4.5 dBA PER DOUBLING OF DISTANCE) COFF NOISE LEVELS (dBA) DIST (F Leq Lmax L2 L8 L25 L50 REF LEVEL 31 63.8 81.5 74.0 68.0 55.0 50.5 PROJ LEVEL 48 61.0 78.7 71.2 65.2 52.2 47.7 SHIELDING 48 -9.3 -9.3 -9.3 -9.3 -9.3 -9.3 ADJ LEV~EL 48 51.7 69.4 61.9 55.9 42.9 38.4 ..................................... ~ ............................. ~--- NOISE BARRIER CALCULATIONS - BASED UPON FHWA - RD-77-108 PROJECT: ~L~ERTSONS - 9775 BASELINE JOB #: 742-97-001 SOURCE: DELIVERY TRUCKS DATE: 01-0ct-97 LOCATION: BACKYARD ( ~ ~ ~.._ u~ BY: R. KAHN OBS DIST= 39.0 DT W~LI~ 38.0 DT W/OB= 1.0 HTN WALL= 6.0 ******** BARRIER = 0.0 (0=WALL, i=BERM) OBS HTH= 5.0 NOISE HTH= 8.0 BARRIER+ OBS EL = 0.0 TOPO SHIELDING = -13.90 NOISE EL = 4.0 NOISE HTH EL= '12.0 DROP-OFF= 15.0 (15 = 4.5 dBA PER DOUBLING OF DISTANCE) COFF NOISE LEVELS (dBA) ~ DIST (F Leq Lmax L2 L8 L25 L50 REF LEVEL 31 63.8 81.5 74.0 68.0 55.0 50.5 PROJ LEVEL 39 62.3 80.0 72.5 66.5 53.5 49.0 SHIELDING 39 -13.9 -13.9 -13.9 -13.9 -13.9 -13.9 ADJ LEVEL 39 48.4 66.1 58.6 52.6 39.6 35.1 NOISE BARRIER CALCULATIONS -IBASED UPON FHWA - RD~77-108 ............... SOURCE: DELIVERY TRUCKS ~ D TE: 01-0ct~97 A LOCATION: BACKYARD ( ~ ~ ~-- ~-~\% BY: R. KAHN OBS DIST= 43.0 DT WALL= 38.0 ~ DT W/OB= 5.0 [ ~ HTH WALL= 6.0 ******** BARRIER = 0.0 (0=WALL, i=BERM) OBS HTH= 5.0 , NOISE HTH= 8.0 BARRIER+ OBS EL = 0.0 TOPO SHIELDING = -11.40 NOISE EL = 4.0 NOISE HTH EL= 12.0 DROP-OFF= 15.0 (15 = 4.5 dBA PER DOUBLING OF DISTANCE) COFF NOISE LEVELS (dBA) DIST (F Leq Lmax L2 L8 L25 L50 REF LEVEL 31 63.8 81.5 74.0 68.0 55.0 50.5 PROJ I~EVEL 43 61.7 79.4 71.9 65.9 52.9 48.4 SHIELDING 43 -11.4 -11.4 ~11.4 -11.4 -11.4 -1!.4 ADJ LEVEL 43 50.3 68.0 ,60.5 54.5 41.5 37.0 Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Sections 17. 02. 110 & 17. 02. 120 H. Continuance of Hearinqs. Any public hearing may be continued from time to time by the body or official conducting the hearing, subject to limitations provided by law; and in such case, no further notice need be given. Section 17.02.120 - Noise Abatement A. Purpose. In order to control unnecessary. excessive, and annoying noise and vibration in the City, it is hereby declared to be the policy of the City to prohibit such noise generated from or by all sources as specified in this Section. B. Decibel Measurement Criteria. Any decibel measurement made pursuant to the provisions of this Section shall be based on a reference sound pressure of 20 micro-pascals as measured with a sound level meter using the "A" weighted network (scale) at slow response. C. Desiqnated Noise Zones. The properties hereafter described are hereby assigned th~ following noise zones: NOISE ZONE I: All single and multiple family residential properties.  NOISE ZONE I1: All commercial properties. Exterior Noise Standards 1. It shall be unlawful for any person at any location within the city to create any noise or allow the creation of any noise on the property owned, leased, occupied, or otherwise controlled by such person, which causes the noise level when measured on the property line of any other property to exceed the basic noise level as adjusted below: a. Basic Noise Level for a cumutatife'period of not more than 15 minutes in any one hour; or b. Basic Noise Level plus 5 dBA for a cumulative period of not more than 10 minutes in any one hour; or c. Basic Noise Level plus 14 dBA ror a cumulative period of not more than 5 minutes in any one hour; or d. Basic Noise level plus 15 dBA at any time. 2, If the measurement location is a boundary between two different noise zones, the lower noise leve! standard s_haJI app_lv. 3. If the intruding noise source is continuous and cannot reasonably be discontinued or stopped for a time period whereby the ambient noise level can be determined, the measured noise level obtained while the noise is in operation shall be compared directly to the allowable noise level standards as specified respective to the measurement's location. designated land use, and for the time of day the noise level is measured, The I ' Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Sections ] 7. 08. 070 & 17. 08, 080 7. Drainage swales curb and gutter, or s milar dra nage structures, shalI be kept dean and free of debris, trash, soil, vegetation, qr other material in a manner that permits proper drainage. Section 17.08.080 - Performance Standards A. Intent. The intent of this section is to protect properties in all residential districts and the health and safety of persons from environmental nuisances and hazards and to provide a pleasing environment in keeping with the nature of the residential character. The pe~ormance standards set maximum tolerabirity limits on adverse environmental effects created by any use or development of land. B. Administration and Measurement. The standards of this section shall be enforced by the City Planner. Upon discovery of any apparent vidlation of these standards, the City Planner shall investigate using such instruments as may be necessary. If a violation is found to exist, the violation shall be abated as a nuisance as prescribed in the Municipal Code. C. Exemptions. The following sources of nuisances are exempt from the provisions of this section. 1. Emergency equipment, vehicles and devices. 2. Temporary construction, maintenance, or demolition activities between the hours of 6:30 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., except Sundays and National holidays. D. Noise. No operation or activity shall cause any source of sound at any location or allow the creation of noise on property owned, leased, occupied, or otherwise controlled by such person, which causes the Ambient Base noise levels to exceed the fo ow ng standards, and as contained in S,. 7.02.120. Table 17.08.080-D - Residential Noise Standards ~at tcl Maximum Allowable Location of Measurement 10~p,m. to 7 a.m. 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 1. Exterior 55dBA 6OdBA 2, Interior ,, 40dBA 45dBA I (A) It shall be unlawful for any person at any location within the city to cceate ~ny noise Or to allow the creation of any noise which causes the noise level when measured within any o:her fully enclosed (windows and doors shut) residential dwelling unit to e~:ceed the interior Noise Standard m the manner described heroin. (B) If the intruding noise source Is continuous and cannot reasonably be discontinued or stopped for a time pedod whereby the ambient noise level can be determined. the same procedures specified ~n Section 17.02 120 shall be deemed pro~aer to enforce the provisions of this Section, (C) Each of the noise limits above shall be reduced 5dBA for noise consisting of impulse or simple tone noise CITY OF P, ANCHO CUCAMONGA -- STAFF REPORT DATE: September 23, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Nancy Fong, AICP, Senior Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-45 - MASI COMMERCE PARTNERS - The development of three auto service buildings totaling 20,400 square feet on 2.23 acres of land within the Masi Plaza in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) of the industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southwest side of Masi Drive and Sebastian Way - APN: 229-011-56 through 60. Staff did not receive revised development plans, reductions, fees, etc., and is therefore requesting a continuance on this project until the next Planning Commission meeting. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue the project to October 14, 1998. Res submitted City Planner BB:NF:gs ITEM D CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: September 23, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engine~(_~ . BY: Jon Gillespie, Traffic Engineer SUBJECT: TRIP REDUCTION REQUIREMENTS BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS In the November, 1993 update of the Congestion Management ProVen (CIVEP), all City's in San Bernardino County were required to adopt a Trip Reduction Ordinance. The CMP also mandated specific trip reduction mitigations for all new developments over a certain size. These mandatory trip reduction mitigations included providing telecommuting centers for new residential developments of S00 or more dwelling units, and on-site video conferencing facilities for new office park developments with 1000 or more employees. On April 6, 1994, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted Ordinance No. 522 which amended the City's Development Code in order to provide Trip Reduction requirements. However, in the 1997 CMP update, the mandatory requirement to provide telecommuting centers and video conference facilities for large residential and office park developments was deleted. According to the latest CMP, the requirement to provide telecommuting centers and video conference facilities is entirely optional, and at the discretion of the City Council. Therefore, it is staff's recommendation that Ordinance No. 522 be amended in order to delete the requirements for telecommuting centers and on-site video conferencing facilities, since it puts the City of Rancho Cucamonga in a developer unfriendly position, if telecommuting and video conferencing centers are not being required by other agencies. In the four years since the City approved Ordinance No. 522, there have been many technological advancements in the area of the interact and in computer hardware. In 1994, very few people had even heard of the intemet. By 1998, millions of people have gone "on-line", and are regular users of the intemet. Business and industry leaders see the intemet as the market place and work place of the future. In addition, the interact is available to any home with a telephone. In the opinion of City staff, the intemet has revolutionized the whole concept of telecommuting, and telecommuting centers are an idea which has become obsolete. Staff has provided a discussion on the cost of creating and operating a telecommuting center, and telecommunication technology. See Attachment "A". ITEM E Planning Commission September 23, 1998 Page 2 In order to be ready to take advantage of the future in video and intemet telecommunications technology, staff recommends that all future homes in the City of Rancho Cucamonga should be conditioned to be wired with Category 5 telephone cable, and that large office complexes should be conditioned to have access to fiber optic communication lines. REVIEW BY OTHERS This item was reviewed and recommended for approval by the City Council Public Works Sub- Committee on July 29, 1998. RECOMMENDATION · Recommend that City Ordinance No. 522 be amended in order to delete the mandatory requirements for the provision of telecommuting centers and on-site video conference facilities, and that new homes and offices be conditioned to' be equipped with Category 5 telephone cable or fiber optic cable as appropriate. Respectfully Submitted, William J. O'Neil City Engineer WJO:JAG:jag Attachment "A"- A Discussion on Te!ecornmuting Centers and Telecommunications Technology Attachment "B"- Telecomrnuting Center, Set-Up and 5 Year Operating Cost 0804pc.wpd APPENDIX "A" A Discussion on Telecommuting Centers and Telecommunications Technology: At the June 24, 1998, Planning Commission meeting, there was considerable interest expressed by Planning Commission Members on the subject of Telecommuting Centers. Therefore, staff has taken this oppommity to estimate the cost of furnishing and operating a telecommuting center. City staff estimates this cost to be approximately $180,000 for the first year, and approximately $95,000 per year thereafter. The cost of furnishing and operating a telecommuting center is extensive. In addition to the cost of office equipment and fumiture, the center will need to be staffed with trained computer system support personnel and with security. A breakdown of the 5 year operating plan for a telecommuting center is shown in the attached Table "A" . The size of the telecomrnuting center was determined from the 1998 Regional Transportation Plan CRTP). In the RTP, the goal for telecommuting is 6.1%. The Lewis Homes project consists of 547 new homes. Therefore, the facility must provide work space and office furniture for 33 people (547 X .061=33.3). However, if we assume that one half of the telecommuters work at home, then equipment only needs to be provided for 16 people. Assuming that each person needs 100 sqft of space, the office required would be 1,600 sqfi. Office space in the area can be obtained for approximately $1.00 per sqft. pins $0.32 per sqft triple net. Management of a facility with 16 computer work stations would requize the services of a trained computer technician. The salary range for a computer technician is $16 to $20 per hour. Therefore, the cost to the City for this person with benefits would be approximately $30.00 per hour. During the last 10 years, the telecommunications industry has made rapid advancements in the area of data transmission technology. Fiber optic technology has been in use for over 20 years, however, recent advancements in hardware and software has made fiber optics cost competitive with copper wire. For example, a single fiber optic line can transmit data more than 100 times faster than a standard copper telephone line of comparable size. Modem hardware has also advanced significantly. In 1994, a top of the line modem operated at a baud rate 9,600 bits per second. Today, a modem with a baud rate of 56,000 bits per second can be purchased for about $78.00. (Alternatively, a fiber optic multiplexer which can handle 1,000,000 bits of information per second can be purchase for approximately $500.00). However, the technology available for home computers is rapidly passing the equipment of our existing telephone communication system. A standard copper telephone line has a data transmission rate of only 9,600 bits per second. This is adequate for standard voice grade communications. However, real time video transmission requires a faster data transmission rate. The telecomrnunications industry knows this, and each year the major telephone companies replace thousands of miles of copper telephone cable with new fiber optic lines. Why is fast data transmission important? A City staff member recently downloaded a 10 megabit file from the internet at a baud rate of 9,600 bits per second. This download required over 6 hours to complete! Attachment "A" APPENDIX "A" (Continued) The technology is currently available to communicate by both sound and video over the internet. However, it requires both end users to have a direct connection to a fiber optic telephone line. Video can also be transmitted for short distances over shielded twisted pair copper wires (the maximum distance is 1,000 ft). In the construction industry, shielded twisted pair copper wire is known as Category 5 telephone cable, and is available in 3 pair, 6 pair and 12 pair sizes. In discussing the installation of Category 5 telephone cable with representatives of the Lewis Company, they indicated that Category 5 telephone cable could be installed at a cost of approximately $150 per new home. This would provide one outlet in each home where high speed data transmission or future video communication would be possible. Additional rooms would be wired with standard telephone wire for standard voice grade communication. New homes could be completely wired with Category 5 telephone cable at an additional cost. Category 5 telephone cable costs approximately $1.00 per linear foot. Standard telephone wire costs approximately $0.20 per linear foot. Fiber optic cable costs approximately $3.00 per linear foot. Attachment "A" TABLE "A" TELECOMMUTING CENTER, SET-UP A2ND 5 YE.LR OPERATING COST Start-up cost 16 desks X $500 = $8,000 16 chairs X $200 = $3,200 16 computer work stations X $4,000 = $64,000 1 Printer X $1,800 = $1,800 16 network cards X $100 = $1,600 16 telephone lines (installation only) X $50 = $800 Fax Machine $2,500 Copy Machine $2,500 Alarm System $2,500 Furnishings (artwork and plants) lump sum = $2,000 Entrance Sign (1 each) = $1,000 Stencil sign on door = $10Q $90,000 Monthly costs Rent, 1,600 sfX $1.32 = $2,112 Electricity $300 Cleaning Service (and restroom supplies) $100 Water S30 Telephone (assume 15 pay lines, local access only) $400 Paper for printer and copy machine $100 ' Copier, fax and computer maintenance service contract $100 Employee salary and benefits ($30 X 40 X 4) = $4.800 $7,942 Cost per year = $7,942 X 12 = $95,304 Cost for 5 years = $95,304 X 5 = $476,520 Total Cost for start-up and 5 years of operation = $566,000 Attachment "B" RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 98-03, AMENDING TITLE 17, OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING TRIP REDUCTION REQUIREMENTS MANDATED BY FEDERAL AND STATE AIR QUALITY REGULATIONS, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. 1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has filed an application for Development Code Amendment No. 98-03, as described in the title of this Resolution. Here[halter in this Resolution, the subject Development Code Amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 23rd day of September 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on September 23, 1998. including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located within the City; and b. The proposed amendment will help to improve air quality, and therefore the adoption is categorically exempt from environmental review provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15308 of the CEQA Guidelines. 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 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 b. That the proposed amendment is consistent with the objectives of the Development Code; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. : DCA 98-03 - CITY OF RC September 23, 1998 Page 2 c. That the proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public h~alth, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to; properties or improvements in the vicinity; and d. That the proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the objectives of the General Plan, or the Development Code. 4. This Commission hereby finds and determines that the application identified above in this Resolution is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15308 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraph 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby resolves as follows: a. That the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends approval of Development Code Amendment 98-03 to modify the Municipal Code per the attached Ordinance. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 1998. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller. Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing R~solution 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 23rd day of September 1998, 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 DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 98-03, AMENDING CHAPTERS 17.08;AND 17.10 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE, REGARDING TRIP REDUCTION REQUIREMENTS, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. 1. On September 23, 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing with respect to the above referenced Development Code Amendment. Following the conclusion of said public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 98- , thereby recommending that the City Council adopt Development Code ' Amendment No. 98-03. 2. On October 21, 1998, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing and concluded said hearing prior to the adoption of this Ordinance. 3. All legal prerequisites prior 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: This Council herebyfinds and certifies that the proposed amendment has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmenta Act (CEQA) of 1970, and determines that the proposed amendment will help to improve air quality, and therefore the amendment is categorically exempt from environmental review prcj~,isions of the California Environmental Act (CEQA), per Section 15308 of the CEQA Guidelines, and further this Council hereby directs the City Clerk to file a Notice of Exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15062, regarding this matter. SECTION 3: The text of Section 17.08.030.E.8 is hereby deleted. SECTION 4: The text of Section 17.010.030.F.7 is hereby deleted. SECTION 5: The text of Section 17.10.070.B is hereby deleted. SECTION 6: The City Council declares that, should any provision, section, paragraph, sentence, or word of this Ordinance be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction, or by reason of any preemptire legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences, and words of this Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect. CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO DCA 98-03 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 21, 1998 Page 2 SECTION 7: . The City Clerk shall certify 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. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: September 23, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad BuUer, City Planner BY: Alan Warren, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: MULTI-FAMILY TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS Review of recommendations for future residential land use changes. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: In 1997, the Multi-Family Task Force began the review of vacant multiple family designated land within the community. Early in the review process, the Task Force members determined that much of the vacant multiple family land that was next to existing multiple family development was appropriately zoned. From then on the members and staff focused on those vacant multiple family parcels that were next to existing and planned single family areas. Following is a list of the areas/parcels which were included in the review along with the Task Force recommendations. Area 1 - Northeast corner of Highland and Lemon Avenues -8 ¼ acres of Medium land. The Task Force recommends that a land use amendment to change the site to Low-Medium (4-8 dwelling units/acre) be initiated by the City for the next available General Plan amendment cycle. The following areas were recommended to be included in the next General Plan Revision/Update or included with any private land use application for adjacent parcels. No specific land use recommendations where made; however, various land use alternatives would be studied with the General Plan Amendment projects. Area 2 - Two sites, north and south of the 1-15 at Base Line Road -11 and 10 acres of Medium land. Area 3 - Northeast corner of Base Line Road and Milliken Avenue - 20 acres of Medium and Medium-High land. Area 4 - South of the I-15, at East Avenue - 15 acres of Medium land. Area 5 East of the 1-15, north of Foothill Boulevard - 29 acres of Medium and Low-Medium land. ITEM F PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT MULTI-FAMILY TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS September 23, 1998 Page 2 Area 6 - Northwest of the M'all Site - Various sites ranging from 2 to approximately 20 acres and numerous land use districts. A significant amount of this area has recently been changed (General Plan Amendment and Victoria Planned Community Amendment) to Low-Medium residential in the abandoned Edison corridor. Area 7 - South side of Base Line Road between Victoria Park Lane and future Day Creek Boulevard, 39 acres of Low-Medium, Medium, Medium-High, High, Community Facilities, and Regionally Related Commercial land. This area is presently under review with the American Beauty General Plan and Victoria Planned Community Amendment applications and Environmental Impact Report. Included with this report is the staff analysis presented to the Task Force during its deliberations. RECOMMENDATION: The land use policy recommendations of the Task Force are forwarded herein to the Planning Commission for Consideration. Staff requests concurrence by the Planning Commission with these Task Force recommendations. Respectfully submitted, : City Planner BB:AW:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Land Use Analysis Study, April 8, 1998 Exhibit "B" - Land Use Patterns Diagram Exhibit "C" - Draft/Multi-Family Excerpts from Task Force Meeting Minutes dated May 13, 1998 CITY OF RA~NCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: April 8, 1998 TO: y Task Force Members FR( fad Buller, City Planner MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT LAND USE ANALYSIS Enclosed with this meeting's packet is a series of land use analysis for specific areas of the City with vacant multi-family land. The text and maps are set up to help the Task Force members Fist their preferences for discussion at the meeting. The areas to be discussed are as follows: Area I - Northeast corner of Highland and Lemon 8 % acres of Medium land Area 2 - Two sites, north and south of the 1-15 at Base Line Road 11 and 10 acres of Medium land Area 3 - Northeast corner of Base Line and Milliken 20 acres of Medium and Medium High land Area 4 - South of the 1-15 at East Avenue 15 acres of Medium land Area 5 - East of the 1-15 north of Foothill Boulevard 29 acres of Medium and Low Medium land Area 6 - Northwest of the Mall Site Various sites ranging from 2 to about 20 acres and numerous land use districts Area 7 * South side of Base Line between Victoria Park Lane and future Day Creek Boulevard - 39 acres of Low Medium, Medium. Medium High, High. Community Facilities, and Regionally Related Commercial land BB:AW:gs Attachments cc: Mayor and Members of City Council Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Jack Lam, AICP Rick Gomez, Community Development Director City of Rancho Cucamonga Vicinity Map ~ea 1: Northeast corner of ~ghland and Lemon 8.5 a~es ofMedim l~d LEGEND .~ea 2: Two sites, north and south of I-15 at Base Line 11 ~d 10 acres of Medium land ~ane use study Area .~ea 3: Northeast corner of Base Line and Milliken ~ ~ S0nere of Influence 20 a~es of Medim and Medim ~ l~d 2 ,~ea 4: South of the 1-15 at East Avenue 3 15 a~es ofMedim l~d ~ ~ea 5: East of the 1-15 north of Foothill 29 a~es of Medium and Low Medium l~d~ s ~i~ st~ Area 6: Northwest of the Mall Site 7 ..... V~o~ sites mng~g from 2 = ci~ .a,, ~ou~ 20 acres and n~erous land ~e dis~cu .~ea 7: South side of Base Line be~veen Victoria Park Lane and future Day Creek BIrd. 39 a~es of Low Medi~ Medium High, Hi~ Cogu~ Facilities, gd Regionally Related 25o 0 250 500 750 Feet Cogercial land September 3, 1998 MUL TI-FAMIL Y DEVELOPMENT AND SIGNAGE TASK FORCE LAND USE ANALYSIS The Task Force members, after reviewing a few initial sites, directed staff to focus work on those vacant multiple family sites that were near single family land/developments. It was felt that those sites near existing multiple family developments did not warrant additional study at this time. Therefore, the remaining sites are presented with analysis and questions to help the Task Force formulate its recommendations. Each area is identified with a description and planning map(s). Area 1 - Northeast corner of Highland Avenue and Lemon Avenue The site is bordered on all sides (drainage channel on the east) by existing single family developments or vacant single family land. The members felt that this site should be - changed to similar single family designation as the properties that surround it. The Task Force may wish to reaffirm its recommendation as well as prioritizing the amendment. No further study needed; no action on this site. E3More study needed before recommendation. Information needed: g Land use modification needed, from M (8-14 dwelling units/acre) to If so, then initiate action by City application as soon as possible. Provisions, if any: add to next year's work program. Provisions, if any:. Include with next available City-wide (General Plan Update) or area-wide study application (Specific Plan AmendmentJUpdate). Provisions, if any: Exhibit A-3 MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT AND SIGNAGE TASK FORCE LAND USE ANALYSIS Area 2 - Two sites; one north and one south of the 1-15 Freeway at Base Line Road These sites abut the 1-15 Freeway. The northern parcel (M) is bordered by the 1-15 Freeway, Southern Pacific Rail line, and East Avenue. The properties on the north side of the rail line and west of East Avenue are zone LM within the Etiwanda Specific Plan. No development proposal has been generated for this parcel. The southern parcel is bordered by Base Line Road on the: north, the 1-15 Freeway, and vacant LM land to the west. Several developers have shown interest in the site for commercial uses, but no proposals are pending. The Task Force has indicated no action is warranted at this time. The task force may wish to reaffirm its recommendation. O No further study needed; no action on this site. - [] More study needed before recommendation. Information needed: [] Land use modification needed, from M (8-14 dwelling units/acre) and MH (14-24 dwelling units/acre) to If so, then [] initiate action by City application as soon as possible. Provisions, if any: [] add to next year's work program Provisions, if any: Include with next available City-wide (General Plan Update) or area-wide study application (Specific Plan Amendment/Update). Provisions, if any: Exhibit A-6 MUL TI-FA MIL Y DEVELOPMENT AND SIGNA GE TASK FORCE LAND USE ANALYSIS Area 3 - Northeast corner of Base iLine Road and Milliken Avenue This site (M and MH) is across the street form the future Central Park and is bordered on the east by existing single family (LM) development. Because there is a single family development proposal for this site, the task force felt no action was warranted at this time. A revised plan has been submitted for preliminary review, but the character is still single family. The Task Force may wish to::reaffirm its recommendation. No further study needed; no ~ction on this site. More study needed before recommendation. Information needed: ~ Land use modification needed, from M (8-14 dwelling units/acre) to If so, then [] initiate action by City application as soon as possible. Provisions, if any:. add to next year's work program Provisions, if any: Include with next available City-wide (General Plan Update) or area-wide study application (SpeCific Plan AmendmentJUpdate). Provisions, if any: Exhibit A-8 LM M MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT AND SIGNAGE TASK FORCE LAND USE ANALYSIS Area 4 - South of the 1-15 Freeway, at East Avenue Much of this site borders the east side of the 1-15 Freeway. Originally, the M designation bordered the entire length of the south side of the 1-15 between East Avenue and Miller Avenue. To the east, the underdeVeloped and vacant land is zoned LM. The narrow portion between the freeway and the LM land was intended as a buffer for future single family developments. The difficulty in designing a well integrated multi-family project around a single family project is evident. Staff believes it may be appropriate to "square off' the triangular M district portion by changing the narrow strip along the freeway to LM. Water storage facilities have been suggested for a portion of the M land fronting on East Avenue. Also, an alternative would be to change all of the M land to LM. It should be noted that the land on the opposite side of East Avenue is zoned for office uses with support commercial. No further study needed, no action on this site. More study needed before resommendation. Information needed: Land use modification needed, from M (8-14 dwelling units/acre) to E:] for the narrow portion Of the M area next to the I-15. E:] for the entire M zoned area If so, then initiate action by City application as soon as possible Provisions, if any: add to next year's work program. Provisions, if any: Include with next available City-wide (General Plan Update) or area -wide study application (SpeCific Plan Amendment/Update). provisions, if any:. ,L,. Area 2 / * < LM L -' L m ~ MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT AND SIGNAGE TASK FORCE LAND USE ANALYSIS Area 5 -East of the 1-15 Freeway, north of Foothill Boulevard This area is primarily zone M with a small portion fronting on Etiwanda Avenue being LM. Staff feels the entire area (residential) should be within the same district, or at least divided so that the M designation doesn't surround the LM [and. Three alternatives are presented. 1) The LM area is changed to M (8-14 dwelling units/acre). 2) The M area is changed to LM (4-8 dwelling units/acre). 3) The LM area is shifted ;to the north (roughly the same LM area). No further study needed, no action on this site. More study needed before recommendation. Information needed: [D Land use modification needed; The LM area is changed to M (8-14 dwelling units/acre). The M area is changed to LM (4-8 dwelling units/acre). The LM area is shifted ~to the north (roughly the same LM area). If so, then initiate action by City application as soon as possible. provisions, if any: [:3 add to next year's work program. Provisions, if any: include with next available City-wide (General Plan Update) or area-wide study application (Spe&i~c Plan Amendment/Update). Provisions, if any:. -_u FC2 M ) ,~ // 1LM Area 5 / ~- i ~ ~ I/~T .~- ,:~. , ~'~ :: : MR .- :..-..: .... :. _.. .... ' :. -L '- Exhibit A-13 MOW ~. . _. _::::: ,:,:,,_,- .. .°or. S.E. I/4 Sec..5 T. IS. oR. 6W.,S.!B.B.g,M. Ran'choCuca. ' Tax Rate Are~ /~ ~.,. 15053 -- MILLER AVENUE 3 . 9.015 ~C. ' 2 I 1.7~C. 5SED ON P~GE ~0 3.33 AC I 4.34 46 x : )~' ~. ,, ~ ~' ' 1.86~C. ~' ~ I0 9, 24 ~C I~ 5 ~C~ II II -- FOOTHILL BLVD. --. s 5, :S..R.S  . Assessdr's M~ ..... ,. Exhibit A-14 ~/~ BOOk 227 Pc ~ / San Be~njrdi~ or. S.E.I/4 Sec. 5, T. IS.,R. 6W.,S.B.B. 8, M. Ran'choCucon :" :' C7~ Tax Rote A rel ::.: / ~ , 15o55 ~ MILLER AVENUE ~ s~c, 5 T, ~ S,, R.~ -' ~ ~ 9. o~3 ~c. ,' ~ 2 z z~a.8's -jl ~ t25_~C 1/16 COP. FOOTHILL BOok 227~ P~ Son Bernordiz 'or. S.E. I/4 Sec. 5 T. I S. R. 6 W. & B.B. 8~ M.R~n'cho C~,corr ' ' ' Tox Rot~ Arec ' ~ MILLER AVENUE 2 4.83 ~C, 2.79,4C. ~- ~' . .5. r.,s..~.~ ... ~. ~_~ ~ f_/~ A~'~ M, "' -.- Book 227, Pc ~ ~ San Be~nardir 'or. S.E.I/4 Sac..5 T. IS.,R. 6W. S.B.B.~M. Ran'choCucam :' (1~ Tax Rate Arec :- // , 15053 ~ /_____: l"~,~ - MILLER AVENUE ~ ~ coa. ~ED ON P~GE ~0 L74~C. :e -' -- FOOTHILl 3 -- --~'-- ,M,-ss~_~,: COR- .... . .. Exhibit A-17 _ Assessor's M~ Book 227, Pc ~ / '~ San Bernardir il Dr. S.E.1/4 Sec. 5 'T. IS. R. 6W.,S.B.B. 8, M. Ran'choCucam .:. ' ' Tax Rot~ Arec , - MI'LLER AVENUE ~ -- 4 ssc. s T;L ~' -- ~ I 1.19 ~C 1.74~C. ~EO ON P~GE 20 3.33 AC 4.3 4 AC , ;:4, 8 5EC. I0 4.83 ~C. ~ ', ~l 2.79AC.S E CC L ~ -- 3 BLVD, - - . -- FOOTHILL ~ EXhibit AdS .... .. ~ Book 227, F / San Bbrnerd. MUL TI-FAMIL Y DEVELOPMENT AND SIGNAGE TASK FORCE LAND USE ANALYSIS Area 6 - Northwest of the mall site This is an area with much potential for significant land use change due to the large amount of vacant land and the current application to change the Southern California Edison corridor land use designation. Staff generally expects the primary direction of the Edison Corridor Study to recommend that the land be zoned similar to the land on its east side. Also, the property owners of the land just north of the mall site have talked with staff about possible changes to the Lakes Neighborhood Plan. With such a large area, it is difficult to present written options with all of the potential variations that are possible. Therefore, we will present just one option as the starting point for the committee's discussion. Presently, there is a sizeable M (8-14 dwelling units/acre) parcel of land at the northwest corner of Base Line Road and the future Day Creek Boulevard. At previous meetings, -- Councilman Gutierrez suggested that multi-family should be limited north of Base Line Road. W~th that view, the following considerations are offered: 1 ) Shift the multi-family designation south of Base Line Road by changing the existing RR (Regionally Related commercial) to M (8-14 dwelling units/acre) and change the M on north side of Base Line to LM (4-8 dwelling units/acre). This would provide a sizeable area for expansion of the LM districts to the west, northwest and north of this site. 2) In conjunction with this change, it may be appropriate to shift the CF (Community Facilities-future fire station) use to an equal size area within the Edison corridor, next to the existing self storage facility. Again, this would help enhance the development potential and neighbor character of the aforementioned residential land. The remaining Edison corridor in this immediate area (north and south of Base Line Road) could then be designated M. The small size and configuration would make these sites difficult to design for single family projects. In this way, and with No. 1 above, the City would not be losing potential multi-family development, it would simply be shifted south. This part of the scenario would, of course be dependent on the ultimate proposal for north of the mall site. If that proposal is essentially single family, then even this amount of multi- family land may be cut back or moved elsewhere. Finally, the M land south of the VC (Village Commercial) at the future 30 Freeway may be reduced (from M to LM) to an extension of Silverberry Street. The street extension would provide a fairly good division between the LM single family and the M and VC uses north of the street. MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENTAND SIGNAGE TASK FORCE LAND USE ANALYSIS Again, this scenario is provided as a stating point for discussion. Other scenarios are possible. [] No further study needed, no action on this site. E] More study needed before recommendation. Information needed: ~ D Land use modification needed, from If so, then initiate action by City application as soon as possible. Provisions, if any: add to next year's work program. Provisions, if any: Include with next available City-wide (General Plan Update) or area-wide study application (SpeCific Plan Amendment/Update). Provisions, if any: MUL TI-FA MIL Y DEVELOPMENT AND SIGNA GE TASK FORCE LAND USE ANALYSIS Area 7 - South side of Base Line Road between Victoria Park Lane and the future Day Creek Boulevard This site is presently zoned High (24-30 dwelling units/acre), Medium (8-14 dwelling units /acre,) and Community Facilities within the Victoria Planned Community. Within the High designated land is the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) owned historic Regina Winery complex, To the south, the owners of the property planned for the Lakes portion of Victoria are considering the development of single family tracts north of the mall site. Presently, the Lakes Plan has a combination of single family and multi-family designated land. One option that staff would like to present is as follows: 1. Reduce the winery site of about 13 acres to a 4-acre area around the historic buildings and change the zoning of the remaining land to Community Facilities. 2. Change all remaining High, Medium and Community Facilities land (approximately 26+ acres) to Low Medium (4-8 dwelling units/acre). This would allow the RDA to consolidate the land needed for the winery and sell or trade the surplus land that is left over. Also adding LM land near the Windrows section would be in keeping with residents' wishes for density reduction near their neighborhood. [] No further study needed, no action on this site. More study needed before recommendation. Information needed: [] Land use modification needed, from Exhibit A-23 MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT AND ;IGNAGE TASK FORCE LAND USE ANALY:SIS If so, then E] initiate action by City application as soon as possible. Provisions, if any: E3 add to next year's work program. Provisions, if any: include with next available City-wide (General Plan Update) or area-wide study application (Specific Plan Amendment/Update). Provisions, if any: LAND USE PATTERNS CA TEG ORIE$ DESIGNA TIONS/DIS TRIC TS low degree of land use intensity Ve~ Low l[~dium RESIDENTIAL  Me_'[ium Md-T , , ~h O~ce Neighborho~ Commercial 'COMMERCIAL Commercial C ~tyTCommercial O~UR ~, Regional {ommercial Industrial Park 'Mixed Use/Corm. Recreation, INDUSTRIAL General~dustrial high degree of land use intensity ht of line indicates potential increasing conflicts be~een land use activities and increased difficulty in applying development standards to mitigate conflicts: E,h,bit B DRAFT May 13, 1998 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT AND SIGNAGE TASK FORCE MINUTES Special Meetinq A! CALL TO ORDER A special meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga Multi-family Development and Signage Task Force was held on Wednesday, May 13, 19~8, in the Planning Conference Room of the Civic Center, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. California. The meeting was called to order at 5:10 p.m. Present were Task Force members: Mayor William J. Alexander, Council Member Jim Curatalo, Planning Commissioner Rich Macias, and Planning Commissioner Peter Tolstoy Staff present were: Brad Bullet, City Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; and Alan Warren, Associate Planner B. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION B1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Nbvember 12, 1997 April 8, 1998 The minutes of the meetings of November 12, 1997, and April 8, 1998, were approved by the Task Force. B2. MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT - Discussion of Multi-Family Housing Properties in Three Areas This item was discussed after B3. The Task Force agreed that Area 1, the northeast corner of Highland Avenue and Lemon Avenue, should be included in the next available General Plan Amendment cycle. It agreed the remaining areas could and should wait until a General Plan update or be considered in conjunction with development proposals in and around the specific study areas. The Task Force discussed the General Plan revision/update issue. It was recommenced that a community-wide visioning out-reach program should be considered prior to a decision on how or when to revise the General Plan. It was felt that in this way, the citizens could help identify what issues need to be focused on. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAtMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: September 23, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Nancy Fong, AICP, Senior Planner SUBJECT: SIGNAGE TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONR ABSTRACT: The purpose of this report is to inform the Commission on the discussion, conclusion, and recommendations of the Sign Task Force. Staff recommends the Commission support the recommendations of the Sign Task Force. BACKGROUND: The Task Force conducted seven workshops and a field trip to review and discuss various issues and topics on signs such as the appropriate sizes of sign area for monument signs and wall signs, flexibility for sign Iogos, letter styles and colors, the proliferation of illegal signs, and the lack of maintenance of signs. The Task Force reconvened in April and May of this year when Councilman Jim Curatalo replaced former Councilman Rex Gutierrez as a member. The Task Force has concluded their assessment of sign issues and directed staff to prepare recommendations to be forwarded to the Commission foi' information and to the City Council for direction. ANALYSIS: This section of the report summarizes the Task Force discussion, conclusion, and recommendations based on a series of workshops. Minutes of the workshops and field trip and survey summaries are attached. A. Summary of Discussion: 1. Monument Siqns (Tenant Identification): The Task Force was concerned with the illegible sizes of businesses' names on the monument signs. Based on the field tour of monument signs around the City, the Task Force recommended that the letter height for a tenant's sign should be no smaller than 8 inches. This recommendation would necessitate an amendment to the Sign Ordinance because the current codes only suggest a minimum of 8-inch letter height. The Task Force was also concerned with the sign area of the monument sign and considered reducing it from 48 to 36 square feet. Because the City amended the Sign Ordinance in 1994 to increase the sign area from 24 to 48 square feet, the Task Force concluded that the current size of 48 square feet should be maintained. 2. Tenants' Wall Siqns: The Task Force raised two primary concerns with tenants' wall signs. One was whether small tenants within a center should enjoy the same flexibility as major tenants with bigger and more signs since they, (the small tenants), ITEM G PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SIGNAGE TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS , September 23, 1998 I Page 2 ~ are the least exposed to street frontage~s. Second was whether there should be more flexibility in allowing Iogos, colors, letter styles, cannister style signs, etc., for all sizes of tenants. To assess and betterSunderstand their concerns, the Task Force conducted a field tour Of signs in variou, s shopping centers within the City. The purpose of the tour was to view the signs as to the differences in letter height, sign area, colors, and placement among major anchors, large, and small tenants as well as the different styles of sign program~ from cannister to individual letters. A developer typically creates a sign program with a hierarchy of sign criteria for the different types of tenants in response to the City's request. Owners of shopping centers, such as Lewis Homes, have stated that retailers (small or large) have accepted the fact that major anchors are given the most flexibility in the size and number of signs because they generate the most customers to a center. Developers also include cdteria having flexibility in letter styles, Iogos, and graphics, or letter symbols in a "can" next to the individual letter sign copy. The Task Force concluded that a hierarchy of sign criteria for the different types of tenants should be maintained and sign criteria for placement, area, colors, and the preference of individual letters instead of cannister styles of signs should be continued. 3. Lack of Maintenance of Siqns and Enforcement of Illeqal Siqns: The consensus of the Task Force was that it believes illegal signs have increased within the City and that some permanent signs in shopping centers are not well maintained, which leads to the perception of a declining neighborhood. In reviewing the issues, the Task Force invited the City's Code Enforcement staff to present an overview of the status of sign enforcement. ',The purpose was to assist the Task Force in developing recommendations to be forwarded to the Council for addressing the issues. Based on Code Enforcement: staff input, the Task Force believes that educating and reminding property owners of shoppin~l centers to properly maintain signs will address the issue. However, the Task Force also believes that a notice and abatement process should be developed to be used as a last resort when property .... owners fail to address the maintenance,issue. B. Summary of Task Force Recommendations: 1. Siqn Maintenance: a. Send notices toiproperty owners and/or property managers, which stress the importance of well-maintained s!gns and the need to fix dis-repaired signs in a timely manner. b. Prepare a Chamber of Commerc~ newsletter article about the importance of well designed and maintained signs. c. Conduct a City wide survey of al! signs that require maintenance and, at the conclusion, begin a notice and a, batement process. 2. Enforcement of IIleqal Siqns: Following are the priorities for the enforcement of illegal signs in the order presented: a. A-Frame signs placed within public right-of-way and within street landscape ~ setback area (not allowed by Code). PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SIGNAGE TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS September 23, 1998 Page 3 b. Display of multiple banners. (Code allows display of one banner at a time) c. Display of multiple window neon signs. (Code allows display of two window neon signs of generic words and with a size of 2 square feet each; or, one window neon sign of a mix of graphics, symbols, and generic words and with a size of 4 square feet) d. Display of hot air balloons. (Not allowed except under a Temporary Use Permit for a grand opening event over a weekend. Height of the hot air balloon cannot exceed the height of the parking lot lighting fixtures, which is 15 feet) e. Display of pennants or flags. (Not allowed except under a Temporary Use Permit for a grand opening event) f. Permanent window signs exceeding 30 percent of the glass area. 3. Amend the Siqn Ordinance: Set an 8-inch minimum letter height for tenant's identification for the Tenant ID Monument Sign. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Commission support the Task Force recommendations through minute action. City Planner BB:NF:Is Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Task Force Minutes of February 26, March 26, April 23, July 23, September 12, and November 12, 1997 and April 8, and May 13, 1998 Exhibit "B" - Summary of Task Force Surveys completed in July 1997 and May 1998 Multi-Family Deve!opment and Signage Task Force Minutes February 26, 1997 Page 2 I. es Mr. Buller stated that eventually, if another City-wide review is d . ired Jp an analysis on each vacant parcel for consideration by the Task Force. For the next meeting, a prepared showing the vacant multi-family land with the surrounding land ~ons. B2. SIGNAGE Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that the purpose of the meeting was to identity issues with regard to signs and to develop a scope of work. He informed Task Force members that the Planning Commission and City Council will be considering a number of sign appeals rega:rding including extraneous information on advertising. He mentioned that staff is in th~ process of addres,sing subtenant signs within service stations. He asked the Task Force members to list their sign issues. Councilmember Gutierrez said he would like to see more flexibility in the sign programs as to the choice of colors, letter styles, and [ogos. Mr. Buller explained to the Task Force that the City's Sign Ordinance does not limit colors. He indicated that a sign program is proposed by the property owner and appr0ved by the Planning Commission for each development. He said the sign program sets the number of colors, letter styles, etc. Councilmember Gutierrez stated that he is ,concerned with small tenants who are far away from the street frontages and are not readily seen by the public. He suggested perhaps tenants from a pad building need not be identified on the monument signs because they are clo~er to the street frontages, which would then leave additjonal spaces to identify the smaller tenants. He also doted his concam for the number of temporary signs he is seeing. Commissioner Tolstoy pointed to one of the pictures taken by staff that showe, d a proliferation of windows signs and asked Task Force members whe!her this is the quality of life the City wants. Commissioner Matins and Councilmember Gutierrez agreed wi~ Commissioner Tolstoy and stated that there is a distinctive difference between the City and surrounding communities with regards to signs. Mr. Buller suggested that the Task Force members begin to list their issues or concerns on signs. The following list of issues was developed: : Subtenants' signs in a small flee standing building Subtenants' signs in major anchors Flexibility in policies Signs pollution Identification versus advertising/marketing Priorities on code enforcement of signs Multi-Family Development and Signage Task Force Minutes February 26, 1997 Page 3 Because of time constraints, Mr. Bullet suggested that the Task Force adjoum bhe meeting to March 26, 1997. He recommended that the Task Force members make a list of issues for discussion at that meeting so as to determine the scope of the project, the implementation, and the s~aff resources. He also suggested that at some point the Task Force should invite the Chamber of Commerce to participate. He recommended that a scope of the project be established before involving the Chamber of Commerce. C. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING The next meeting scheduled for March 26, 1997. ICATIONS FROM THE PUBLII~, No communications were made from the public. The meeting was adjourned at 6:06 p.m. Brad Bullet City Planner Approved: March 26, 1997 Multi-Family Development and Signage Task Force Minutes March 26, 1997 Page 2 Mr. Bullet stated that once the Task Force makes recommendations on how the City work with the City Manager to develop a work and funding program For the next meet ng, the Committee asked for r · areas of the City. Mayor Alexander requested fig regarding the disbursement on existing multi-family units throughout the figures be provided in quadrants around the intersection of Haven ar B3. SIGNAGE Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that this meeting was a continuation of a dialogue between members of the Task Force in identifying sign issues. Councilmember Gutierrez brought up the issue of fairness for a small commercial center to have the same number of monument signs and the same size of sign area as a larger commercial center. He cited the example of a larger commercial center such as Masi Plaza and pointed to the photos that showed the monument signs for the smaller centers a ong Foothill Boulevard. He thought smaller tenants in a larger commercial center are being penalized with regard to signs. Mr. Bullet responded that Masi Plaza can have more than one monument sign and stated that the issue is a request from the applicant to double the height of the monument to 16 feet, which would require an amendment to the Sign Ordinance. Mr. Buller informed the Task Force that there is a series of sign appeals that deal with national registered Iogos, colors, and advertising messages. ;He cited Oil Max a.s an example. He asked the Task Force how far the City should go in allowing advertising messages such as "10 minute oil change" or corporate colors. !I Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the marketing of a business 'changes with the market +J'end and advertising message would change with times· IDENTIFICATION OF ITEM FOR NEXT ME TING · fo 97 D. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No communications were made from the public. Multi-Family Development and Signage Task Force Minutes April 23, 1997 Page 2 Mr. Buller discussed the benefit to retail and service businesses of having residences located near the Foothill Boulevard corridor. He also provided insight into the issues needed to be studied when contemplating introducing residential projects into areas where residential uses were not previously planned. Shed Rojo, 12477 Tamadsk, Rancho Cucamonga, asked ~r clarification on some of in Tetra Vista near Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue. Mr. Buller stated that once the Committee makes recomm the City should proceed, he will work with the City Manager to develop a work 3ity Council's consideration. The next meeting 1997, and the committee requested that Ms. Rojo let her neighbors know of the nE and inform staff of how many express interest in attending. It was confirmed that all gs are open to the public. B3. SIGNAGE It was determined that Signage would be discussed at the next meeting. C. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING Signage will be added to the next agenda. · COMM NICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC There were line. E. AD ENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:10 p.m. Brad Bullet City Planner Approved: Multi-Family Development and Signage Task Force Minutes July 23, 1997 I Page 2 : 3. The Base Line Road and Milliken Avenue site need~ not be farther revi cause there is an approved map. 4. Recommendations on the remaining sites sho I lscussed at the next meeting A. East of the l-15 Freewa FoothillBoulevard. B3. ~;IGNAGE Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, stated that the purpose of this meeting was forthe Task Force to review the sign issuas listed in the staff report, and provide d rection or a conclusion to them. She said that the sign issues were compiled based on discussions at previous meetings. The Task Force reviewed the first item in the staff report and recommended that the business community should be better educated on the changes. Mayor Alexander asked whether staff has records showifig the City has notified the owners/property managers of shopping centers o:f the changes; i.e., allowing an addrdonal monument sign and additional sign copies on the monument sign. Ms. Fong replied that staff will provide these records to the T, ask Force. Commissioner Tolstoy suggested that the best way to educate the business community is through the Chamber of Commerce. Mayor Alexander stated that he will be giving the State of the City speech at the September Chamber meeting and he could include signs information inns speech. Ms. Fong indicated staff will provide the necessary information for the Mayor in time for the September meeting. The Task Force reviewed the second item n the staff report and reoommended no farther discussion on the subject. Mayor Alexander asked how the City can encourage the property managers to be more responsive to the needs of the tenants. Larry Henderson, Principal Planner, informed the Task Force that typically the manager of the shopping center will wait until the tenants' leases are up for; renewal before negotiating wf~ them for additional signage if they Commissioner Maclos felt the City's codes are already generous in allowing legos, colors, and letter styles. Multi-Family Development and Signage Task Force Minutes July 23, 1997 Page 3 The Task Force agreed and recommended no further discussion for Item 3 in the staff report. Councilman Gutierrez arrived at 5:30 p.m. The Task Force reviewed Item 4 in the staff report and agreed that the Council needs to establish a pdodty list for code enforcement and that additional staff would be needed to accomplish the goal. Councilman Gutierrez stated that he is concerned with the size of the tenants' names on monument signs. He felt the sinalter letter size affects the readability of the business names. He asked if staff would provide samples of monument signs of 24, 36, and 48 square feet in size, which would show the differences in the letter sizes and their readability. Mayor Alexander suggested that the best way to see the difference is to go on a field tour in the City. He suggested noon time. The Task Force agreed. It was requested that a field tour be set after August 10, 1997. Nancy Fong summarized that the four items listed in the staff report have concluded and staff will provide additional information on monument signs and arrange a field tour after August 10, 1997. -- ?. :-:Z::T:T:CAT;~,;4 ........ ZCZ, ;;2_,,, ~;,_~, ,,,1~ Recomm 'ons on sites: East of the I-15 Freeway nor~ of Foothill Boulevard and · Nor~west of the mall sit;; to the future fleeway. ONS FROM THE PUBLIC There were no public comments at ~is time. · . : . . The meeting was adjourned at 6 15 p m Respectfully submitted, Brad Buffer City Planner Approved: September 12, 1997 CiTY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MULTI-FAMILY/SIGNAGE TASK FORCE MINUTES A FIELD TRIP TO VIEW RANCHO CUCAMONGA COMMERCIAL SIGNS A. CALL~ A special field tdp of the Rancho Cucam0nga Signage Task Force was held on Friday, September 12, lc The field trip was called to order at 12:10 p.m. The Task Force departed from Rancho Cucamon Center and v sited various sites within the City. Present were Task Force members: Mayor William J. AJexander. Councilmember Rex and Planning Commissioner Rich MaciaS. Absent was Task Force Member. Planning Cc Staff present were: Brad Buller. City Planner, Nancy Fong B1. APPR July 23, 1997 The r of July 23, 1997 were approved by the Task Force. B2. ~ Nancy Fong, Senior Planner. described the different monument signs as the Task Force visited them at various sites in the City. She explained that the readability of the signs is affected by the letter size, style, colors. and length of the sign copy. She stated that script letter styles, blue or green colors on a white background. sign copies with too many words, and too many signs on the monument make signs harder to read. She observed that because the Sign Ordinance only recommends an 8-inch minimum letter size, staff cannot require it as a standard. Councilman Gutierrez thought a 38 square foot monument sign may be better than a 48 square foot one because the number of sign copies could be reduced, increasing the readability. There was consensus from the Task Force to discuss the size of the monument signs at the next scheduled n~eeting. The Task Force also agreed t9 discuss the possibility that the 8-inch minimum letter size should be a standard and not a recommendation- Councilman Gutierrez asked why staff does not allow can signs. Signage Task Force Minutes September 12, 1997 Page 2 Brad Buller, Cty Planner, responded that there are centers and sign programs that require can signs but the Planning Commission has established a design policy encouraging individual letters instead of can signs for all new centers. He stated that typically all sign programs for shopping centers have been reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. He indicated the only exception was Masi Plaza, which was directed to the City Planner by the City Council. He suggested the Task Force discuss the issue further and provide direction or specific guidelines for staff regarding can signs versus signs with individual letters. The Task Force agreed that the issue of can signs should be fiJrther discussed in the next scheduled meeting. The Task Force also stated that they have a concern with the maintenance of signs which could lead to the perception of a declining neighborhood. Brad Bullet suggested that the Task Force discuss the maintenance issue at the next scheduled meeting and forward a recommendation to the City Council on establishing policies and priorities for the maintenance of signs in the City. The Task Force agreed that staff will set another meeting to discuss the identified issues. C. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETINC The size of monument signs and can signs versus signs with individual letter. There were lic comments. , OURNMENT ctfully submitted, T City Planner Brad Buller Approved: November 12, 1997 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT AND SIGNAGE TASK FORCE MINUTES Special Meetino A special meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga Multi-Family D-,velopment and Signage Task F on Wednesday, November 12, 1997, in the Planning Conference Room of the Civic Centel 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. The m~eting was called to order p.m. Present were Task Force members: Mayor W~lliam J. Alexander; Rex Gutierrez; and Planning Commissioner Peter Tolstoy Absent was Task Force member: Planning Commissioner Rich Staff present were: Brad Buller, City Planner; Nancy Fong, Se~ ; and Alan Warren, Associate Planner. B1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: OI 1997. The minutes of the meeting of October t7 were approved by the Task Force. B2. MULTI-FAMILY ! : This item was B3. Co ,fett the issues should be thoroughly discussed by the Task Force prior to completing the survey ar i the results as a recommendation to the City Council. The Task Force members g, solely to discuss land use issues, should be scheduled. B3. SIGNAGE Brad Buller. City Planner. stated that Bill Makshanoff. Building Official, and Richard Alcom, Code Enforcement Supervisor, were invited to the meeting so that they could make a presentation to the Task Force about the resources and priorities with regards to sign enforcement. Mr. A]com informed the Task Force that the sign enforcement program is in a reactlye mode. He stated that the sign complaints received are prioritized according to the following categories: highest are the legal or Multi-Family Development and Signage Task Force Minutes November 12. 1997 Page 2 illegal signs.that are public safety hazards, second am the illegal signs that Codes do not allow, and lastly the signs without permits that could be legalized. Commissioner Tolstoy brought up the issue of the proliferation of illegal banners in commercial centers. Mr. Makshanoff stated that when staff responds to sign complaints in a commercial center, it is necessary to review any other sign violations in the same center. He added that staff cannot be selective in the enforcement of sign violations. He informed the Task Force that the proposed enforcement program is to first conduct a photo survey of commercial centers and document the sign violations before the actual enforcement of codes. Mayor Alexander added that the Council has approved one additional staff position for addressing enforcement of codes whether they are sign violations or property maintenance violations. The Task Force supported the procedures that once a sjgn complaint has been received, staff will review all other sign violations within the same center and enforce them comprehensively. The Task Force also recommended that Code Enforcement staff complete the photo survey of commercial centers and pro--actively address the sign violations. Mr. Bullet requested that Task Force members complete the survey in the Summary of Discussion and return it to staff before the next scheduled meeting. C. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING Summary of issues for Signs and Multi-Family development. E. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:00 p.m. Respectfully submiRed, Brad Bullet City Planner Approved: April 8, 199~ CiTY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT AND SIGNAGE TASK FORCE MINUTES A special meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga Multi-family ,Development and Signage held on Wednesday, Apdl 8, 1998, in the Planning Conference Room of the Civic Center 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. The meetiqg was called to order; ~.m. Present were Task Force members: Mayor William J. Alexander !r Jim Curatalo; and Planning Commissioner Peter Tolstoy Absent was Task Force member: Planning Cc Macias Staff present were: Brad Buller, City Planner; Senior Planner; Rick Gomez, Community Development Director; Bill Makshanoff and Alan Warren, Associate Planner B, ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION B1. MUL Brad Bullet, highlighted issues and recommendations reviewed at previous meetings for new Task Fo r Councilmember Curatalo. members complete the site surveys for B2. SIGNAGE Mr. Buller explained why the item of win, low neon signs wa~ on the agenda. He stated that Dr. Rosenstein, a local businessman who owns an optomethst shop, redue.~ted that the Task Force review the window neon tubes around storefront windows of his shop and determine whether they would support an amendment to · . the Sign Ordinance to allow such neon tubing· He explained that Dr. Rosenste~n's request w. as ~n resp,orr~%er to a notice he received to abate the neon tubing, which was the result of a complaint from fo Councilmember Gutierrez. Bill Makshanoff, Building Official, informed the Task Force that Dr. Rosenstein has agreed to take care of the health and safety hazards of the exposed neon tubing. He added that staff would put a hold on enforcing this case until the Task Force has provided directions on neon tubing· The consensus of the Task Force was to continue the item to the next meeting on May 13, 1998, so that members could visit Dr. Rosenstein's shop to review the neon tubing around the windows and assess the request. ' Multi-Family Development and Signage Task Force Minutes April8,1998 Page 2 Mr. Builer also reminded the Task Force to complete the Summary of Sign Task Force Discussion survey and returned it to staff. C. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING Summary of issues for Signs and Multi-Family development. The meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller .... City Planner Approved: DRAFT FOR D CUSSION ONLY - IS ., Multi-Family Development and Signage Task Force Minutes May 13, 1998 I Page 2 3. SIGNAGE Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, summarized the results ~f the sign questionnaire completed by the Task Force as follows: 1. No further discussion needed,for the consideration of reducing monument sign area from 48 to 36 square feet. 2. Recommended amending th~ Sign Ordinance to require a minimum letter height of 8 inches for tenants' names on ;monument signs. 3. Recommended sending educational notices to property ownedmanagers and developing a notice and abatement process for signs maintenance. 4. Recommended enforcement of illegal signs in the following order of priorities: A-frame signs within right-of-way and street landscape setback area, multiple banners, window neon signs, hot air balloons, pennants and flags, and permanentwindow signs exceeding 30 percent. Staff had requested that members of the Task Force review the definition of signs in the Sign Ordinance and visit a business site to assess the issue of whether the placement of neon tubing around storefront windows falls under the definition of: a sign. This was in response to a request from the owner of a local business.i Members of the Task Force stated they had visited the business site and the consensus was that neon tubing around storefront windows meets the definition of a sign. The Task Force discussed the use of neon tubing as an architectural feature. They discussed examples of how b~sinesses use neon in adjacent cities and determined that there are many examples that are' not acceptable but it would be a good topic for further discussion. The Task Force agreed to take the time between Task Force meetings to visit locations where neon is used and cbntinue discussion at the next meeting on how and where neon can be used in Rancho Cucamonga. The Task Force concluded the signs discussion. C. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS IFOR NEXT MEETING Neon. C. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 5:58 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buffer City Planner SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION ON SIGNS SIGN TASK FORCE MEETING OF JULY 23, 1997 1. Staff informed members of the Task Force that changes have been made to the Sign Ordinance which allow additional project ID and tenant ID monument signs, and that owners of shopping centers have not taken advantage of the new codes. The Task Force believed this information is not widely known. Better educate the busi~ More discussion necessary Modification needed 2. Members of the Task Force raised concerns that small tenants within a center are being penalized because they have the least number of signs and are the least exposed to street frontages. Staff informed the Task Force that owners of shopping centers ( Lewis Homes) have stated that retailers (small or large) have accepted the fact that major anchors are given the most flexibility in the size and number of signs because they generate the most customers to a center. The Task Force did not raise additional issues on this subject. [] Better educate the business community on sign opportunities and major tenants E] More discussion necessary [] Modification needed 3. Members of the Task Force raised the issue that there should be more flexibility in allowing Iogos, colors, letter styles, etc. Staff explained to the Task Force that a sign program, which sets the number of signs, colors, letter styles, etc., is proposed by the property owner and approved by the City. The Task Force did not indicate to staff how far the City should go in allowing variation in colors. Most of the sign programs in place allow a tenant to have a graphic logo with no restrictions oH design and colors as long as it meets the sign height and is within the maximum sign area. [] More discussion necessary F "z?" -2- 4. Members of the Task Force were concerned with the level of code enforcement of illegal signs. Staff recommended that the Task Force make recommendation to the City Council to establish a priority on the cdde enforcement of signs. No further discussion needed. More discussion necessary SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION SIGN TASK FORCE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 12, 1997 COMPLETED ON MAY 13, 1998 1. At the September 12 special field trip, the Task Force visited various shopping centers within the City to review existing monument and wall signs. Council Member Gutierrez suggested reducing the monument sign area from 48 to 36 square feet and increasing the readability by reducing the number of allowable tenant signs on each monument sign. Staff Comments: Based on the recommendations of a previous sign task force that involved members of the community, representatives from the Chamber of Commerce, Planning Commission, and City Council, the City amended the Sign Ordinance to allow a 48 square foot sign area for monument signs. To date we have two centers that took advantage of the new sign codes and installed the 48 square foot monument sign. Therefore, staff does not recommend reducing the sign area. No further discussion needed (Task Force action) [] More discussion needed [] Modification needed 2. The consensus of the Task Force was to establish a minimum letter height of 8 inches to increase the readability of the sign copies on a monument sign. Staff Comments: Staff agrees. By requiring an 8-inch letter height for each line of sign copy and the spacing between the lines, it would increase the readability of the signs. This 8-inch letter height standard would indirectly reduce the number of tenant signs on the monument sign. However, this recommendation would triggeran amendment to the Sign Ordinance. Amend the Sign Ordinance (Task Force action) []More discussion needed []No further action 3. The consensus of the Task Force was that the lack of maintenance of signs would lead to the perception of a declining neighborhood. The Task Force agreed that a recommendation should be forwarded to the CityI Council for establishing priorities for the maintenance of signs in the City. Staff Comments: Staff has invited Richard Alcorn, Code Enforcement Supervisor, to give an overview of the sign maintenance situation at the meeting His information may assist the Task Force in formulating recommendations to the City Council. The following lists some suggested approaches in dealing with sign maintenance. a. Send notices to any property owners:and/or property managers with signs in disrepair. The notice will stress the importance of well-maintained signs and the need to fix disrepaired signs in a timely manner. E~ b. Prepare a Chamber newsletter article about the importance of well designed and maintained signs. E~ c. Conduct a City wide Survey of all signs and, at conclusion, begin notice and abatement process. EEl d. Maintain status quo and respond to qomplaints only. Z~ e. A combination of the above. (Task Force recommended a combination of items a, b and c). 4. The Task Force was concerned With the proliferation of illegal signs in the City. Examples are banners, neon lights/signs; A-frame wood signs, etc. The consensus of the Task Force was to recommend that the City Council establish priorities in the enforcement of illegal signs. Staff has prepared the following 'list of types of illegal signs for the Task Force to rank the priority of enforcement. (1 is highest and 4 is lowest) The following are Task Force ranking by priority: Display multiple banners (Code allows display of one banner at a time), Rank No. 2 ; [] Display multiple window neon signs (Code allows display of one window neon sign. Size is limited to 2 square feet for generic words and 4 square feet for a mix of graphics symbol and generic words).: Rank No. 3 [] A-frame signs placed within public right .of-way (not allowed by Code) A-frame signs placed within street landscape setback area (not allowed by Code) Rank No. f Display hot air balloons ( not allowed by Code) Rank No. 4 Display of pennants or flags (not allowed by Code except under a Temporary Use Permit for a grand opening event). Rank No. 5. Permanent window signs exceeding 30 percent of the glass area (Code allows the use of up to 30 percent of the glass area) Rank No. 6 5. At the September 12 field tour and the October 22 meeting, the Task Force discussed the issue of "can" versus "individual channel letter" signs. The Task Force did not come to a consensus as to mixing the two styles of signs within a center. Staff comments: Because of a lack of a consensus and direction, staff has prepared the following information and questions to assist the Task Force in focusing on the issues and arriving at a consensus and/or direction to staff. How and when do we set up a Sign Program? With the development of a shopping center, comes the establishment of a Uniform Sign Program. The developer is asked by the City to create sign criteria for the different types of tenants in the center. The City reviews the criteria to ensure compliance with the Sign Ordinance and the established Sign Design Guidelines and Policies. A Planning Commission sign design policy is to encourage the use of individual channel letter signs instead of can signs for new centers. The use of can signs is accepted only if the architecture of the buildings is such that it cannot accommodate individual channel letter signs. An example is the Sunrize Center at the southwest corner of Base Line Road and Carnelian Avenue. Once the Uniform Sign Program is approved by the Planning Commission, the developer and the City jointly implement it, thus fostering a private/public partnership in ensuring quality signs. Staff routinely reviews and approves signs over the counter if the proposed sign is consistent with the approved Uniform Sign Program. In essence, the established sign program streamlines the sign permit approval process for the tenants. What is in a Sign Program? A center would normally have major anchors, single user pad tenants, and in-line retail/service tenants. Tenants normally want the biggest signs and the most colorful signs that they can get. An acceptable practice by commercial property managers is to set up a hierarchy of sign criteria for the different types of tenants. Major anchors (over 50,000 square feet) are given the most flexibility in the size of the sign area, colors, letter style, Iogos, etc. Examples are Montgomery Wards, Target, b Best Buy. The next set of criteria is for Sub-major anchors (5,000 to 50,000 square feet) with some restrictions on sign area for ensuringI proportionality but still allowing flexibility in colors, letter styles, and Iogos. Examples areaBig Five, Ace Hardware, etc. Single user pad tenants are the next level of s gn cr ter a, with similar restrictions as the Sub-major anchors. Examples of single user pad tenants are Chili's, Wells Fargo Bank, Blockbuster Video, Hollywood Video, etc. In-line shops maiy have the most restrictive sign criteria, limiting the sign area, height, and color choice. In all instances a sign program has a built-in flexibility to include a logo, graphic, or le~er symbol in a "can" next to the individual letter sign copy, prov ded the ogo is the same ,sign height. Tenants' Signs Conflict with Sign Program. Businesses change their identity in response to their marketing needs. The change in identity may require changes to their name, the logo design, a switch to can signs ~showing graphics and letters instead of channel letters, etc. Such a change could conflict with the sign program. Staff has responded by amending sign programs to accommodate tenants' needs as long as the integrity of the program is intact. Questions for the Task Force? A. Should a 1,000 square foot florist tenant enjoy the same sign criteria as a Target store? No (Task Force action) B. Should the City continue to maintain a hierarchy of sign criteria for the different types of tenants? Yes (Task Force action) C. Should the City/developer continue to set up criteria for sign location, area, colors, content, and individual channel letter style of signs? (Graphics showing centers .... with signs that comply with these sign criteria will be available at the meeting for discussion) Yes (Task Force action) D. Should the City/developer set up criteria for sign locations and area only, leaving the judgement of content, colors, and style of signs to the developer? (Graphics showing centers with signs that are regblated on location and sign area only will be available at the meeting for discussion.) Yes (Task Force action) NOTES (Please use space be ow to jot down notes if needed):