Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999/05/12 - Agenda PacketCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA WEDNESDAY MAY 12, 1999 7:00 PM Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center Council Chamber 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California I. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call Chairman McNiel __ Vice Chairman Macias __ Com. Mannerino __ Com. Stewart __ Com. Tolstoy __ II. ANNOUNCEMENTS III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 28, 1999 Adjourned Meeting of April 28, 1999 IV. CONSENT CALENDAR The following Consent Calendar items as expected to be routine and non- controversial. They will be acted on by the Commission at one time without discussion. If anyone has concern over any item, it should be removed for discussion. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-33 - RYLAND HOMES -The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for previously approved Tentative Tract 15798, consisting of 45 lots on 19.26 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located west of the I-15 Freeway on the south side of Highland Avenue - APN: 227-071-32. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-10 - BUTLER - A request to construct a 72,051 square foot warehouse building on 4.4 acres of land in Subarea 8 (General Industrial) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the west side of White Oak Avenue between Arrow Route and Jersey Boulevard ~ APN: 209-144-27. Related file: Preliminary Review 98-16. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-14 - PREMIER HOMES: A request to revise the previously approved design review for 77 of the 191 single family lots in Tentative Tract 15814 to provide a different architectural product on Lots 115 through 191 in the southern podion of the tract, located on 18 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) within the Victoria Vineyards of the Victoria Community Plan, located on the southwest corner of Highland and Rochester Avenues - APN: 227-011-09 and 13. 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. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. Please sign in after speaking. D= ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-07 - SPERR AND ASSOCIATES - A request to modify a previously approved master plan and construct a 16,747 square foot drug store with a drive-thru on a 2.86 acre parcel in the Central Park Plaza within the Neighborhood Commercial District of the Terra Vista Community Plan, located on the southwest comer of Base Line Road and Ellena West - APN: 227-182-10. Related file: Conditional Use Permit 89-18. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 15692 - PRUTTING -A subdivision of 4.75 acres of land into 4 parcels in the Very Low Residential District (1-2 dwelling units per acre), located on the west side of Hellman Avenue, south of Hillside Road - APN: 1061-611-02. Staff has prepared an Environmental Notice of Exemption for consideration. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 99-02 - CURRY BRANDAW ARCHITECTS - An application to change the General Plan land use designation from Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) to Low-Medium Residential (4- 8 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 5.1 acres of land located on the southeast corner of Hermosa Avenue and 19th Street - Page 2 APN: 1076-111-09. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. (TO BE CONTINUED TO MAY 26, 1999) ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENTAND DEVELOPMENTDISTRICT AMENDMENT 99-02 - CURRY BRANDAW ARCHITECTS - An application to change the Development District zoning designation from Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 5.1 acres of land located on the southeast corner of Hermosa Avenue and 19th Street - APN: 1076-111-09. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. (TO BE CONTINUED TO MAY 26, 1999) VI. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS APPEAL OFASIGN REQUESTWITHIN UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM NO. 134 - FUNCOLAND -An appeal of the City Planner's decision regarding a wall sign for Funcoland, a retail store within the Terra Vista Towne Center in the Community Commercial District of the Terra Vista Community Plan, located at 10730 Foothill Boulevard, Suite #140 APN: 1077-421-75. I. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AMENDMENT POLICY VII. PUBLIC COMMENTS This is the time and place forthe general public to address the Commission. Items to be discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda. VIII. COMMISSION BUSINESS IX. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11:00 p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission. THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL ADJOURN TO A WORKSHOP IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING IN THE RAINS ROOM TO DISCUSS PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW 99-04. THAT MEETING WILL ADJOURN TO 5:00 P.M. ON MAY 26, f999, FOR A FIELD TRIP TO VIEW RECENTL Y COMPLETED PROJECTS WITH RESPECT TO DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE PROCESSING. THE TOUR WILL LEA VE FROM THE PLANNING DIVISION CONFERENCE ROOM. Page 3 I, Gaff Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby cefiify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on May 6, 1999, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. VICINITY MAP "k CITY HALL Page 4 (' CITY OF RANCHO CUCA~IONGA ' STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: May 12, 1999 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Brent Le Count, AICP, Associate Planner ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-33 - RYLAND HOMES - The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan of previously approved Tentative Tract 15798, consisting of 45 lots on 19.26 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan located west of the 1-15 Freeway on the south side of Highland Avenue. APN: 227-071-32 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: Backqround: The Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract 15798 on July 23, 1997, for 45 single family lots. The current request is for a Design Review of the homes, grading, and landscaping. B. Project Density: 2.3 lots per acre Surroundincl Land Use and Zoninq: Noah - HighlandAvenue(futureRoute30Freeway)andvacantland;Very-LowResidential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) South - County Flood Control basin; Open Space East Single family homes, vacant land, and the 1-15 Freeway; Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) Single family homes (Tract 13063) and City drainage channel; Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) West General Plan Desiqnations: Project Site - Low Residential Noah Very-Low Residential South - Flood Control East Low Residential West Flood Control and Low Residential Site Characteristics: The 19.26 acre site is vacant and slopes gently from noah to south at approximately 2 to 3 percent. The site is directly east of an existing single family tract developed by Citation Homes. Highland Avenue is proposed to be realigned along the project frontage to accommodate the Route 30 Freeway on the north side of Highland Avenue. The site contains several large Eucalyptus trees which appear to be remnant windrows and are required to be replaced. ITEM A Y PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 98-33 - Ryland Homes May 12, 1999 Page 2 ANALYSIS: General: Four home plans are proposed, one single story and three two-story. The homes range in size from 2,566 square feet to 3,558 square feet. Plan 4 has a specially designed wide-shallow floor plan to accommodate the shallow lots along the south side of Smokestone Place. A 13.5-foot high sound wall (or combination wall/berm as proposed by applicant) is required along the northern tract boundary to reduce future freeway noise to acceptable levels. A 4- to 6-foot high retaining wall is proposed along the south project boundary to accommodate the grade of the site. This wall will have a fence wall above for an overall height of up to 11 feet (6 feet of retaining with 5 feet of fence walt). This wall will be directly visible from the 1-15 Freeway as the south tract boundary borders a Flood Control basin. A similar combination retaining wall/fence wail is proposed on the west side of Lot 38, which is adjacent to a drainage channel with single family homes further to the west. The Design Review Committee requested vine planrings to mitigate the appearance of the walls. Desicln Review Committee: The Committee (Stewart, Henderson) reviewed the project on April 20, 1999. and requested that the project be revised and brought back for further review. The Committee (McNiel, Stewart, Henderson) reviewed the revised project on May 4, 1999, and recommend approval with conditions. See attached Design Review Committee Action Agendas. Technical and GradinQ Review Committees: The project was reviewed by both Committees and, together with the recommended conditions of approval, determined to be in conformance with the applicable standards and ordinances. Environmental Assessment: Part I of the Initial Study has been completed by the applicant. Staff completed Part II of the Initial Study, the Environmental Checklist and identified potential environmental impacts as follows: The site is subject to excessive future noise levels associated with the Route 30 Freeway. A noise study was conducted for the Tentative Tract Map which recommended a 13.5-foot high sound wall or combination berm/wall along the northern edge of the site in order to reduce on-site noise levels to an acceptable level. The applicant's Grading Plan includes such a berm/wall combination. The site is located in an "undetermined but possible flood hazard area" per the Federal Insurance Rate Map. A Drainage Report was conducted which identified quantities of water that may drain to the site and methods for handling the flows. Highland Avenue is planned by Caltrans to be replaced with an emergency-only access route in association with the Route 30 Freeway construction. This would eliminate full secondary access for the proposed tract. The project includes reconstruction of Highland Avenue from East Avenue through the frontage of the subject site after completion of the freeway. Also, signalization and line-of-sight corrections at the future Highland Avenue/East Avenue are necessary to mitigate potential traffic conflicts. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 98-33 - Ryland Homes May12,1999 Page 3 An Arborist's Report was conducted and found that none of the trees are worthy of preservation. The Etiwanda Specific Plan allows removal of Eucalyptus windrows with replacement planting with minimum 5-gallon Spotted Gum Eucalyptus trees. Staff believes that the project will not have a significant impact on air quality: however, a letter was received from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQM D) commenting that an analysis of emissions is necessary to address air quality impacts associated with the project (see copy attached to Initial Study Pad II). Staff's response to the South Coast Air Quality Management District is that their Air Quality Management Plan accounts for the existing land use designations in its programs. The proposed Development Review proposes construction of 45 single family homes consistent with the existing land use designation for the property. The subject property is zoned Low Residential (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre) by the Etiwanda Specific Plan which was adopted on July 6, 1983. Also, according to Table 6-2 of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook, the threshold of single family homes that could cause a potential air quality im'pact is 166 homes. Therefore, no increase in air quality impacts is expected from the project. The above identified potential impacts require mitigation measures as conditions of approval, which have been included in the attached Resolution; therefore, staff recommends the issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Environmental Assessment and Development Review 98-33 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with Conditions and the issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. City Planner BB:BLC:Is Attachments: Exhibit "A" Exhibit "B" Exhibit "C" Exhibit "D" Exhibit "E" Exhibit "F" Exhibit "G" Exhibit "l" Site Utilization Map Site Plan - Grading Plan - Landscape Plan - Floor Plans - Elevations - Initial Study Design Review Committee Action Agendas Resolution of Approval with Conditions t VF~rIY LOW (1~2 DUS/AC) i ~ 1 STARLIGHT RIDGE RYLAND HOMES SEE SHEET NO. 3 a~Z m~,~ SEE SHEET NO. 2 TYPICAL FRONT YARD LANI)SCAI'I.Z PLANT LEGEND ~NDSGAPE P~N OPT. BEDROOM 5 STARLIGHT RIDGE RYLAND HOMES RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA, FLOOR PLAN PLAN 1 46~/3BA 2566 S~. OPT. BEDROOM 4 & 5 STARLIGHT RIDGE RYLAND HOMES RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA, FIRST FLOOR PLAN PLAN 2 4BR/3BA 3093 S.F, A SECOND FLOOR PLAN A PLAN 2 4BR/3BA 3093 S.F. STARLIGHT RIDGE RYLAND HOMES RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA, STARLIGHT RYLAND RANCHO HOMES CUCAMONGA, CA, FIRST FLOOR PLAN PLAN 2'1 .NS~OE> 4BR/3BA 3093 S.F. STARLIGHT RIDGE RYLAND HOMES RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA. SECOND FLOOR PLAN PLAN 2'1 IINS~DE> 48R/3BA 3093 9.F. A BEDROOM 5 OPTION STARLIGHT RIDGE RYLAND HOMES RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA, FIRST FLOOR PLAN PLAN 2-O~OUTs~DE>I ,RR/3DX 3093 $,F, STARLIGHT RIDGE RYLAND HOMES RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA, SECOND FLOOR PLAN A PLAN 2-O{OUTSIDE) 4BRI38A 3093 S.F. ~TAIzlLIC~HT FIID(~E RYLAND HOMES RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA, FIRST FLOOR PLAN PLAN 3 5BR/3BA 3558 S.F. 3 STARLIGHT RIDGE RYLAND HOMES RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA, SECONO FLOOR PLAN PLAN 3 5BRI3BA 3558 S.F. STAF::ILI(~HT I::IIDGF I:::IYLAINID RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA. FIRST FLOOR PLAN PLAN 3'0 ~OUTStDE~ 5BR/3BA 3558 S.F. STARLIGHT RIDGE RYLAND HOMES RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA, ..... J ~EC~OND FLOOR PLAN 3 PLAN 3'O ~ou~slo~ 5BR/38A 3558 S.F. FIRST FLOOR PLAN ALTERNATE GARAGE PLAN 4 58R/2.5BA 3300 S.F, PLAN 4'0 (OUTSIDE) STARLIGHT RIDGE RYLAND HOMES RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA, SECOND FLOOR PLAN PLAN 4 5BR/2.5BA 3300 S.F. W/ALTERNATE GARAGE PLAN 4-0 STARLIGHT RIDGE RYLAND HOMES RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA, pLAN I STARLIGHT RIDGE RYLAND HOMES RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA, REAR"' ..... 1A ROOF PLAN 1A RIGHT PLAN I STARLIGHT RIDGE RYLAND liOMES RANClIO CUCAMONGA, COUNTRY TRADITIONAL 2A HEARTLAND SANTA BARBARA PLAN 2 STARLIGHT RIDGE RYLAND HOMES RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA, SANTA BARBARA 2C CRAFTSMAN 2D PLAN 2-1 & 2-0 STARLIGHT RIDGE RYLAND HOMES RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA, LEFT ELEVATION 2B REAR ELEVATION 2B ROOF PLAN B ;~, , STARLIGHT RIDGE RYLAND HOMES RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA, RIGHT ELEVATION 2B PLAN 2 (PLAN 2-1 & 2'0 SIMILAR) C,~O,UN~TRY TRADITIONAL ..... 3A HEARTLAND ~""""'"' ~"=~ ' 3B ' ' ~-'~ / / ,.// .... -':-- " SANTA BARBARA 3C CRAFTSMAN PLAN 3 STARLIGHT RIDGE RYLAND HOMES RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA, COUNTRY TRADITIONAL 3A HEARTLAND 3B PLAN 3-0 STARLIGHT RIDGE RYLAND HOMES RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA, ROOF PLAN 3C PLAN 3 (PLAN 3-0 SIMILAR) STARLIGHT RIDGE RYLAND !4OMES RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA, COUNTRY TRADITION '~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ 4A HEARTLAND "~ ~ 4B PLAN 4 PLAN 4-0 STARLIGHT RIDGE RYLAND liOMES RANClIO CUCAMONGA, CA. REAR 4D ROOF PLAN 4D STARLIGHT RIDGE RYLAND HOMES RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA, RIGHT 4D PLAN 4 iPLA. 4-o S~M~LaR~ City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: Development Review 98-33 2. Related Files: Tentative Tract 15798 Description of Project: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-33 - RYLAND HOMES - The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan of previously approved Tentative Tract 15798 consisting of 45 lots on 19.26 acres of land in the Low Residential District of the Etiwanda Specific Plan located west of the I-15 Freeway on the south side of Highland Avenue - APN: 227-071-32. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Denise Petersen Ryland Homes 201 East Sandpoint. Number 100 Santa Ana, CA 92702 5. General Plan Designation: Low Residential 6. Zoning: Etiwanda Specific Plan, Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) District Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Vacant land and future Route 30 Freeway corridor to the north. vacant land and single family homes to the east, single family homes (Tract 13063) to the west, and a flood control basin to the south. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 9. Contact Person and Phone Number: Brent Le Count. (909) 477-2750 Initial Study for Development Review 98-33 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ( ) Land Use and Planning ( ) Population and Housing (~/) Geological Problems (V') Water ( ) Air Quality (v') Transportation/Circulation (v') Biological Resources ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources ( ) Hazards (v') Noise ( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance ( ) Public Services ( ) Utilities and Service Systems ( ) Aesthetics ( ) Cultural Resources ( ) Recreation DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: () I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. (x) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project, or agreed to, by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. () I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. () I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1 ) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based upon the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. () I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1 ) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Signed: Brent Le Count Associate Planner April 20, 1999 Initial Study for Development Review 98-33 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an explanation is required for all "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact" answers, including a discussion of ways to mitigate the significant effects identified. LAND a) b) c) d) USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v") Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? () () () (v) () () () () () () (v) GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? b) Seismic ground shaking? () () () (v) () () () (v) · Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review 98-33 Page 4 c) d) e) 0 g) h) i) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? Seiche hazards? Landslides or mudflows? Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? Subsidence of the land? Expansive soils? Unique geologic or physical features? () () () () () () ( ) (v) ( ) (v) ( ) (v) () () (v) () () () () (v) () () () (v) () () () (v) Comments: 0 The site will be graded/topography altered to accommodate the building pads for eventual home construction and roads. The grading will be conducted under the supervision of a licensed surveyor or registered geologist to ensure compliance with Building Code requirements. WATER. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, b) c) d) g) h) or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? Discharge into surface water or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g.. temperature. dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? Change in the quantity of ground waters. either through direct additions or withdrawals. or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? Impacts to groundwater quality? () () (v) () () (v) 0 () () () () () () () () (} (v) (v) (v) (v) (v) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review 98-33 Page 5 i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ) () () (Y) Comments: a) The absorption rate will be altered because of the pawng and hard scape proposed. All waters will be conveyed to approved drainage facilities which have been designed to handle the flows. b) The site is located in a Flood Zone 'D' designation, undetermjned but possibly a flood hazard, on the Federal Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). The Preliminary Drainage Repod (Webb, March 24,1997) addressed the project drainage assuming that the Route 30 Freeway would be constructed prior to development of this tract. After freeway construction, approximately 2.3 acres will continue to drain to the subject property. Drainage shall be conveyed in a 24-inch pipe to Mulberry Street and will be carried overland in the street to the south. This drainage shall be collected by catch basins and shall be conveyed in pipes to the existing Victoria Basin immediately south of the tract. If the tract development precedes the freeway construction, further drainage studies shall be necessary to mitigate any potential flood hazard due to a possible breakout of the Etiwanda Spreading Grounds levee. The final drainage report shall be approved prior to final map approval. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) b) c) d) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? Create objectionable odors? () () () () (v) (v) (v) (v) TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? () (v) () () Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review 98-33 Page 6 b) c) d) g) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ( ) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ( ) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) Rail or air traffic impacts? ( ) () () () () () () (v) (v) (v) (v) (v) (v) Comments: a) Highland Avenue is planned by Caltrans to be replaced with an emergency-only access route in association with the Route 30 Freeway construction. This would eliminate full secondary access for the proposed tract. The project includes reconstruction of Highland Avenue from East Avenue through the entire frontage ol' the site after completion of the Route 30 Freeway. As mitigation, a full street connection at the intersection of East Avenue and Highland Avenue Is required, including traffic signal improvements (new or upgrades) and line-of- sight corrections, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. With the construction of the Route 30 Freeway, Caltrans is proposing to close the Highland Avenue access at East Avenue including the removal of the traffic signal and provide for emergency access only. This development is responsible to restore and/or upgrade said access. However, if this development precedes Caltrans Route 30 improvements, a cash deposit in lieu of construction will be required and necessary temporary improvements constructed, as determined by the City Engineer and Caltrans. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? b) Locally designated species (e.g.. heritage trees. eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? () () () (v) () (v) () () Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review 98-33 Page 7 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: b) The site contains several large Eucalyptus trees which appear to be remnant windrows. The Etiwanda Specific Plan allows Eucalyptus windrows to be removed subject to replacement. As mitigation, existing on-site Eucalyptus windrows shall be replaced with minimum 5-gallon Spotted Gum Eucalyptus trees planted 8 feet on center in accordance with Etiwanda Specific Plan. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? () () (v) ( ) ( ) (v) () () (v) HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of b) c) hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? ( ) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? ( ) () () (v) () () (v) () () (v) Initial Study for Development Review 98-33 d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (). e) Increased fire hazard in areas with fiammable brush, grass, or trees? ( ) City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 8 () () (v) () () (v) 10. NOISE. Will the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? () () () (v) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) ( ) (V) ( ) Comments: b) The site is subject to noise levels in excess of 60 Ldn due to proximity to the Route 30 corridor, and in particular, the 1-15 Freeway/Route 30 interchange. A noise study was prepared during processing of the Tentative Tract Map which indicates that a 13.5-foot high sound wall along the noilh perimeter of the site will reduce freeway noise to an acceptable level. The project design includes such a noise barrier; therefore, the impact is considered less than 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 following areas: a) b) c) d) e) Fire protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) schools? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~') Other governmental services? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review 98-33 Page 9 12, UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or substantial alterations to the following utilities.' a) b) d) f) g) Power or natural gas? Communication systems? Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? Sewer or septic tanks? Storm water drainage? Solid waste disposal? Local or regional water supplies? () () () () (v) () () (v) (v) (v) (v) () (v) (v) Comments: e) The site is located in a Flood Zone 'D' designation, undetermined but possibly a flood hazard, on the Federal Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). The Preliminary Drainage Report (Webb, March 24,1997) addressed the project drainage assuming that the Route 30 Freeway would be constructed prior to development of this tract. After freeway construction, approximately 2.3 acres will continue to drain to the subject properly. Drainage will be conveyed in a 24-inch pipe to Mulberry Street and will be carried overland in the street to the south. This drainage will be collected by catch basins and will be conveyed in pipes to the existing Victoria Basin, immediately south of the tract. If the tract development precedes the freeway construction, further drainage studies will be necessary to mitigate any potential flood hazard due to a possible breakout of the Etiwanda Spreading Grounds levee. The final drainage report should be approved prior to final map approval. 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal.' a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? () () () (v) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') c) Create light or glare? () () (v) () Comments: c) Additional light and glare will be created as a result of the project since the site is now vacant. Light from street lights and homes will be required to be directed downward in such a fash:~.a,,2~/not impact other property. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review 98-33 Page 10 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) b) C) d) e) Disturb paleontological resources? Disturb archaeological resources? Affect historical or cultural resources? Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? () () () () () (v) (v) (v) (v) (v) 15. RECREATION. Would the proposak a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? () () () () () () (v) (v) 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) b) Potential to degrade: Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Short term: Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time. Long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) () () () () () (v) (v) Initial Study for City o~' Rancho Cucamonga Development Review 98-33 Page 11 c) d) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? () () () (v) () () () (v) EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the following earlierdocument(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) Etiwanda Specific Plan EIR (SCH #82061801, certified July 6, 1983) ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MEASURES Item 4.b Flood Hazard After freeway construction, approximately 2.3 acres will continue to drain to the subject property. Drainage shall be conveyed in a 24-inch pipe to Mulberry Street and will be carried overland in the street to the south. This drainage shall be collected by catch basins and shall be conveyed in pipes to the existing Victoria Basin immediately south of the tract. If the tract development precedes the freeway construction, further drainage studies shall be necessary to mitigate any potential flood hazard due to a possible breakout of the Etiwanda Spreading Grounds levee. The final drainage report shall be approved prior to final map approval. Item 6.a. Traffic Congestion A full street connection at the intersection of East Avenue and Highland Avenue Is required, including traffic signal improvements (new or upgrades) and line-of-sight corrections, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. With the construction of the Route 30 Freeway, Caltrans is proposing to close the Highland Avenue access at East Avenue including the removal of the traffic signal and provide for emergency access only. This development ts responsible to restore and/or upgrade said access. However, If this development precedes Caltrans Route 30 improvements, a cash deposit in lieu of construction will be required and necessary temporary improvements constructed, as determined,~e City Engineer and Caltrans. RDR-2~.-1999 11: 15 FROI'I ~ F01'IES TO J. cJ~Dc347Z2E~? P. 03 Initial Study Development Review 98-33 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 12 Item 7.b. Binlogir.~l Resources Existing on-site Eucalyptus windrows shall be replaced with minimum 5--cjallon Spot~d Gum Eucalyl~tu~; tree~ planted 8 feet on center in accordanoe with Etiwanda Specific Plan. APPLICANT CERTIFIC,~TION I certify that I am the appricant for the project described in this Initial Study. I acknowledge that I have read this Initial Study and the proposed mitigation measuro,s. Furthcr, I havc revi~ed 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 dearly no significant environmental effects would TOT~L P.03 \ RESPONSE TO CONI~MENTS - DEVELOPMENT R,EVIEW 98-33 INITIAL STUDY PART II A letter was received from the South Coast Air Quality Management District conunenting that an analysis of emissions is necessary to address air quality impacts associated with the project (see copy attached, dated April 28, 1999). Response: The South Coast Air Quality Management District's Air Quality Management Plan accounts for the existing land use designations in its programs. The proposed Development Review proposes construction of 45 single fanlily homes consistent with the existing land use and zoning designation for the property of Low Residential, 2 to 4 dwelling units per acre. The City's General Plan land use designation for the property was adopted in April 1981. Also, according to Table 6-2 of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook, dated November 1993, tile threshold ofsingle family homes that could cause a potential air quality impact is 166 homes. Therefore, no increase in air quality impacts is expected from the project. [ South Coast Air Quality Managernent 21865 E. Copley Drive. Diamond Bar. CA 9 ~ 765-4182 (909) 396-2000 · http://www.aqmd.gov District FAXI~D: APRIL 28, 1999 April 28, 1999 Mr. Brent Le Count, Associate Planner Planning Division City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Notice of Intent to Adopt Negative Declaration for the Proposed Design I,levie~v for 19.26 acre Tentative Residential Tract - Rvland Homes, Citv of Rancho Cucamonlg~ The South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above-mentioned document. The following comments are meant as guidance for the Lead Agency and should be incorporated into the Final Negative Declaration. Please provide the AQMD with written responses to all comments contained heroin prior to the adoption of the l:inal Negative Declaration. The AQMD would be happy to work with the Lead Agency to address these issues and any other questions that may arise. Please contact Gordon Mizc, Transportation Specialist - CEQA Section, at (909) 396-3302. if you have any questions regarding these commcnts. Sincerely, Steve Smith. Ph.D. Program Supervisor, CEQA Section Planning, Rule Development & Area Sources Attachment SS:GM SBC990421-06 Control Number RECEIVED MAY 0 3 1999 Cily ol Rancho Cucamongs P~anning Division Mr. Brent Le Count -1- April 28, 1999 Notice of Intent to Adopt Negative Declaration for the Proposed Design Review for 19.26 acre Tentative Residential Tract - Rvland Homes, Cih' of Rancho Cucamonf, a The initial study provides no information supporting the conclusion of no significant air quality impacts, despite the project description stating that 19.26 acres is planned for development, the size of which has the potential for significant impacts. Without quantitative information, the AQMD cannot evaluate whether or not air quality impacts fi'om this project are significant. Simply concluding that the A.Q. impacts are insignificant without calculating the construction and operational emissions is not appropriate. In the Final Negative Declaration, please provide a summary or table showing the projected emissions, the control efficiencics ofthe proposed mitigation measures if necessary, emissions reduced and remaining emissious. City of Rancho Cucamonga NEGATIVE DECLARATION The following Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act Section 21091 and 21092 of the Public Resources Code. Project File No.: Development Review 98-33 Public Review Period Closes: May 12, 1999 Project Name: Project Applicant: Denise Petersen, Ryland Homes Project Location (also see attached map): Localed west of the 1-15 Freeway on the south side of Highland Avenue - APN: 227-071-32. Project Description: The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for previously approved Tentative Tract 15798, consisting of 45 lots on 19.26 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. FINDING This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has conducted an Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment and is proposing this Negative Declaration based upon the following finding: The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. [] The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects but: (1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this proposed Negative Declaration was released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and (2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment. If adopted, the Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. Reasons to support this finding are included in the attached Initial Study. The project file and all related documents are available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division at 10500 Civic Center Drive (909) 477-2750 or Fax (909) 477-2847. NOTICE The public is invited to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration during the review period. May 12. 1999 Date of Determination Adopted By DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 8:00 p.m. Brent Le Count April 20, 1999 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-33 - RYLAND HOMES -The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for previously approved Tentative Tract 15798 consisting of 45 lots on 19.26 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan located west of the I-15 Freeway on the south side of Highland Avenue - APN: 227-071-32. Desiqn Parameters: The 19.26 acre site is currently vacant and slopes from north to south at approximately 2 to 3 percent. The site is surrounded by a drainage channel and single family homes in Tract 13063 to the west, a County Flood Control basin to the south, single family homes, vacant land, and the 1-15 Freeway to the east, and Highland Avenue and the under-construction Route 30 Freeway to the north. The site contains a number of Eucalyptus tree windrows, which are required to be replaced per an mitigation measure for the Tentative Tract Map. A 13.5-foot high sound wall (or combination wall/berm as proposed by applicant) is required along the northern tract boundary to reduce future freeway noise to acceptable levels. A 4- to 6-foot high retaining wall is proposed along the south project boundary to accommodate the grade of the site. This wall will have a fence wall above for an overall height of up to 11 feet (6 feet of retaining with 5 feet of fence wall). This wall will be directly visible from the 1-15 Freeway as the south tract boundary borders a Flood Control basin. A similar combination retaining wall/fence wall is proposed on the west side of Lot 38, which is adjacent to a drainage channel with single family homes further to the west. Four home plans are proposed, one single story and three two-story. The homes range in size from 2,566 square feet to 3,558 square feet. Plan 4 has a specially designed wide-shallow floor plan to accommodate the shallow lots along the south side of Smokestone Place. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: Re-plot homes to comply with the Etiwanda Specific Plan requirement that 50 percent of homes be plotted with either side-on garages, detached garages, or garages behind the front part of the homes. The project has nine homes with garages either side-on to the street (3 homes) or behind the front of the home (6 homes). Six of these homes have front porches projecting out beyond the garage to achieve compliance with the 50 percent rule. The Committee should discuss whether this meets the intent of the 50 percent rule. The remainder of the project must be revised to comply with the 50 percent rule (23 homes). Staff would not support a variance request. Re-plot houses to comply with the Eliwanda Specific Plan requirement that 50 percent of homes be plotted not parallel to the street frontage. Only 20 percent homes (9 houses) are plotted not parallel to Ihe street frontages. The Eliwanda Specific Plan provides great flexibility in side yard setbacks to encourage non-parallel plotting of homes. The required side yard setbacks are 0 feet and 20 feet. Project proposes setbacks generally ranging from 10 feet to 27 feet; therefore, there is ample room to re-plot houses. Further, if necessary, the developer could adjust lot lines on the final map to accommodate re-plotting. Staff would not support a variance request. DRC COMMENTS DR 98-33 - RYLAND HOMES April 20, 1999 Page 2 SecondaN Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: The combined retaining wall/fence wall along the south tract boundary shall have a fence wall portion not to exceed 5 feet in height with the top 2 feet decorative wrought iron (overall maximum height of 11 feet). The wall shall also have the same stone covered pilasters used for the remainder of the tract. Provide vine plantings, either at the base of the wall or through weep holes at the junction between the retaining portion and the fence portion, and train vines to climb south side of wall. The masonry wall along the west tract boundary shall have decorative pilasters and vine planrings similar to the south wall requirement to enhance views of the wall from existing homes to the west across the drainage channel. Carry decorative elements used on front elevation. such as corbels and shutters, around to side and rear elevations as well. The "floating" gables shown on side and rear elevations appear awkward. especially at the second floor level. Suggest continuing these elements down to ground level or eliminating. Provide a minimum back-up distance/turning radius of 24 feet for driveways serving side-on garages. These driveways should be curved rather than having hard, 90 degree corners. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: Provide Eucalyptus replacement windrow planting per Environmental Mitigation Measure No. 3 for Tentative Tract 15798. 2. All homes shall have a minimum front setback of 25 feet from the front property line. 3. Any wall in excess of 6 feet in height shall require approval of a minor exception. Where wood siding is shown on the front elevation of a home, it shall be wrapped around the side and rear elevations as well. Fieldstone veneer shall be natural stone rather than a cultured stone product. Other stone veneer forms such as slate may be manufactured product. Provide retaining wall(s) as necessary to maximize useable fiat yard area for Lot 15 as required by City's Development Code. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval subject to above comments. Desiqn Review Committee Action: Members Present: Pare Stewad, Larry Henderson Staff Planner: Brent Le Count As-I DRC COMMENTS DR 98-33 - RYLAND HOMES April 20, 1999 Page 3 The Committee requested that the project be revised and brought back for further review in light of staffs comments and the following additional comments: Having front porches project out in front of the garages for some home plans is not considered to comply with Etiwanda Specific Plan requirement for 50 percent of homes to have garages plotted side-on, or behind the front part of the home. The garages shall either be plotted side- on, or much further back behind the front part of the home. The Committee prefers a mix. The Committee is open to interpreting significant variation is front yard setback for non-parallel home plotting. 3. Provide significantly deep (8-10 feet) front porches. The Committee does not recommend provision of retaining walls in corner side yard slope areas to increase useable side and rear yard areas. The applicant agreed to staffs comments as well as Committee direction. A5'2, CONSENT CALENDAR COMMENTS 7:00 P.M. Brent Le Count May 4.1999 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-33 - RYLAND HOMES -The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for previously approved Tentative Tract 15798 consisting of 45 lots on 19.26 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan located west of the I-15 Freeway on the south side of Highland Avenue - APN: 227-071-32. Desicon Review Committee Action: Members Present: LarW McNiel, Pare Stewart, Larry Henderson Staff Planner: Brent Le Count The Committee (McNiel, Stewart, Henderson) reviewed revised plans and recommend approval. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW NO. 98-33 FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 15798, CONSISTING OF 45 LOTS ON 19.26 ACRES OF LAND IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) OF THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED WEST OF THE 1-15 FREEWAY ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF HIGHLAND AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: APN 227-071-32 A. Recitals, 1. Ryland Homes has filed an application for Design Review No. 98-33 for Tentative Tract 15798, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Design Review request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 12th day of May 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a meeting to consider the application. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced meeting on May 12, 1999, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and b. The proposed design is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and the Etiwanda Specific Plan and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and c. The proposed design is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code and the Etiwanda Specific Plan; and d. The proposed design, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 98-33 Ryland Homes May 12, 1999 Page 2 e. The site contains several large Eucalyptus trees, which will to be removed and replaced in conformance with the windrow preservation provisions of the Etiwanda Specific Plan; and f. The design of the project, including home design, roadway alignment, landscaping, and grading will provide efficient use of land to accommodate single family homes; and g. The homes are designed consistent with the architecture guidelines of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. 3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Plannine Division: 1) All conditions of approval for Tentative Tract 15798 shall apply. 2) Emergency access plans providing continuous, 24-hour, all-weather secondary access shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. 3) The combined retaining wall/fence wall along the south tract boundary shall have a fence wall portion not to exceed 5 feet in height with the top 2 feet decorative wrought iron (overall maximum height of 11 feet). The wall shall also have the same stone covered pilasters used for the remainder of the tract. Provide vine planrings, either at the base of the wall or through weep holes at the junction between the retaining portion and the fence portion, and train vines to climb the south side of the wall. 4) The masonry wall along the west tract boundary shall have decorative pilasters and vine plantings similar to the south wall requirement to enhance views of the wall from existing homes to the west across the drainage channel. 5) Provide a minimum back-up distance/turning radius of 24 feet for driveways serving side-on garages. 6) Any wall in excess of 6 feet in height shall require the approval of a Minor Exception. 7) Fieldstone veneer shall be natural stone rather than a cultured stone product. Other stone veneer forms. such as slate, may be manufactured product. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 98-33 Ryland Homes May 12, 1999 Page 3 8) The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative. to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City. its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. Enclineedncl Division: 1) All conditions of approval for Tentative Tract 15798 shall apply. Environmental Mitiqation Measures 1) After freeway construction, approximately 2.3 acres will continue to drain to the subject property. Drainage shall be conveyed in a 24-inch pipe to Mulberry Street and will be carried overland in the street to the south. This drainage shall be collected by catch basins and shall be conveyed in pipes to the existing Victoria Basin immediately south of the tract. If the tract development precedes the freeway construction, further drainage studies shall be necessary to mitigate any potential flood hazard due to a possible breakout of the Etiwanda Spreading Grounds levee. The final drainage report shall be approved prior to final map approval. 2) A full street connection at the intersection of East Avenue and Highland Avenue is required, including traffic signal improvements (new or upgrades) and line-of-sight corrections, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. With the construction of the Route 30 Freeway, Caltrans is proposing to close the Highland Avenue access at East Avenue including the removal of the traffic signal and provide for emergency access only. This development is responsible to restore and/or upgrade said access. However, if this development precedes Caltrans Route 30 improvements, a cash deposit in lieu of construction will be required and necessary temporary improvements constructed, as determined by the City Engineer and Caltrans. 3) Existing on-site Eucalyptus windrows shall be replaced with minimum 5-gallon Spotted Gum Eucalyptus trees planted 8 feet on center in accordance with the Etiwanda Specific Plan. 4. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 98-33 Ryland Homes May 12, 1999 Page 4 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF MAY 1999. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman A'I'I'EST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Bullet, Secretary for the PIanning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 12th day of May 1999, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT#: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-33 45 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES RYLAND HOMES WEST OF 1-15 FREEWAY ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF HIGHLAND AVENUE ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909)477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: General Requirements Completion Dale The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City. its agents. officers. or employees. because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents. officers. or employees. for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents. officers. or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may. at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. A copy of the signed Resolution of Approval or City Planners letter of approval, and all Standard Conditions. shall be included in legible form on the grading plans. building and construction plans, and landscape and irrigation plans submitted for plan check. B. Time Limits Conditional Use Permit, Variance, or Development/Design Review approval shall expire if building permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 5 years from the date of approvaL No extensions are allowed. C. Site Development The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors. landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, Development Code regulations, the Etiwanda Specific Plan. 10. 11. 12. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Division to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the time of building permit issuance. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be located out of pu blic view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. For single family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults. Street names shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval in accordance with the adopted Street Namin9 Policy prior to approval of the final map. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination. The Covenants. Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall not prohibit the keeping the equine animals where zoning requirements for the keeping of said animals have been met. Individual lot owners in subdivisions shall have the option of keeping said animals without the necessity of appealing to boards of directors of homeowners' associations for amendments to the CC&R's. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's) and Articles of Incorporation of the Homeowners' Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering Divisions and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Map or prior to the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City Engineer. The Homeowners' Association shall submit to the Planning Division a list of the name and address of their officers on or before January 1 of each and every year and whenever said information changes. Six-foot decorative block walls shall be constructed along the project perimeter. If a double wall condition would result, the developer shall make a good faith effort to work with the adjoining property owners to provide a single wall. Developer shall notify, by mail, all contiguous property owner at least 30 days prior to the removal of any existing wails/fences along the project's perimeter. For single family residential development. a 2-inch galvanized pipe shall be attached to each support post for all wood fences, with a minimum of two './,-inch lag bolts, to withstand high winds. Both post and pipe shall be installed in an 18-inch deep concrete footing. Pipe shall extend at least 4 feet, 6 inches above grade. SC - 4119/99 Completion Date 13. Wood fencing shall be treated with stain, paint, or water sealant. 14. Slope fencing along side property lines may be wrought iron to maintain an open feeling and enhance views. 15. On corner side yards, provide minimum 5-foot setback between walls/fences and sidewalk. 16. For residential development. return walls and corner side walls shall be decorative masonry. 17. Where rock cobble is used, it shall be real river rock. Other stone veneers may be manufactured products. D. Landscaping A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. All private slopes of 5 feet or more in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope. but less than 2:1 slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for erosion control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. All private slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in verticat height and of 2:1 or greater slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, 1 -gallon or larger size shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope banks in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one 5-gallon or larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. For single family residential development, all slope planting and irrigations shall be continuously maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the developer until each individual unit is sold and occupied by the buyer. Prior to releasing occupancy for those units, an inspection shall be conducted by the Planning Division to determine that they are in satisfactory condition. Front yard and corner side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required per the Development Code and/or Etiwanda Specific Plan. This requirement shall be in addition to the required street trees and slope planting. The final design of the perimeter parkways. walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to City Planner review and approval and coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the Engineerin9 Division. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division. Tree maintenance criteria shall be developed and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. These criteria shall encourage the natural growth characteristics of the selected tree species. Project No, DP, QB-3~ Completion Date Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. New windrow planting of Eucalyptus Maculata (Spotted Gum) is required. The size, spacing, staking, and irrigation of these trees shall comply with the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance (RCMC 19.08.100). APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: E. Site Development Plans shall be submitted for plan check and approved prior to construction. All plans shall be marked with the project file number (i.e., CUP 98-01 ), The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, Title 24 Accessibility requirements, and all other applicable codes. ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of issuance of relative permits. Please contact the Building and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition to existing unit(s), the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: City Beautification Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Transportation Development Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, and School Fees. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tractJparcel map recordation and prior to issuance of building permits. Construction activity shall not occur between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. Monday through Saturday, with no construction on Sunday. F. New Structures Roofing material shall be installed as for wind-resistant roof covering at wind velocity not less than 90 mph. G Grading Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: H. General Fire Protection Conditions Mello Roos Community Facilities District requirements shall apply to this project. The developer shall commence, participate in, and consummate or cause to be commenced, participated in, or consummated, a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) forthe Rancho Cucamonga Fire 9. 10. 11. 12. Protection District to finance construction and/or maintenance of a fire station to serve the development. The CFD shall be formed by the District and the developer by the time recordation of the final map occurs. Fire flow requirement shall be 1250 gallons per minute. __ a. A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department personnel prior to water plan approval. ~ b. For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional fire flow test of the on-site hydrants shall be conducted by the builde~developer and witnessed by fire department personnel after construction and prior to occupancy. Fire hydrants are required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed, and operahie prior to delivery of any combustible building materials on site (i.e., lumber, roofing materials. etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire department personnel. Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided prior to water plan approval. Required hydrants, if any. will be determined by the Fire District. Fire District standards require a 6-inch riser with a 4-inch and a 2-1/2-inch outlet. Substandard hydrants shall be upgraded to meet this standard. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specifications on approved brands and model numbers. Prior to the issuance of building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be submitted to the Fire District that an approved temporary water supply for fire protection is available, pending completion of the required fire protection system. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for all hydrants and installed prior to final inspection. Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District's fire lane standards, as noted: All roadways per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 22. Emergency access, a minimum of 26 feet wide, shall be provided. and maintained free and clear of obstructions at all times during construction. in accordance with Fire District requirements. All trees and shrubs planted in any median shall be kept trimmed to a minimum of 14 feet, .~/ __ 6 inches from the ground up, so as not to impede fire apparatus. Gated/restricted entry(s) require installation of a Knox rapid entry key system. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specific details and ordering information. $ 132.00 Fire District fee(s), and a $1 per "plan page" microfilm fee will be due to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District prior to Building and Safety permit issuance. "* A Fire District fee in the amount of $132.00 shall be paid at the time of Water Plan submittal. **Note: Separate plan check fees for fire protection systems (sprinklers, hood systems, alarms, etc.) and/or any consultant reviews will be assessed upon submittal of plans. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1994 UBC. UFC, UPC, UMC, NEC, and RCFD Standards 22 and 15. DATE: TO: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT May 12, 1999 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Brent Le Count, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-10 - BUTLER - A request to construct a 72,051 square foot warehouse building on 4.4 acres of land in Subarea 8 (General Industrial) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the west side of White Oak Avenue between Arrow Route and Jersey Boulevard, APN: 209-144-27. Related File: Preliminary Review98-16. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: Surroundinq Land Use and Zoninq: North Industrial Buildings; Subarea 8 (General Industrial) Industrial Area Specific Plan South - Industrial buildings under construction (Master Development); Subarea 8 (General Industrial) Industrial Area Specific Plan East - Vacant land; Subarea 9 (Minimum Impact Heavy industrial) Industrial Area Specific Plan West Industrial Buildings; Subarea 8 (General Industrial) Industrial Area Specific Plan General Plan Desiqnations: Project Site - General Industrial North General Industrial South - General Industrial East Heavy Industrial West General Industrial Site Characteristics: The 4.4 acre vacant site lies towards the east edge of the Rancho Cucamonga Business Park which is a large master planned group of industrial buildings similar to the type proposed. The site slopes at approximately 2 to 3 percent from north to south with a 4-foot high slope along the south boundary. Parkincl Calculations: Number of Number of Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces of Use Footaqe Ratio Required Provided Office 4,000 1/250 16 30 Warehousing 68,051 1/1000 1st 2,000 3._~8 6_~8 1/2000 2nd 20,000 1 ~4000 above 40.000 TOTAL 72.051 54 98 Y ITEM B PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 99-10 Butler May 12, 1999 Page 2 ANALYSIS: General: This review is for environmental clearance only. The site is surrounded to the north, west, and south by existing industrial buildings and industrial buildings under construction, and to the east by vacant land. The proposed pad elevation is approximately 8 feet above the elevation of the pads to the south (Master Development). Therefore, the building will be visually prominent from the south. Fifteen dock-high loading doors are proposed along the south wall of the building. The building is proposed to be "L" shaped, wrapping around the loading area so that a portion of the building screens the loading from the view of the street. Following issuance of a Negative Declaration, the City Planner will conditionally approve the project. Desiqn Review Committee: The Committee (Stewart, Henderson) reviewed the project on April 20, 1999, and recommend approval to the City Planner. C. Technical Review Committee: The Committee reviewed the project and recommended approval. Environmental Assessment: Pad I of the Initial Study was completed by the applicant and staff completed Part II. Staff identified potential impacts related to flooding since the storm drain system that sen/es the site and vicinity does not have adequate capacity to handle increased flows from the added impervious surfaces. A mitigation measure limiting the amount of runoff from the site will mitigate this to a less than significant impact. The primary mitigation will be on-site retention. The proposed project driveways are offset from existing driveways on the opposite side of the street which creates a danger of conflicting left turn movements. As mitigation. the project driveway locations shall be revised to align with driveways across the street. If the Planning Commission concurs, then issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration would be in order. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission issue a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Development Review 99-10. City Planner BB:BLC:Is Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Utilization Map Exhibit "B" - Site Plan Exhibit "C" - Grading Plan Exhibit "D" - Landscape Plan Exhibit "E" - Floor Plan Exhibit "F" - Elevations Exhibit "G" - Sight Lines Exhibit "H" - Design Review Committee Action Agenda dated April 20, 1999 Exhibit 'T' - Initial Study, Part II 200' tadlu8 map , site plan vlclnltf,~ap_ project Information tabutetlone SHEET 2 OF 7 IDR e 99-f0 WHITE OAK FACILITY R. C. _PZopertlee hID plnckert archltecte, Inc, [V 656~ 17S~ :E$~ :G| 9a Jc~V uoN I]MD'OO~-|BVO\/_I|B6\IOSVD\pDeD\ :N overall site plan __~ vlclnlfLma~ project I~formatlnn tabulations ~.. ~ .::~ ~ ~ ..~ ~., ..... ells plan keynotes site plan t3eneral notes ella lege_nd SHEET I OF 7 IDR · 99o10 WHITE OAK FACILITY _R.__C.. Pipparties ............ hill plnckert archlfacls, Inc. I (V 656~ I]G:B;':{::j~ 9~ JciV uoN fiMp'|-H]VO\/~[86e3\ppe3\:N ~ r,3~ D Z T BUILDING AREA 72,051 S.F.J T ., T BUItDING A floor plan SHEET 5 OF ? WHITE OAK FACILITY R. C. Properties hill plnckert architects inc. WI'ffi'E OAK FAC[U'TY ~! _C.__Ptopettlel SIte Secffons WHITE OAK FACILITY R. C, Properties hrll plnckert archlfecte Inc, DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 9:10 p.m. Brent Le Count April 20, 1999 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-10 - BUTLER - A request to construct a 72,051 square foot warehouse building on 4.4 acres of land in Subarea 8 (General Industrial) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the west side of White Oak Avenue between Arrow Route and Jersey Boulevard - APN: 209-144-27. Desicln Parameters: The site slopes at approximately 2 to 3 percent from north to south with a 4-foot high slope along the south boundary. The site is surrounded to the north, west, and south by existing and under construction industrial buildings, and to the east by vacant land. The proposed pad elevation is approximately 8 feet above the elevation of the pads to the south (Master Development). Therefore, the building will be visually prominent from the south. Fifteen dock high loading doors are proposed along the south wall of the building. The building is proposed to be "L" shaped wrapping around the loading area so that a portion of the building screens the loading from view of the street. No landscaping is proposed along the south property line because the applicant contends that the loading activity will conflict with landscaping. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Secondan/Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: Provide substantial tree planting along the south property line to screen views of the loading and truck storage area from the south. Increase use of sandblasted concrele Suggest providing sandblasted concrete for horizontal bands running around building. 3. Provide undulating berms within landscape setback along White Oak Avenue. The access gate to the loading area should be opaque to fully screen views of the loading area from White Oak Avenue. The gate should also be automated rather than manually operated to ensure that the gate is open the minimum time necessary to allow trucks in and out. Note that perforated sheet metal has been used with success in the industrial area to screen loading areas and accommodate wind loads. Provide vine planting along base of masonry screen walls on either side of access gate to soften appearance of walls and to enhance the employee eating area. Proposed slopes around employee eating area and main office entry area should be as natural looking as possible by rounding off top and toe of slope and providing variable slope angle where possible. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: All roof and ground-mounted equipment shall be fully screened from surrounding property and public rights-of-way. DRC COMMENTS DR 99-10 - BUTLER April 20, 1999 Page 2 2. Provide a minimum of 1 tree per 30 linear feet of building wall plus 1 tree per 30 linear feet of site perimeter. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval subject to the above comments. Desicln Review Committee Action: Members Present; Pam Stewart. Larry Henderson Staff Planner: Brent Le Count The Committee recommended approval subject to staffs comments. The applicant agreed to all of the comments. City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND '1. Project File: Development Review 99-10 2. Related Files: Preliminary Review 98-16 3. Description of Project: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-10 - BUTLER - A request to construct a 72,051 square foot warehouse building on 4.4 acres of land in Subarea 8 (General Industrial) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the west side of White Oak Avenue between Arrow Route and Jersey Boulevard - APN: 209-144-27 4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Darrel Butler R.C. Properties, LLC 3241 Alta Laguna Laguna Beach, CA 92652 5. General Plan Designation: General Industrial 6. Zoning: Subarea 8 (General Industrial) Industrial Area Specific Plan 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The property is surrounded by developed land with similar industrial buildings as are proposed and vacant land to the east. 8. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 9. Contact Person and Phone Number: Brent Le Count (909) 477-2750 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: None Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 99-10 - Butler Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. (/) Land Use and Planning ( ) Population and Housing (/) Geological Problems (/) Water ( ) Air Quality ( ) Transportation/Circulation (V') Biological Resources ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources ( ) Hazards ( ) Noise ( ) Mandator'/Findings of Significance ( ) Public Services ( ) Utilities and Service Systems ( ) Aesthetics ( ) Cultural Resources ( ) Recreation DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: () I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. (v) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project, or agreed to. by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. () I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. () I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards. and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based upon the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. () I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards. and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Signed: Brent Le Count Associate Planner April 19. 1999 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 99-10 - Butler Page 3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an explanation is required for all "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact" answers, including a discussion of ways to mitigate the significant effects identified. 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 existing land use in the vicinity? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community? ( ) ( ) ( ) (V) Comments: b) The site is located within an area of potential habitat for an endangered species, the Delhi Sands flower loving fly, pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Pursuant to a memorandum of understanding with the County of San Bernardino, a habitat assessment (impact Sciences, July 28, 1998) has been prepared which indicates that the site does not currently support high quality potential sand fly habitat and that the site does not function as habitat linkage or corridor. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposah a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ( ) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? ( ) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( ) () (v) () (v) () (v) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 99-10 - Butler Page 4 GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving.' a) b) c) d) e) 0 g) h) Fault rupture? Seismic ground shaking? Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? Seiche hazards? Landslides or mudflows? Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? Subsidence of the land? Expansive soils? Unique geologic or physical features? No () () (v) () () (v) () () (v) () () (v) () () (v) () () (v) () () () () () (v) (v) () (v) Comments: h) General Plan Figure V-2 indicates Tujunga-Delhi soil association forthe subject site. The General Plan states, "The Tujunga-Delhi soil association may have soil bearing capacities that could limit some development. Structures proposed on this soil type should be permitted only after a site specific investigation has been performed that indicates the soil can adequately support the weight of the structure." A soils analysis will be required as a condition of approval prior to issuance of grading or building permits. WATER. W/I/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) (v) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 99-10 - Butler Page 5 e) g) h) ~) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? () () () (v) () () (v) () () (v) () () (v) () () Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ( ) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ) (v) Comments: a/b) The storm drain system which serves the subject site and vicinity does not have adequate capacity to handle increased flows. The impervious surfaces associated with the proposed project would add significantly to the demand on the storm drain system. As mitigation, the runoff (Q100) from the site shall not exceed the capacity of the existing public storm drain system to the south. The amount of on-site retention shall be based on a proration of available capacity on a per acre basis for the area tributary to the cul-de-sac at the south end of White Oak Avenue (Vincent Avenue), just north of the A.T.& S.F. railroad main line. Reference the hydrologylhydraulic study prepared for Parcel Map 12959 to the north on file with the City. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposak a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ( ) d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) () () (v) () (v) () (v) () (v) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 99-10 - Butler Page 6 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. 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)? ( ) (v') ( ) ( ) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') t} Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) ( ) ( ) g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ( ) ( ) ( ) Comments: a) The project will increase the number of vehicle trips in the area, as the site is currently vacant; however, the impact upon the surrounding street system will be less than significant because the street system was designed to accommodate growth. b) The proposed driveways are offset from existing driveways on the opposite side of the street. This can lead to vehicular conflicts, especially during left turn movements. The driveways shall align with the driveways on the east side of White Oak Avenue, With mitigation, the impact is not considered significant. 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.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 99-10 - Butler Page 7 d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? No () () () (v) () () (v) () Comments: a/e) The site is located within an area of potential habitat for an endangered species, the Delhi Sands flower loving fly. Pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, a habitat assessment (Impact Sciences, July 28, 1998) has been prepared which indicates that the site does not currently support high quality potential sand fly habitat and that the site does not function as habitat linkage or corridor. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal.' a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? ) () () (v) ) () () (~) ) () () (~) HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve.' a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticicles, chemicals, or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? S,gnrr~s~t () () () (~) () () () (~) () () () (~) () () () Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 99-10 - Butler Page 8 e) Increased fire hazard in areas with fiammable brush, grass, or trees? No () () () (v) 10. NOISE. Will the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) No () () (v) () () (v) 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 following areas: a) b) c) d) e) Fire protection? ( ) Police protection? ( ) Schools? ( ) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) Other governmental services? ( ) () () (v) () () (v) () () (v) () () (v) () () (v) 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) b) c) Power or natural gas? Communication systems? Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? () () () () () () () () () () () () (v) (v) (v) (v) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 99-10 - Butler Page 9 e) 0 g) Storm water drainage? Solid waste disposal? Local or regional water supplies? () () () () () () () (v) () (v) () (v) 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? c) Create light or glare? () () () ( ) (v) () (v) () (v) 14, CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) b) c) d) e) Disturb paleontological resources? Disturb archaeological resources? Affect historical or cultural resources? Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? () (v) () (v) () (v) () () (v) (v) 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? () () () () () () No (v) (v) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 99-10 - Butler Page 10 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 animat. or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') b) Short term: Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time. Long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') 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? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process. one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards. and such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The following earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices. 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply): (v) General Plan EIR (Certified April 6. 1981) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 99-10 - Butler Page 11 (v) Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989) (v) Industrial Area Specific Plan EIR (Certified September 19, 1981) Mitigation Measures: Item 4. Water: a) The runoff (Q100) from the site shall not exceed the capacity of the existing public storm drain system to the south. The amount of on-site retention shall be based on a proration of available capacity on a per acre basis for the area tributary to the cul- de-sac at the south end of White Oak Avenue (Vincent Avenue), just north of the A.T.& S.F. railroad main line. Reference the hydrology/hydraulic study prepared for Parcel Map 12959 to the north on file with the City. Item 6. Transportation: 1) The proposed driveways shall align with the driveways on the east side of White Oak Avenue. APPLICANT CERTIFICATION I certify that I am the applicant for the project described in this Initial Study. I acknowledge that I have read this Initial Study and the proposed mitigation measures. Further, I have revised the project plans or proposals and/or hereby agree to the proposed mitigation measures to avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant environmental effects would occur. Print Name and Title: Date: City of Rancho Cucamonga NEGATIVE DECLARATION The following Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act Section 2109f and 2f092 of the Public Resources Code. Project File No.: Development Review 99-10 Public Review Period Closes: May 12, 1999 Project Name: Project Applicant: Darrel Butler, R.C. Properties, LLC Project Location (also see attached map): Located on the west side of White Oak Avenue between Arrow Route and Jersey Boulevard - APN: 209-144-27. Project Description: Arequesttoconstructa72,051squarefootwarehousebuildingon4.4acresofland in Subarea 8 (General Industrial) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. FINDING This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has conducted an Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment and is proposing this Negative Declaration based upon the following finding: The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. [] The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects but: (1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this proposed Negative Declaration was released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur. and (2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment. If adopted, the Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. Reasons to support this finding are included in the attached Initial Study. The project file and all related documents are available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division at 10500 Civic Center Drive (909) 477-2750 or Fax (909) 477-2847. NOTICE The public is invited to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration during the review period. May 12. 1999 Date of Determination Adopted By CITY OF RANCFIO CUCAMONGA ' STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: May12,1999 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Rebecca Van Buren, Associate Planner DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-14 - PREMIER HOMES - A request to revise the previously approved design review for 77 of the 191 single family lots jn Tentative Tract 15814 to provide a different architectural product on Lots 115 through 191 in the southern podion of the tract, located on 18 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) within the Victoria Vineyards of the Victoria Community Plan, located on the southwest corner of Highland and Rochester Avenues - APN: 227-011-09 and 13. BACKGROUND: In June of 1998, the Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract 15814 and design review for 191 single family lots proposed by Fieldstone Communities. Premier Homes is purchasing 77 of the 191 lots from Fieldstone Communities and is proposing new house designs in the southern portion of the Tract. Fieldstone Communities, which is proceeding with construction of the unaffected lots, will construct the entire Tract boundary wall and perimeter landscaping according to tract conditions. PROJECTANDSITEDESCRIPTION: FieldstoneCommunitieshasalmostcompletedtheirmodels and is presently grading the project site for Tract development. The site is bounded by the future Route 30 freeway to the north, Rancho Cucamonga High School to the south, a flood control basin to the east, and existing single family homes to the west. ANALYSIS: General: The Tract will contain Fieldstone's house designs in the northern 114 lots and Premier's in the southern 77 lots. Premier is proposing 2 floor plans with 3 elevations each ranging in size from 2,507 to 2,948 square feet (up to 3,125 square feet with an optional bedroom). These plans are comparable in size to Fieldstone's plans, which range in size from 2,262 to 3,014 square feet. Premier's floor plan has a 2-car garage on the front elevation, but a 3rd-car tandem space in the interior, and on wider lots, a 3rd/4th-car garage option (3ocar garage visible from the street). Each elevation has very different roof massing and distinguishing architectural enhancements. Staff feels Premier's architectural design will enhance the previously approved project. ITEM C Y PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 99-14- PREMIER HOMES May 12, 1999 Page 2 Desicon Review Committee: On April 20, 1999, the Design Review Committee (Stewart, Henderson) reviewed the project and recommended approval of the project with conditions (Exhibit "C"). Environmental Assessment: The proposed project is a request to revise the architectural features of a previously approved design review application. The Planning Commission adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the approval of tentative tract and design review forthe project site on June 24, 1998. The previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration is still valid and applicable to this project. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve Development Review 99-14 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with Conditions. Brad Buller City Planner BB:RVB:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Plan Exhibit "B" - Elevations Exhibit "C" - Design Review Committee Action Comments dated April 20, 1999 Resolution of Approval with Conditions SITE PLAN .[ CiTY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA SiTE PLAN TRACT NO. 1,5814 ® CItY Or RANCHO CUCAMONGA TRACT NO. 15814 SE[ SHEIT 2 or 4 ® C$'[¥ OF RANCHO CUCAMOHGA TRACT NO. 1.5814 SEE SH[ET ® TRACT NO. 15814 I I I LL.~7~~ I I II I II III~F~TI I I F lax .~'~, (Ill I (l~ t, __ [i _ iI II I 2C RIGHT I Ax LEFT 2B RIGfIT 2B REAR 2B LEFT ,c R,6HT IC tEFT PREMIER GROUP RANCHO CUCAHONGA DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:30 p.m. Rebecca Van Buren April 20, 1999 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-14 - PREMIER HOMES: A request to revise the previously approved design review for 77 of the 191 single family lots in Tract 15814 to provide a different architectural product on Lots 115 to 191, in the southern podion of the tract, located on 18 acres of land in the Low- Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) within the Victoria Vineyards of the Victoria Community Plan, located on the southwest corner of Highland and Rochester Avenues -APN: 27-011- 09 and 13. BackGround: Fieldstone Communities submitted a tentative map and design review, which were approved by the Planning Commission in June of 1998. Premier Homes is purchasing 77 of the 191 lots and is proposing new house designs in the southern portion of the tract. Fieldstone, which is proceeding with construction of the unaffected lots, will construct the entire tract boundary wall and perimeter landscaping according to tract conditions. Desien Parameters: The tract will contain the Fieldstone's house designs in the northern 114 lots in the tract and Premier Homes in the southern 77 lots. Premier is proposing 2 floor plans with 3 elevations each ranging in size from 2,507 to 2,948 square feet (up to 3,125 square feet with an optional bedroom). These plans are comparable in size to Fieldstone's plans, which range in size from 2,262 to 3,014 square feet. Premier's floor plan has a 2-car garage on the front elevation, but a 3rd-car tandem space in the interior, and on wider lots, a 3rd/4th-car garage option (3-car garage visible from the street). Each elevation has very different roof massing and distinguishing architectural enhancements. Staff feels Premier's architectural design will enhance the previously approved project. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. Expand the use of stone and brick veneer on Plan 1 elevations. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Design Review Committee approve the project subject to the modifications as recommended above. Desicln Review Committee Action: Members Present: Pam Stewart, Larry Henderson Staff Planner: Rebecca Van Buren The Committee (Stewart, Henderson) discussed veneer treatments and felt the Plan I elevations include intricate building massing and stone/brick features true to the architectural style as presented. The Committee recommended approval of the project with a condition that shutters and divided lights on side/rear elevations be included on strategic interior lots in addition to the key visibility lots. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 99-14, THE REVISED DESIGN REVIEW OF BUILDING ELEVATIONS AND DETAILED SITE PLAN FOR 77 OF THE 191 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS IN THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TENTATIVE TRACT 15814, SPECIFICALLY LOTS 115 THROUGH 191, LOCATED ON 18 ACRES OF LAND IN THE LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT OF THE VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN, LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHLAND AND ROCHESTER AVENUES, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 227-011-09 AND 13. A. Recitals. 1. Premier Homes has filed an application for the approval of Development Review N0. 99-14, as described in the title of This Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 12th day of May 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a meeting on the application and concluded said meeting on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced meeting on May 12, 1999, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located on the southwest corner of Highland and Rochester Avenues in the southern portion of Tentative Tract 15814, approximately 18 acres consisting of Lot Nos. 115 through 191 of Tentative Tract 15814, and is presently being rough graded for development of streets and pad sites for said Tentative Tract; and b. The property to the north of the subject site is the future Route 30 freeway, to the south is Rancho Cucamonga High School, to the east is a flood control basin, and to the west are existing single family homes; and c. The proposed project is a request to revise the architectural features of a previously approved design review application for 77 single family lots on approximately 18 acres of land. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 99-14 - PREMIER HOMES May 12, 1999 Page 2 and a. That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; b. That the proposed use is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and c. That the proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code; and d. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4. The Planning Commission adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration forTentative Tract 15814 and design review for the project site on June 24, 1998. Habitat assessment and biological protocol surveys were prepared for the project site in June of 1998 (Glenn Lukos Associates) and are less than one year old from this date. The Planning Commission finds the previously-adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration is still valid and applicable to this project. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1.2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Plannincl Division 1 ) All conditions of approval for Tentative Tract 15814 shall apply to this project, 2) The developer shall provide shutters and divided lights on side/rear elevations on strategic interior lots and key visibility lots. Lots with the additional treatment shall be shown on plans submitted for plan check, prior to issuance of building permits. 3) The developer shall provide front yard landscaping in substantial compliance with the Landscape Plan submitted for design review of Tentative Tract 15814, 4) The developer shall install decorative block walls along all comer side yards and the southerly side yards of Lots 143 and 159. The developer shall install decorative block wall returns on interior divisions between residences. 5) All retaining walls exposed to public view shall be treated with a decorative exterior finish or be composed of a decorative block material. 6) Garden and retaining walls extending into front setbacks shall have a decorative cap and an end pilaster or "square block" to provide definition. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 99-14 - PREMIER HOMES May 12, 1999 Page 3 7) The Landscape Plan shall be revised to continue the landscape palette in the slope area in the southwestern portion of the project adjacent to Lark Avenue and to enhance landscaping on lots at street corner knuckles where driveways are concentrated. 8) A landscape area shall be provided between the back of the sidewalk and any walls in corner side yard situations to break up the massing of the walls and minimize graffiti potential. Corner side yard walls shall be shifted to provide a landscape area between the back of sidewalk and the walls per Planning Commission policy. 9) Decorative driveway treatment shall be included on all lots. Details of ddveway materials, textures, and scoring patterns shall be shown on plans submitted for plan check. 10) The developer shall revise approved Street Plans to reflect drive approach and street tree relocations, if any. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF May 1999. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman A'FFEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 12th day of May 1999. by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT #: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: Development Review 99-14 Premier Homes Southwest corner of Highland and Rochester Avenues ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS THA T APPL Y TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACTTHE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: General Requirements The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City. its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. B. Time Limits Approval shall expire. unless extended by the Planning Commission, if building permits are not issued or approved use has nol commenced within 5 years from the date of approval. C. Site Development The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, Development Code regulations, and the Victoria Community Plan. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approve(~ use has commenced, whichever comes first. Approval of this request Shall not waive compliance with arl sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at/he time of building permit issuance. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. For single family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults. , All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall be submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and approved prior to the issuance of building permits. The developer shall submit a construction access plan and schedule for the development of all lots for City Planner and City Engineer approval; including, but not limited to, public notice requirements, special street posting, phone listing for community concerns, hours of construction activity, dust control measures, and security fencing. For single family residential development, a 2-inch galvanized pipe shall be attached to each support post for all wood fences, with a minimum of two Yrinch lag bolts, to withstand high winds. Both post and pipe shall be installed in an 18-inch deep concrete footing. Pipe shall extend at least 4 feet, 6 inches above grade. 10. Wood fencing shall be treated with stain, paint, or water sealant. 11. For residential development, return walls and corner side walls shall be decorative masonry. 12. Where rock cobble is used, it shall be real river rock. Other Stone veneers may be manufactured products. D. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans) 1. On flag lots, use a 12-foot driveway within flag to maximize landscape area. E. Landscaping A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in/he case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. All private slopes of 5 feet or less in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope, but less than 2:1 slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for erosion control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. All private slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, 1 -gallon or larger size shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope banks / / / / / / / / / / / / __/ / in excess of 8 feet in vedical height and 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one 5-gallon or larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. Front yard and corner side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required per the Development Code and/or Innovative Standards - Victoria Community Plan. This requirement shall be in addition to the required street trees and slope planting. The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to City Planner review and approval and coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the Engineering Division. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division. F. Environmental The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Foothill Freeway project in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. G. Other Agencies The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location of mail boxes. Multi4amily residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for mail boxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mail boxes and the design of the overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: H. Site Development The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, Title 24 Accessibility requirements, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of issuance of relative permits. Please contact the Building and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition to existing unit(s), the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include. but are not limited to: City Beauti~cation Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Transportation Development Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, and School Fees. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation and prior to issuance of building permits. Construction activity shall not occur between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. Monday through Saturday, with no construction on Sunday. I. New Structures Roofing material shall be installed for wind-resistant roof covering at wind velocity not less than 90 mph. Grading Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted .grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of application for grading plan check. 4. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. APPLICANT S HALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: K. Street Improvements All public improvements (interior streets, drainage facilities, community trails, paseos, landscaped areas, etc.) shown on the plans and/or tentative map shall be constructed to City Standards. Interior street improvements shall include, but are not limited to, curb and gutter, AC pavement, drive approaches, sidewalks, street lights, and street trees. 2. Improvement Plans and Construction: Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer"s Office in addition to any other permits required. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR, or any other locations approved by the City Engineer. Notes: (1) Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200 feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer. (2) Conduit shall be 3-inch (at intersections) or 2-inch (along streets) galvanized steel with pull rope or as specified. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards, except for single family residential lots. h. Street names shall be approved by the City Planner prior to submittal for first plan check. Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in accordance with the City's street tree program. Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with adopted policy. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project intersections, including driveways. Local residential street intersections and commercial or industrial driveways may have lines of sight plotted as required. 5. A permit shall be obtained from Caltrans for any work within the following right-of-way: Highland and Rochester Avenues. Public Maintenance Areas A separate set of landscape and irrigation plans per Engineering Public Works Standards shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. The following landscaped parkways. medians, paseos, easements, trails or other areas shall be annexed into the Landscape Maintenance District: Highland Avenue, Rochester Avenue, and Lark Drive. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. All required public landscaping and irrigation systems shall be continuously maintained by the developer until accepted by the City. Parkway landscaping on the following street(s) shall conform to the results of the respective Beautification Master Plan: The Rochester Parkway shall match the parkway to the east. M, Drainage and Flood Control A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits. whichever occurs first. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. Public storm drain easements shall be graded to convey overflows in the event of a blockage in a sump catch basin on the public street. 5 Utilities Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas, electric power, telephone, and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility Standards. Easements shall be provided as required. 2. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardtrio. A letter of compliance from the CCWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. O. General Requirements and Approvals 1. Permits shall be obtained from the following agencies for work within their right-of-way: Caltrans. A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to/he City, covering the estimated operating costs for all new street lights for the first six months of operation, prior to final map approval or prior to building permit issuance if no map is involved. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: P. General Fire Protection Conditions 1. Mello Roos Community Facilities District requirements shall apply to this project. 2. Fire flow requirement shall be 1,000 gallons per minute. A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department personnel prior to water plan approval. For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional fire flow test of the on-site hydrants shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by the fire department personnel after construction and prior to occupancy. Fire hydrants are required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed and operable prior to delivery of any combustible building materials on site (i.e., lumber, roofing materials, etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire department personnel. Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided prior to water plan approval. Required hydrants, if any, will be determined by the Fire District. Fire District standards require a 6" riser with a 4" and a 2-1/2" outlet. Substandard hydrants shall be upgraded to meet this standard. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specifications on approved brands and model numbers. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for all hydrants and installed prior to final inspection. 6. Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District's fire lane standards, as noted: X All roadways per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 22. / / / / / / / / / 6 All trees and shrubs planted in any median shall be kept trimmed a minimum of 14'6" from ground up so as not to impede fire apparatus. Plan check fees in the amount of $0 have been paid. An additional $132 shall be paid: X Prior to final plan approval. Note: Separate plan check fees for fire protection systems (sprinklers, hood systems, alarms, etc.) and/or any consultant reviews will be assessed upon submittal of plans. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1994 UBC, U FC, UPC, UMC, NEC, and RCFD Standards 22 and 15. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Q. Security Hardware 1. A secondary locking device shall be installed on all sliding glass doors. 2. One-inch single cylinder dead bolts shall be installed on all entrance doors. ff windows are within 40 inches of any locking device. tempered glass or a double cylinder dead bolt shall be used. 3. All garage or rolling doors shall have slide bolts or some type of secondary locking devices. Windows 1. All sliding glass windows shall have secondary locking devices and should not be able to be lifted from frame or track in any manner. Building Numbering 1. Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime visibility. CI'I~Y OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: May 12, 1999 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Rebecca Van Buren, Associate Planner ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-07 - SPERR AND ASSOCIATES - A request to modify a previously approved master plan and construct a 16,747 square foot drug store, with a drive-thru on a 2.86 acre parcel in the Central Park Plaza within the Neighborhood Commercial District of the Terra Vista Community Plan, located on the southwest corner of Base Line Road and Ellena West -APN: 227-182~10. Related File: Conditional Use Permit 89-18. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: Surroundincl Land Use and Zoninq: North - Vacant land zoned Medium-High Density Residential South - Commercial shopping center and a day care facility zoned Neighborhood Commercial, vacant land zoned Low-Medium Residential beyond East Vacant land zoned Medium-High Residential West Commercial shopping center zoned Neighborhood Commercial General Plan DesiQnations: Project Site - Neighborhood Commercial North Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) South - Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) East Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) West Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) Site Characteristics: The site is located within the Central Park Plaza shopping center in an undeveloped pad at the corner of Base Line Road and Ellena West. The pad was graded and planted with tuff with the construction of the shopping center. Base Line Road is a Special Boulevard; Ellena West is a local road and a secondary access point to the shopping center. Central Park, from which the shopping center takes it name, is located diagonally across from the shopping center. ITEM D Y PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 99-07 - SPERR AND ASSOCIATES May 12, 1999 Page 2 D. Parkina Calculations: Number of Number of Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces of Use Footaqe Ratio Required Provided Shopping Center 112,998 4.5/1000 508 510 ANALYSIS: General: The applicant is proposing a 16,747 square foot Rite-Aid drug store in the undeveloped pad at the corner of Base Line Road and Ellena West, and a free-standing drive- through facility south of the drug store, next to the Ace Hardware building. The Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit 89-18 in 1989 for the shopping center master plan. The master plan for the shopping center indicated additional shop buildings which would abut the Ace Hardware building. A large area of the Ace Hardware building's east wall was intentionally left "blank" to accommodate future construction. The placement of the remote drive-thru precludes the easterly expansion of the Ace Hardware building. Staff requested the applicant add architectural features to the east wall of the Ace Hardware building to provide a finished appearance. Ace Hardware wall treatment includes a colonnade constructed of pre-cast concrete columns with thick cornice creating a series of archways consistent with the architectural style of the remainder of the shopping center. The project contains a truck loading area on the Base Line Road frontage, a major special boulevard. Typically, we would expect a loading area to be located in the rear or along a side street; however, this pad does not have a rear and the Ellena West frontage was problematic (too visible, access conflicts). The applicant worked diligently to try to design an at-grade truck loading area to avoid negative visual impacts. The Base Line Road frontage was chosen because the loading area is approximately 5 feet below the Base Line Road surface and there is room to design the loading area as part of the building. The truck loading area, shown on the "north elevation," is concealed within a tower element and a screen wall with cornice, columns, stone wainscot, metal trellis and vines. Desicln Review Committee: The Design Review Committee (McNiel, Stewart, Fong) reviewed the project on April 6, 1999. The Committee (Stewart, Henderson) reviewed revised plans on April 20, 1999, and recommended approval of the project as contained in the attached Design Review Committee Action Comments (Exhibit "H"). Technical Review Committee: The Technical Review Committee reviewed the project and determined that, with the recommended conditions of approval, the project is consistent with all applicable standards and policies. Environmental Assessment: Part I of the Initial Study was completed by the applicant and staff completed Part II. Staff has determined the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment and recommends adoption of a Negative Declaration. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 99-07-SPERR AND ASSOCIATES May12,1999 Page 3 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 the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 99-07 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with conditions and issuance of a Negative Declaration. Brad Buller City Planner BB:RVB:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Utilization Map Exhibit "B" - Site Plan Exhibit "C" - Grading Plan Exhibit "D" - Landscape Plan Exhibit "E" - Building Elevations Exhibit "F" - Remote Drive-Thru and Ace Hardware Wall Elevations Exhibit "G" - Central Park Shopping Center Master Plan Approved In 1989 Exhibit "H" - Design Review Committee Action Comments Dated April 6 and April 20. 1999 Exhibit 'T' - Initial Study Part II Resolution of Approval with Conditions / OP I OFF~E PARK MH MEDIUM HIC.~I '\ \ \ O ,/ / / MEOIUM HIGH DENSI'Ft' I PLANT 0 EAS~T ,/WEST ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION KEY PLAN EAST ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION  EAST ELEVATION ACE HARDWARE ~Fr~,~T elrv. EXIST,~ACE HARDWARE P~A~r.T~L ELEVATION ~ , :,..:- ,......- ~.,~AR.,. ,.. L ,I. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:50 p.m. Rebecca Van Buren April 6. 1999 ENVIRONMENT ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-07 - SPERR AND ASSOCIATES - A request to modify a previously approved master plan and construct a 16,747 square foot drug store with a drive-thru on a 2.86 acre parcel in the Central Park Plaza within the Neighborhood Commercial District of the Terra Vista Community Plan, located on the southwest corner of Base Line Road and Ellena West -APN: 227-182-10. Desiqn Parameters: The site is located within the Central Park Plaza shopping center. The applicant is proposing a Rite-Aid drug store in the undeveloped pad at the corner of Base Line Road and EIlena West, and a free-standing drive-through facility south of the drug store, next to the Ace Hardware building. The master plan for the shopping center indicated additional shop buildings which would abut the Ace Hardware building. A large area of the Ace Hardware building's east wall was intentionally left "blank" to accommodate future construction. The placement of the remote drive-through precludes the easterly expansion of the Ace Hardware building. Staff requested the applicant add architectural features to east wall of the Ace Hardware building as a part of this application. Ace Hardware wall treatment includes a colonnade constructed of pre-cast concrete columns, wood trellis, and a raised planter. Above the colonnade are accent diamonds on the wall surface. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project. The project is proposing a truck loading area on the Base Line frontage, a major special boulevard. Typically, we would expect a loading area to be located in the rear or along a side street; however, this pad does not have a rear and the Ellena frontage was problematic (too visible, access conflicts). The applicant worked diligently to try to design an at-grade truck loading area to avoid negative visual impacts. The Base Line frontage was chosen because the loading area is 5+~- feet below the Base Line Road surface and there is room to design the loading area as part of the building. The truck loading area, shown on the "north elevation," is concealed within a tower element and a solid screen wall with cornice, columns, stone wainscot, and decorative scoring on wall insets. Provide additional design improvements as follows: (a) increase depth of columns for greater shadow effect; (b) replace scoring with tile in wall insets; and (c) add a metal trellis (3-inch) to tower wall inset for vines. Staff suggests the Committee consider replacing the square tower at the drug store entrance with an octagon tower and cupola, to match the octagon tower in the western portion of shopping center (see exhibit). If the square tower is retained, staff recommends opening up the arch and adding additional cornice detail on the upper portion of the tower. 3. Increase the plaza area and add amenities at the northeast corner of the Ace Hardware Building. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues. 1. Add architectural detail to the northwest corner of the building and the east elevation. 2. Add landscape area and tree wells along the west elevation. 3. Create a larger outdoor plaza area at the drug store's front entry. Add a seat wall to the two round planters at the front entry. DRC COMMENTS CUP 99-07 - SPERR & ASSOC. April 6, 1999 Page 2 4. Increase end-planter widths and berming in the parking lot. Staff will provide an exhibit at the meeting. Narrow the entry to the remote drive-through to a single lane width and shift the drive-through entry away from the Ellena West driveway to provide an easier, safer turn and greater landscape area. 6. Add more trees to the Base Line landscape setback to screen entry to loading area. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion. 1. All building materials, such as, but not limited to tiles, wainscot, trellis, and column shall match. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval subject to the above comments. Attachment Desiqn Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam 'Stewart, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Rebecca Van Buren The Committee (McNiel, Stewart, Fong) reviewed the project and recommended the project return on a consent calendar basis with the following revisions: 1. Ace Hardware buildinq: Provide more extensive architectural treatment to the east wall. Rite Aid buildinq: Replace the blue horizontal stripe (a plaster bump out) on elevations with a reveal line and tan cornice to trim diamond windows/insets. Add wall treatment portraying arches and trellis to the east elevation. 3. Site Plan: Revise to tapered drive-thru entrance, expand end planters, and expand plaza area. The Committee requested the applicant provide overlays to reflect modifications to the colored elevations, and provide a material sample of the perforated metal as shown on the north elevation near the truck loading area. The Committee was satisfied with the location of the truck loading area, the treatment of the entrance tower, and the architectural concepts proposed for the Rite Aid building. CONSENT CALENDAR COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Rebecca Van Buren April 20, 1999 ENVIRONMENT ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-07 - SPERR AND ASSOCIATES - A request to modify a previously approved master plan and construct a 16,747 square foot drug store with a drive-thru on a 2.86 acre parcel in the Central Park Plaza within the Neighborhood Commercial District of the Terra Vista Community Plan, located on the southwest corner of Base Line Road and EIlena West - APN: 227-182-10. This project was continued from the April 6, 1999 meeting. Revised plans which incorporate the architectural and site plan modifications will be presented at the meeting. Staff Recommendation: Staff will provide a recommendation at the meeting. Attachment: Design Review Committee Action Comments for April 6, 1999 Desiqn Review Committee Action; Members Present: Pam Stewart, Larry Henderson Staff Planner: Rebecca Van Buren The Committee (Stewart, Henderson) reviewed revised plans. Paul Devers, applicant/architect, noted that the canopies in the entry tower arch insets may be a high maintenance item due to their color and southern exposure. He stated he was looking into the decorative metal work that has been applied to other arched insets in Terra Vista, such as Montgomery Ward Auto Express. The Committee recommended approval of the project with a condition indicating the City Planner may approve an alternate archway treatment to replace the canopies in the entry tower inset. City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: Conditional Use Permit 99-07 2. Related Files: Conditional Use Permit 89-18 (master plan for Central Park Plaza shopping center) Description of Project: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-07 - SPERR AND ASSOCIATES - A request to modify a previously approved master plan and construct a 16,747 square foot drug store. with a drive-thru, on a 2.86 acre parcel in the Central Park Plaza within the Neighborhood Commercial District of the Tetra Vista Community Plan, located on the southwest corner of Base Line Road and Ellena West - APN: 227-182-10. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Paul Devers Sperr & Associates 8001 N. 7th Street Phoenix, Arizona 85020 5. General Plan Designation: Neighborhood Commercial 6. Zoning: Neighborhood Commercial District of the Terra Vista Community Plan Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The site is located within the Central Park Plaza shopping center in an undeveloped pad at the corner of Base Line Road and Ellena West. The pad was graded and planted with turf with the construction of the shopping center. To the north is vacant land zoned Medium-High Density Residential, to the south is a day care facility with vacant land zoned Low-Medium Residential beyond, to the west are commercial and office developments, and to the east is vacant land zoned Medium-High Residential. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Contact Person and Phone Number: Rebecca Van Buren (909) 477-2750 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: Cucamonga County Water District Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Conditional Use Permit 99-07 Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ( ) Land Use and Planning ( ) Population and Housing ( ) Geological Problems ( ) Water ( ) Air Quality { ) Transporlation/Circulation ( ) Biological Resources ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources ( ) Hazards ( ) Noise ( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance ( ) Public Services ( ) Utilities and Service Systems ( ) Aesthetics ( ) Cultural Resources ( ) Recreation DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: (X) 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 earlier EIR. including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Re~ec~Van Buren, Associate Planner April 8, 1999 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Conditional Use Permit 99-07 Page 3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an explanation is required for all "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact" answers, including a discussion of ways to mitigate the significant effects identified. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal.' a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community? ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) w POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal.' a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ( ) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? ( ) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Conditional Use Permit 99-07 Page 4 b) Seismic ground shaking? c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? d) Seiche hazards? e) Landslides or mudflows? f) Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil conditions from excavation. grading, or fill? g) Subsidence of the land? h) Expansive soils? i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) WATER. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates. drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? ( ) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? ( ) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? ( ) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ( ) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ( ) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) d) g) h) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) () ( ) (x) ( ) (x) ( ) (x) () () () (x) (x) (x) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Conditional Use Permit 99-07 Page 5 i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal.' a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature. or cause any change in climate? Create objectionable odors? d) (x) (x) (x) (x) TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. 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? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Rail or air traffic impacts? g) (x) (x) (x) (x) (x) (x) (x) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Conditional Use Permit 99-07 Page 6 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including. but not limited to: plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees. eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., eucalyptus grove. sage scrub habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g.. marsh. riparian. and vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? () () () () () () (x) (x) (x) (x) (x) ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. proposal.' a) b) c) Would the Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ( ) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? ( ) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? ( ) NO ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) 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)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Conditional Use Permit 99-07 Page 7 b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Increased fire hazard in areas with ~ammable brush, grass, or trees? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 10. NOISE. Will the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) 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 following areas: a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? c) Schools? d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? e) Other governmental services? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) 'b2o Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Conditional Use Permit 99-07 Page 8 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? b) Communication systems? c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? e) Storm water drainage? f) Solid waste disposal? g) Local or regional water supplies? ) ) (x) (x) (x) (x) (x) (x) (x) 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( ) c) Create light or glare? ( ) () () () () () () No (x) (x) (x) 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) b) c) d) e) Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( ) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( ) () () () () () (x) (x) (x) (x) (x) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Conditional Use Permit 99-07 Page 9 15. RECREATION, Would the proposal.' a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational oppodunities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) 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 impodant examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ( ) b) Short term: Does the project have the potential to achieve shod-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A shod-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time. Long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) ( ) c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects. the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) ( ) d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Conditional Use Permit 99-07 Page 10 EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The following earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply): (X) General Plan EIR (Certified April 6, 1981) (X) Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989) (X) Terra Vista Planned Community EIR (SCH #81082808, certified February 16, 1983) (X) Other: Nec~ative Declaration for CUP 89-18 City of Rancho Cucamonga NEGATIVE DECLARATION The following Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act Section 21091 and 21092 of the Public Resources Code. Project File No.: Project Name: Project Location (also see attached map): Conditional Use Permit 99-07 Public Review Period Closes: May 12, 1999 Project Applicant: Spetr & Associates Southwest corner of Base Line Road and Ellena West - APN: 227-182-10 Project Description: A request to modify a previously approved masterplan and construct a 16,747 square foot drug store with a drive-thru on a 2.86 acre parcel in lhe Central Park Plaza within the Neighl~orhood Commercial Distdct of the Tetra Vista Community Plan. FINDING This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has conducted an Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment and is proposing this Negative Declaration based upon the following finding: The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. [] The initial Study identified potentially significant effects but: (1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made or agreed 1o by the applicant before this proposed Negative Declaration was released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where cleady no significant effects would occur, and (2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment. If adopted, the Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. Reasons to support this finding are included in the attached Initial Study. The project file and all related documents are available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division at 10500 Civic Center Drive (909) 477-2750 or Fax (909) 477-2847. NOTICE The public is invited to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration during the review period, May 12. 1999 Date of Determination Adopted By RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-07, A REQUEST TO MODIFY A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED MASTER PLAN AND CONSTRUCT A 16,747 SQUARE FOOT DRUG STORE, WITH A FREESTANDING DRIVE-THRU, ON A 2.86 ACRE PARCEL IN THE CENTRAL PARK PLAZA WITHIN THE NEIGH BOPHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT OF THE TERRA VISTA COMMUNITY PLAN, LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BASE LINE ROAD AND ELLENA WEST, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 227-182-10. A. Recitals. 1. Sperr & Associates has filed an application for approval of Conditional Use Permit 99- 07, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution. the subject Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 12th day of May 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a 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 heating on May 12, 1999, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to irregularly shaped parcel located on the south side of Base Line Road with a street frontage of over 400 feet and on the west side of Ellena West with street frontage of over 400 feet, and is presently a graded, vacant pad site within an existing commercial shopping center (Conditional Use Permit 89-18); and b. The property to the north and east is vacant land in the Medium-High Density Residential District, to the south is a day care facility in the Neighborhood Commercial District with vacant land in the Low-Medium Residential District beyond, and to the west is the commercial shopping center in the Neighborhood Commercial District; c. The proposed project is a request to modify a previously approved master plan and construct a 16,747 square foot drug store, with a drive-thru, on a 2.86 acre parcel in the Central Park Plaza within the Neighborhood Commercial District of the Tetra Vista Community Plan. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 99-07-SPERR AND ASSOCIATES May12,1999 Page 2 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and b. That the proposed use is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and c. That the proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code; and d. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, together with all wdtten and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows: a. That the Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder; that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the application. b. That, based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5c of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission dudng the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1,2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 99-07 - SPERR AND ASSOCIATES May 12, 1999 Page 3 Plannincl Division 1) The developer shall provide additional trees to the Base Line Road landscape setback to screen the entry to the loading area, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Trees shall be consistent with the species existing in the landscape setback, and shall be shown on Landscape Plans submitted for plan check. 2) The developer may submit an alternate archway treatment to replace the canopies in the entry tower arch insets, subject to the review and approval of the City Planner. 3) The developer shall provide material sample of the perforated metal screening proposed as a component of the truck loading area screen wall, for City Planner review and approval, prior to issuance of building permits. 4) All building materials and colors, such as, but not limited to, accent tiles, trellis, cornices, and column details, shall match the architectural features of the Central Park Plaza shopping center. 5) The improvements to the east wall of the Ace Hardware building shall be completed, prior to final occupancy. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF MAY 1999. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman A'FI'EST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Butler, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed. and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 12th day of May 1999, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT #: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: Conditional Use Permit 99-07 (Rite Aid) Drug Store Sperr and Associates Southwest corner of Base Line Road and Ellena West ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: General Requirements Completion Orate The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City. its agents. officers. or employees. because of the issuance of such approval. or in the alternative. to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City. its agents. officers. or employees. for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City. its agents. officers. or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may. at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. A copy of the signed Resolution of Approval or City Planner's letter of approval, and all Standard Conditions, shall be included in legible form on the grading plans. building and construction plans, and landscape and irrigation plans submitted for plan check. B. Time Limits Conditional Use Permit, Variance, or Development/Design Review approval shall expire if building permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 5 years from the date of approval. No extensions are allowed. C. Site Development The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include site plans. architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Plannin9 Division, the conditions contained herein, Development Code regulations, and the Terra Vista Community Plan. / / ProiectNo. CUPqq-0? Completion Date Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation. and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment. building. etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced. whichever comes first. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the time of building permit issuance. Trash receptacle(s) are required and shall meet City standards. The final design, locations, and the number of trash receptacles shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. For single family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults. D. Shopping Centers The Master Plan is approved in concept only. Future development for (each buitding pad/parcel) shall be subject to separate DevelopmentJDesign Review process for Planning Commission approval. Modifications to the Shopping Center Master Plan shall be subject to Planning Commission approval. A uniform hardscape and street furniture design including seating benches, trash receptacles, free-standing potted plants, bike racks, light bollards, etc., shall be utilized and be compatible with the architectural style. Detailed designs shall be submitted for Planning Division review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. Provide for the following design features in each trash enclosure, to the satisfaction of the City Planner: Architecturally integrated into the design of (the shopping center/the project). Separate pedestrian access that does not require the opening of the main doors and to include self-dosing pedestrian doors. C= Large enough to accommodate two trash bins. d. Roll-up doors. Trash bins with counter-weighted lids. Architecturally treated overhead shade trellis. Chain link screen on top to prevent trash from blowing out of the enclosure and designed to be hidden from view. 4. Graffiti shall be removed within 72 hours. 5. The entire site shall be kept free from trash and debris at all times and in no event shall trash and debris remain for more than 24 hours. 6. All operations and businesses shall be conducted to comply with the following standards which shall be incorporated into the lease agreements for all tenants: a. Noise Level - All commercial activities shall not create any noise that would exceed an exterior noise level of 60 dB during the hours of 10 p.m. until 7 a.m. and 65 d8 during the hours of 7 a.m. until 10 p.m. b. Loading and Unloading - No person shall cause the loading. unloading, opening, closing, or other handling of boxes. crates, containers, building materials, garbage cans. or other similar objects between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. unless otherwise specified herein, in a manner which would cause a noise disturbance to a residential area. 7. Textured pavement shall be provided across circulation aisle. pedestrian walkway, and plaza. They shall be of brick/tile pavers, exposed aggregate, integral color concrete, or any combination thereof. Full samples shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 8. The lighting fixture design shall compliment the architectural program. It shall include the plaza area lighting fixtures, building lighting fixtures (exterior), and parking lot lighting fixtures. 9. The design of store fronts shall compliment the architectural program and shall have subtle variations subject to Design Review Committee approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 10. Any outdoor vending machines shall be recessed into the building faces and shall not extend into the pedestrian walkways. The design details shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits. 11. Cart corrals shall be provided for temporary storage. No permanent outdoor storage of shopping carts shall be permitted unless otherwise approved by the Planning Commission. The shopping carts shall be collected and stored at the approved designated place at the end of each work day. Building Design 1. For commercial and industrial projects, paint roll-up doors and service doors to match main building colors. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans) 1. All parking spaces shall be 9 feet wide by 18 feet long. When a side of any parking space abuts a building, wall, support column, or other obstruction, the space shall be a minimum of 11 feet wide. 2. All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet and shall contain a 12-inch walk adjacent to the parking stall (including curb). 3. Textured pedestrian pathways and textured pavement across circulation aisles shall be provided throughout the development to connect dwellings/units/buildings with open spaces/plazas/recreational uses. Projet1 NO, CUP q~-O? Completion Date All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances, and exits shall be striped per City standards. Handicap accessible stalls shall be provided for commercial and office facilities with 25 or more parking stalls. Designate two percent or one stall, whichever is greater, of the total number of stalls for use by the handicapped. / / / / / / Bicycle storage spaces shall be provided in all commercial, office, industrial, and multifamily residential projects or more than 10 units. Minimum spaces equal to five percent of the required automobile parking spaces or three bicycle storage spaces, whichever is greater. After the first 50 bicycle storage spaces are provided, additional storage spaces required are 2.5 percent of the required automobile parking spaces. Warehouse distribution uses shall provide bicycle storage spaces at a rate of 2.5 percent on the required automobile parking spaces with a minimum of a 3-bike rack. In no case shall the total number of bicycle parking spaces required exceed 100. Where this results in a fraction of 0.5 or greater. the number shall be rounded off to the higher whole number. G. Landscaping 3. 4. 5. Existing trees required to be preserved in place shall be protected with a construction barrier in accordance with the Municipal Code Section 19.08.110, and so noted on the grading plans. The location of those trees to be preserved in place and new locations for transplanted trees shall be shown on the detailed landscape plans. The applicant shall follow all of the arborist's recommendations regarding preservation, transplanting. and trimming methods. / / A minimum of 20% of trees planted within industrial projects, and a minimum of 30% within commercial and office projects, shall be specimen size trees - 24-inch box or larger. W~thin parking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-gallon tree for every three parking stalls, sufficient to shade 50% of the parking area at solar noon on August 21. Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent to and along structures at a rate of one tree per 30 linear feet of building. All private slopes of 5 feet or more in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope. but less than 2:1 slope. shall be. at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for erosion control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. All private slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, 1 -gallon or larger size shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope banks in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one 5-gallon or larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on the perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer. Completion Date Signs The signs indicated on the submitted plans are conceptual only and not a part of this approval. Any signs proposed for this development shall comply with the Sign Ordinance and shall require separate application and approval by the Planning Division prior to installation of any signs. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: t. Site Development Plans shall be submitted for plan check and approved prior to construction. All plans shall be marked with the project file number (i.e., CUP 98-01 ). The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, Title 24 Accessibility requirements, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of issuance of relative permits. Please contact the Building and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new commercial or industrial development or addition to an existing development, the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: Transportation Development Fee. Drainage Fee, School Fees, Permit and Plan Checking Fees. Street addresses shall be provided by the Build ing Official, after tract/parcel map recordation and prior to issuance of building permits. Construction activity shall not occur between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. Monday through Saturday, with no construction on Sunday. J. New Structures Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for the property line clearances considering use, area, and fireoresistiveness. K. Grading Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: L. General Fire Protection Conditions Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided prior to water plan approval. Required hydrants, if any, will be determined by the Fire District. Fire District standards require a 6-inch riser with a 4-inch and a 2-1/2-inch outlet. Substandard hydrants shall be upgraded to meet this standard. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specifications on approved brands and model numbers. 2. An automatic fire extinguishing system(s) wiZl be required as noted below: X Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15. Note: Special sprinkler densities are required for such hazardous operations as woodworking, plastics manufacturing, spray painting, fiammable liquids storage, high piled stock, etc. Contact the Fire Safety Division to determine if the sprinkler system is adequate for proposed operations. 3. Sprinkler system monitoring shall be installed and operational immediately upon completion of sprinkler system. 4. A fire alarm system(s) shall be required as noted below: X Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15. 5. Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District's fire lane standards, as noted: X All roadways per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 22. 6. A Knox rapid entry key vault shall be installed prior to final inspection. Proof of purchase shall be submitted prior to final building plan approval. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specific details and ordering information. 7. $132.00 Fire District fee(s), and a $1 per "plan page" microfilm fee will be due to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District prior to Building and Safety permit issuance." A Fire District fee in the amount of $132,00 shall be paid at the time of Water Plan submittal. "Note: Separate plan check fees for fire protection systems (sprinklers, hood systems, alarms, etc.) and/or any consultant reviews will be assessed upon submittal of plans. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: M. Security Lightin9 1, All parking, common, and storage areas shall have minimum maintained 1-foot candle power. These areas should be lighted from sunset to sunrise and on photo sensored cell. 2. All buildings shall have minimal security lighting to eliminate dark areas around the buildings, with direct lighting to be provided by all entryways. Lighting shall be consistent around the entire development, 3. Lighting in exterior areas shall be in vandal-resistant fixtures. N, Security Hardware 1. One-inch single cylinder dead bolts shall be installed on all entrance doors. If windows are within 40 inches of any locking device, tempered glass or a double cylinder dead bolt shall be used. 2. All garage or rollin9 doors shall have slide bolts or some type of secondary locking devices. 3. All roof openings 9lying access to the building shall be secured with either iron bars, metal gates, or alarmed. O. Windows 1. Store front windows shall be visible to passing pedestrians and traffic. Building Numbering 1. Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime visibility, Q, Alarm Systems 1. Install a burglar alarm system and a panic alarm if needed. Instructing management and employees on the operation of the alarm system will reduce the amount of false alarms and in turn save dollars and lives. SC - 4/19/99 CITY OF RANCI.IO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: May 12, 1999 Chairman and Member of the Planning Commission, Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer ENVIRONMENTALASSESSI~IENTANDTENTATIVE PARCELl%lAP 15692 - PRUTTING - A subdivision of 4.75 acres of land into 4 parcels in the Very Low Residential District ( 1-2 dwel ling units per acre), located on the west side of Hellman Avenue, south of Hillside Road - APN: 1061-611-02. Staff has prepared an Environmental Notice of Exemption for consideration. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION A. Action Requested: Approval of the proposed Tentative Parcel Map as shown on Exhibit "B". B. Existint~ Zoning: Very Low Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre). C. Surroundinu. Land Use and Zonins~: North - Flood Control South - Vacant East - Single Family West - Flood Control D. Surroundin~ General Plan Develor~ment Code Designations: Project Site - Very Low Residential North - Flood Control South - Very Low Residential East - Very Low Residential West - Flood Control E. Site Characteristics: The property fronts Hellman Avenue and slopes to the southwest. A drain is proposed to be installed at the southwest corner of the property to carry storm flows from the site to the Flood Control easement to the west. There are three mature trees on the site, one ofwhich is an oak tree. ITEM E PLANNING COM]V[ISSION STAFF REPORT TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 15692 - PRUTTING May 12, 1999 Page 2 BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS The parcel map was previously approved August 14, 1996 but expired on August 14, 1998. The parcel map will subdivide the property into four lots. The two lots fronting Hellman will be 22,500 square feet each. The remaining two lots will be 79,620 square feet each. The westerly lots can be further subdivided into 3 one-half acre lots each for a total of 8 one-half acre single family custom lots at build out. This first portion of the subdivision will dedicate the cubde-sac for the ultimate condition and build the street fronting the first lots (see Exhibit "C'). Hellman Avenue fronting the project will be fully improved. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Staff has concluded that the site is categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Categorical Exemptions, Section 15315, Class 15, Part II of the Initial Study is not required. Therefore, staff has prepared an environmental Notice of Exemption for consideration. CORRESPONDENCE This item has been advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper. the property has been posted and notices were sent to all property owner within 300 feet of the project site. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Tentative Parcel Map 15692 by adoption of the attached Resolution and approval of the Environmental Notice of Exemption. Respectfully Submitted, Dan James Senior Civil Engineer DJ:MEP:dlw Attachments: Site Plan (Exhibit "A") Parcel Map/Vicinity Map (Exhibit "B") Alignment of future cubde-sac (Exhibit "C') Environmental Assessment Part I (Exhibit "D") Resolution and Recommended Conditions of Approval TENTATIVE PARCEL NO. 15692 IN THE CiTY OF RA~'ICHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA -I CITY OF RANCH0 CUCAMONGA ENGINEERING DIVISION ITEM: TITLE: EXHIBIT: Site Plan TPM 15692 ~ILLS~DE J CITY OF RANCH0 GUCAMONGA ENGINEERING DIVISION ITEM: TITLE: EXHIBIT: VICINITY MAP Tentative Parcel Map 15692 .blASTER PLAN PATRICIA PRUTTING Ref: Tena~ive tract map 12710 (2-88) D CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ENGINEERING DIVISION ITEM: Master Plan TITLE: TPM 15692 EXHIBIT: "G" .ENVIRON:'.,ENTAL INFORMATION FORM The purpose of this form is to inform the City of the basic components of the proposed project so that the City may review the project pursuant to City policies, ordinances, and guidelines; the California Environmental Quality Act; and the City's Rules and Procedures to Implement CEQA. It is important that the information requested in this application be provided in full; INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE PROCESSED. Please note that it is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that the application is complete at the time of submittal; City staff will not be available to perform work required to provide missing information- GENEPJ~L INFOEMATION Application Nuz~er for the project to which this form pertains: Tentative Parcel Map ~15692 Project Title: Patricia Prutting Name & Address of project owner(s): 6453 nuckthorn Ave., Alta T, oma, CA 91701 N~u~e & Address Of developer or project s~nsor: Same Contact Person & Address: Same Telephone Nnm~r: (909) 94~-9490 Name & Address of person preparing this form (if different from above): Telephone N,,m~M~r: C I T Y o f R A~--'~H O C U C A M O N G A ~"~r'/--//~?//'/,~ P~O~ i~TI(~ & DES~IPTI~ Information indicated by asterisk (') is CUP's unless otherwise requested by staff. not required of non-construction '1) Provide a full scale (8-1/2 X 11) copy of the USGS Quadrant Sheet(s) which includes the project site, and indicate the site boundaries. 2) Provide a set of color photographs which show representative views into the site from the north, south, east and west; views into and from the site from the primary access points which serve the site; and representative views of significant features from the site- Include a map showing location of each photograph. West side of ~Iellman Ave. 3) Project Location (describe): between ~{illside & Wilson Ave., Alta Loma. 4) Assessor's Parcel Numbers (attach additional sheet if necessary): 1067-671-02 4.75 AC. '5) Gross Site Area (ac/sq. ft.): 206970 Net Site Area (total site size minus area of public streets & proposed dedications): 756,165 SF (Lots +- Equest. Easement and Drainac~ ~n~ment. 7) Describe any proposed general plan amendment or zone change which would affect the project site (attach additional sheet if necessary): n/a 8) Include a description of all permits which will be necessary from the City of Rancho Cucamonga and other governmental agencies in order to fully implement the project: 9) Describe the physical setting of the site as it exists before the project including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, mature trees, trails and roads, drainage courses, and scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on site (including age and condition) and the use of the structures- Attach photographs of significant features described. In addition, site all sources of information (i.e., geological and/or hydrologic studies, biotic and archeological surveys, traffic studies): Site is relatively flat rectangular in shape. Elev.~ 173B on the ~.)orth, Elev. + 1720 on the South, Elev. t 1730 on the East, Elev. + I/Zb On ~ne West. FlOOr( Coll~roi uenrl arid clzal~md,.)~ basin bounds'the North, vacant flood control property and drainage hounds the west, existing tlellmafi ~ve. Dounds she ~asg, v,lcaxlL ~l.Lvate lar. bounds the South. The site is covered with light brush and weeds that are ~lsced 2-3 times a year as a weed abatement requirement. There are two mediu~ size trees on the site, one which may have to De remover] ~or cohstruction.of residence. No existing trails are on or around property. There areno structures on the sxte. The site soils are stable per soils report Dy/--~{ P;ngineerlng dated, 11-2-84. There is some view to the {,4outh. or the valley below axl<~ ~O the ~orth,the mountains overlooking Alta Loma are close and very visih]. ~0) Describe the known cultural and/or historical aspects of the site. Site all sources of information (books, published reports and oral history): The site ~vas used'2. by the Ioamosa Water Company in the 1930's as a distribution point for irrigation water for the adjacent citrus groves. The book titled, "The History of Alta Loma" refers to irrigation in the 30's and 40's for citrus groves. 11) Describe any noise sources and their levels that now affect the site (aircraft, roadway noise, etc.) and how they will affect proposed uses: n/a Porposed uses will not be a noise.source. ~2) Describe the proposed project in detail- This should provide an adequate description of the site in terms of ultimate use which will result from the proposed project. Indicate if there are proposed phases for development, th~ extent of development to occur with each phase, and the anticipated completion of each increment- Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary: The TMP proposed use is for subdivision of the site into four lots, two lots of + 22,500 s.f. and the remaining two lots of equal size. I propose to build 1-house on each of the 22,500 lots (to be complet in one year). I propose to apply for a tentative tract of six additional lots total on the remaining two parcels, and improving a cul de sac street into the oroject w~hin th~ n~c~ tw~ y~r~. Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any .cultural, historical or scenic aspects- Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one-family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.) and scale of development (height, frontage, setback, rear yard, etc.): Adjacent to the r~orth is a San Bernardino County flood control debri basin; adjacent to the west is flat flood control property. with a drainage channel running through it; adjacent to the South is vacant land t~ith one house to the South of the vacant land. Adjacent to the East and across the street is single family residences on + 1/2 ac. sites. Per the City master plan this area is all residential on L ac. lots. The existing houses have + 30' setbacks to existing Hellman Avenue and are 1 to 2 story houses. Rear yards of existings are 1/4 ac. in size to several ac. in size 14) Will the proposed project change the pattern, scale or character of the surrounding general area of the project? NO 15) Indicate the type of short-term ~nd long-term noise to be generated, inclucLing source and amount. How will these noise levels affect adjacent properties and on-site uses. What methods of sound proofing are proposed? Then is no appreciable noise to be generated in the ultimate plan of B custom residences. by the construction of minimal. Short term noise will only be generated the intial two houses and this will be very o~6) Indicate proposed removals and/or .replacements of mature or scenic trees: There are only tt.~o medium trees on the site. The tree on ~roposed lot ~2 may have to be removed for the construction of a house. several trees will be planted as part of the landscaping ot ~uture houses. E/O 17) Indicate any bod/es of water (including domestic water supplies) into which the site drains: The site does not drain into any existing bodies of water. The site drains to the South-West into an existing flood Control ditch. 18) Indicate expected amount of water usage. (See Attachment A for usage estimates)- For further clarification, please contact the Cucamonga County Water District at 987-2591. 600 7200 a. Residential (gal/day) Peak use (gal/day) 19) b. Commercial/Ind. (gal/day/ac) Peak use (gal/min/ac) Indicate proposed method of sewage disposal- X Septic Tank Sewer. If septic tanks are proposed, attach percolation tests. If discharge to a sanitary sewage system is proposed indicate expected daily sewage generation: (see Attachment A for usage estimates). For further clarification, please contact the Cucamonga County Water District at 987-2591- a. Residential (gal/day) b. Industrial/Commercial (gal/day/ac) RESIDENTIAL pRCkTECTS 20) Ntu~ber of residential u.nits: Detached (indicate range of parcel sizes, ~Lnimum lot size and ~ximum lot size: 20,300 S.F. to 24,500 S.F. Attached (indicate whether units are rental or for sale units): The intial house will be lived in by owner. None of the residences will be used for rent. 2~) 22) Anticipated range of sale prices and/or rents: lived Sale Price(s) $ n/a houses to be to $ in by owner. Rent (per month) $ to $ Specify number of bedrooms by unit type: 4 bedrooms per house. (Brothers and myself.) 23) Indicate anticipated household size by unit type: 3 persons 24) Indicate the expected number of school children who will be residing within the project: Contact the appropriate School Districts as shown in Attachment B: a. Elementary: -0- 1 b- Junior High: -0- c. Senior High: COMMERCIAL, INDUSTR/AL AND INSTITUTIONAL p~OJECTS 25) Describe type of use(s) and major function(s) of commercial, industrial Or institutional uses: n/a 26) Total floor area Of commercial, industrial, type: n/a or institutional uses by 27) Indicate hours of operation: n/a 28) 29) n/a Number of employees: Total: Maximum Shift: Time Of Maximum Shift: Provide breakdown of anticipated job classifications, including wage and salary ranges, as well as an indication of the rate of hire for each classification (attach additional sheet if necessary): n/a 30) Estimation of the number of workers to be hired that currently reside in the C~a For commercial and industrial uses only, indicate the source, type and amount of air pollution emissions. (Data should be verified through the South Coast Air Quality Management District, at (818) 572-6283): n/a 32) Have the water, sewer, fire, and flood control agencies serving the project been contacted to determine their ability to provide adequate service to the proposed project? If so, please indicate their response. Yes the have contacted. Yes they can provide service 33) In the known history of this property, has there been any use, storage, or discharge of hazardous and/or toxic materials? Examples of hazardous and/or toxic materials include, but are not limited to PCB'S; radioactive substances; pesticides and herbicides; fuel, oils, solvents, and other flammable liquids and gases. Also, note underground storage of any of the above. Please list the materials and describe their use, storage, and/or discharge on the property, as well as the dates of use, if known- n/a 34) Will the proposed project involve the temporary or long-term use, storage or discharge of hazardous and/or toxic ~terials, including but not limited to those examples listed above? If yes, provide an inventory of all such materials to be used and proposed method of disposal. The location of such uses, along with the storage and shipment areas, shall be shown and labeled on the application plans. n/a I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached e~ibits present the data and information required for adenate evaluation of this project to the ~st of my ability, that the facts, statements, and infor~tion presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I f~ther ~derstand that additional infomation my be required to be s~mitted before an adenate evaluation can ~ ~de by the City of ~ncho Cucamonga. 5-10-95 Date: Si~ature: Owner Title: ATTACHMENT A Water Usage Average use per day Rasidenttal Single Family Apt/Condo Cx~-~rcial/Industrial General and Regional Commercial Neighborhood Commercial General Industrial Industrial Park Peak Usage For all uses Average use X 2.0 600 gal/day 400 gal/day 3000 gal/day/ac 1500 gal/day/ac 1500 gal/day/ac 3000 gal/day/ac Sewer Flows Residential Single Family Apt/Condos 270 gal/day 200 gal/day Commercial/Indust_rial General Commercial Neighborhood Commercial General Industrial Heavy Industrial 2000 gal/day/ac 1000-1500 gal/day/ac 2000 gal/day/ac 3000 gal/day/ac Source: Cucamonga County Water District Master Plan, 9/86 APPENDIX E NOTICE OF EXEMPTION TOz Clerk of the Board San Bernardino County Auditor/Control let-Recorder 385 N. Arrowhead, 2''a Floor San Bernardino, CA 92415 FROM: City ofRancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 AT'IN: Engineering Division Environmental Assessment and Tentative l~arc'el Mat~ 15692 Project Title West side of Hellman Avenue Sollib of Hillside Road Project Location - Specific City of Rancho Cucamonga Project Location - City 4 lot Subdivision Description of Nature, Purpose, and Beneficiaries of Project City of Rancho Cttcamon~a Name of Public Agency Approving Project Ms. Patricia Prutling Name of Person or Agency Carr)'ing Out Project San Bernardino County Project Location - County Exempt Status: (Check One) X Ministerial (Sec. 15073) Declared Emergency (See. 15071 (a)) Emergency Project (See. 15071 (b) and (c)) Categorical Exemption. State type and section number. Article 19. Class 1 fc). Section 15301 of CEOA Reasons why project is exempt: Maria Perez (909) 477-2740 2314 Contact Person Area Code Telephone Extension If filed by applicant: I. Attach certified document &exemption finding. 2. Has a notice &exemption been filed by the public agency approving the project? Yes__ No X Date Received for Filing Signature RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NUMBER 15692, LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF HELLMAN AVENUE SOUTH OF HILLSIDE ROAD, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF- APN: 1061-611-02 WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 15692 was submitted by Ms. Patricia Prutting, applicant, for the purpose of subdividing into 4 parcels, the real property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, identified as APN 1061-611-02, located on the west side of Hellman Avenue south of Hillside Road; and WHEREAS, on May 12, 1999, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing for the above-described map. NOW THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the following findings have been made: 1. That the map is consistent with the General plan. That the improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed development. That the proposed subdivision and improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or public health problems or have adverse effects on abutting properties. SECTION 2: Based upon the facts and information of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Planning Commission can approve the Environmental Notice of Exemption based upon the findings as follows: That the site is exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Categorical Exemptions, Section 15315, Class 15, which states the following: Consists of the division of property in urbanized areas zoned for residential, commercial, or industrial use into four or fewer parcels when the division is in conformance with the General Plan and zoning, no variances or exceptions are required, all sen/ices and access to the proposed parcels to local standards are available, the parcel was not involved in a division of a larger parcel within the previous 2 years, and the parcel does not have an average slope greater than 20 percent. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PARCEL MAP 15692 ~ PRUTTING May 12, 1999 Page 2 SECTION 3: Tentative Parcel Map Number 15692 is hereby approved subject to the attached Standard Conditions and the following Special Conditions: EnQineerinq Division: The portion of the interior street fronting Parcels I and 2 shall be a fully dedicated 60-foot local street. The balance of the cul-de-sac street shall be an irrevocable offer of dedication of the satisfaction of the City Engineer. An irrevocable offer of dedication shall be made for a public drainage easement between the future two southwesterly lots as seen in the applicant's master plan or previously proposed Lots 5 and 6 of unapproved Tract 12710 and along the southern property line of the southwest lot fronting San Bemardino County Flood Control property. The portion of the interior street fronting Parcels 1 and 2 shall be fully improved to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, including barricades per City Standards. 4. A Drainage Acceptance Agreement shall be recorded for Parcels 3 and 4. The existing overhead utilities on the project side of Hellman Avenue shall be undergrounded along the entire project frontage extending to the first pole off-site (north and south), prior to public improvements acceptance or occupancy. whichever occurs first. The Developer may request a reimbursement agreement to recover one-half the City adopted cost for undergrounding from future development/redevelopment as it occurs on the opposite side of the street. If the developer fails to submit for said reimbursement agreement within six months of the public improvements being accepted by the City, all rights of the developer to reimbursement shall terminate. The drainage and equestrian easements shall be reserved as "PRIVATE" drainage and equestrian easement on the final map. Plannincl Division A 12-foot drive approach with 10-foot vehicle gate and 5-foot step thru access for horses shall be installed where local feeder trails meet Hellman Avenue upon development of Parcels I and 2. A detailed plan indicating trail widths. maximum slopes, physical conditions, fencing and weed control, in accordance with City Master Trail drawings, shall be submitted for City Planner review and 8'7 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PARCELMAP 15692- PRUTTING May12.1999 Page 3 approval prior to approval and recordation of the Final Parcel Map and prior to approval of street improvement and grading plans. Developer shall upgrade and construct all trails, including fencing and drainage devices, in conjunction with street improvements. Local Feeder Trails (i.e., pdvate equestrian easements) shall, at a minimum, be fenced with two rail, 4-inch lodgepole "peeler" logs to define both sides of the easement; however. developer may upgrade to an alternate fence material. Local Feeder Trail entrances shall also provide access for service vehicles, such as veterinarians or hay deliveries, including a 12-foot minimum drive approach. Entrance may be gated provided that equestrian access is maintained through step-thrus. Local Feeder Trail grades shall not exceed 0.5 percent at the downstream end of a trail for a distance of 25 feet behind the public right-ofiway line to prohibit trial debris from reaching the street. Drainage devices may be required by the Building Official. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shall not prohibit keeping of equine animals where zoning requirements for the keeping of said animals have been met. Individual lot owners in subdivisions shall have the option of keeping said animals without the necessity of appealing to boards of directors of homeowners' associations for amendments to the CC&Rs. The CC&Rs are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering Divisions and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Map or prior to the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City Engineer. Existing trees required to be preserved in place shall be protected with a construction barrier in accordance with Municipal code Section 19.08.110, and so noted on the grading plans. The location of those trees to be preserved in place and new locations for transplanted trees shall be shown on the detailed landscape plans. The applicant shall follow all of the arborist's recommendation regarding preservation, transplanting and trimming methods. The existing oak tree shall be preserved in place in accordance with Municipal Code Section 19.08.110. The equestrian easement shall be widened to provide a minimum I O-foot clearance between the tree trunk and trail fencing. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PARCEL MAP 15692- PRU'FFING May 12, 1999 Page 4 Building and Safety A 6-foot private drainage easement shall be provided between pdvate equestrian easement and proposed parcel with a 3-foot improved drainage swale for cross lot drainage. 2. The drainage swale shall be altered as necessary to accommodate the trees that are to be preserved. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF MAY 1999 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATI'EST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 12th day of May 1999, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. [.~::~ ~ Those items checked are Cm~ditions of AoorovaL A. Dedications and Vehicular Access ,/ I. Rights-of-way and easements shall be dedicated to the City for all interior public streets, community trails, public pascos. public landscape areas, street trees, and public drainage facilities as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. Private easements for non-public facilities (cross-lot drainage, local feeder trails, etc.) shall be reserved as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. 2. Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way for the perimeter strccts (measured from centerline): total feet on total feet on total feet on total feet on 3. An irrevocable offer of dedication for roadway purposes sicall be made for the private streets. 4. Comer propcRy line cutoffs shall bc dedicated per City Standards. 5. Vehicular acccss rigliB shall bc dedicated to the City for the rollowing strccts, cxccpt fur approved openings: 7. 8. 9. 10. I1. Reciprocal access easements ensuring access to all parccls shall be recorded prior to or concurrent with the final pal'eel map. Rcciprocal access easements ensuring access to all parcels shall bc provided by C. C. & R.'s or deeds and shall bc recorded prior to or concurrent with the final parccl map. All existing casements lying within future right-of-way arc to be quitclaimed or delineated on the final parcel map per City Enginccr's requirements. Easements for public sidewalks and/or strcet trccs placed outside the public right-of-way sicall bc dcdicatcd to the City. Private drainage easemenu for cross-lot drainage shall be provided and shall be delineated or noted on thc final p~ccl map. Additional street right-of-way shall bc dedicated along right turn lanes, to provide a minimum or 7 fcct measured from the face or curbs. If curb adjaccnt sidewalk is used along the right turn lane, a parallel street trcc casement shall be provided. 12. The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property interests necessary to construct the required public improvements and, if he/she should fail to do so, the developer shall at least 1,0 days prior to submiBal of the final parcel map for approval, enter into an agrcenlcnt to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Code Section 66462 at such time as the City acquires the property interests required for the improvcntcnts, Such agreemaul shall provide for payment by the developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security for a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained by the developer, at developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to comn~encenlent of the appraisal. Titis condition applies in particular, but not limited, to: ,/ All public improvements, (interior stxeets, drainage facilities, community trails, paseos, landscaped areas, ere. ) shown on the plans and/or tentative map shall be constructed to City Standards. Interior street improvements shall include, but are not linlited to, curb and gutter, AC pavement, drive approaches, sidewalks, street lights, and street trees. 2. A minimum, of 26- foot wide pavement witl~in a 40- foot wide dedicated right-uf-way shall be constructed for all half-section streets. Construct the following missing perimeter street improvements including, but not lirahod to: Street Name Curb AC Side- Drive 5trcct Street Comm. Median Bike Other ~ Pvml waJk Appr, LighB Trccs Trail Island Trail GuUct Notes: (=) Median Island includes landscapinl~ and irrtl~atinn on meter. (b) Pavement construction and overlays will be determined durina plan check. (c) Is so marked, sidewalk will be curviilncar per 5TD. #t 14. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu ofconstruclion fee shall be provided for Ibis item. ,/ Improvement Plans and Construction: a. Street improvement plans including sircut trees and street lights, prepared by a registered Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to and approved by tile City Engineer. b. Prior to any work being perfonncd in the public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction perutit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's office in addition to any other permits required. c, Pavement striping, marking, traffic, street name signing, and interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. d. Signal couduit with pull boxes shall be installed on any ncw construction or reconstruction ol'nlajor, secondary or collector streets for future signals. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR or any other locations appruved by tile City Engineer. Nolcs: (I) All pull boxes shall be No. 6 unless o~crwisc specified by the City Enginccr. (2) Conduit shall be 3-inch galvanized slccl with pullrope. e. Handicapped access rantps shall be installed on all comers of iutcrsections per City Standards or as directed by the City Engineer, f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction. A street closure perutit may be required. A cash deposit sitall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. g. Conccntrated drainage flows shall not cross sidcwalks. Under sidcwalk drains shall bc installed to City Standards, cxccpt for single fanlily lots. h. Street names shall be approvcd by the City Planner prior to submiltal for first plan check. 5. Street improvement plans per City Standards for all private streets sitall be provided for rcvicw and approval by the City Engineer, Prior to any work being performed on the private streets, fees sitall be paid and consu'uction permits shall be obtained from the City Engineers office in addition to any other permits required. 6. Street trees, a minimum of 15 - gallon size or larger sitall be installed per City Standards in accordance with the City's street tree program. 7. Intersection line of sight designs shall be revicwcd by thc City Engineer for conformance with adopted policy. On collector or larger street, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project intersections, including drivcways. 8. A Permit shall be obtained from CALTRANS for any work within the following right-of-way. 9. All public improvements on the rollowing streets shall be operationally complete prior to the issuance of building permits. Public Maintenance Areas I. A separate set of landscape and irrigation plans per Engineering Public Works Standards shall bc submined to the City Engineer for rcvicw and approval prior to final parcel map approval. The following landscaped parkways. medians, pascos, cascmcr~ts, trails, or other areas shall be annexed into the Lar~dscapc Maintenance District: 2. A signed consent and waiver foml to join and/or form tile appropriate Landscape and Lighdng Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval. Formalion costs shall be borne by tl~e developer. 3. All required public landscaping and irrigation systems shall be continuously maintained by the developer until accepted by the City. 4. Parkway landscaping on the following strcct(s) shall conform to the results ofth¢ rcspectivc Beautification Master Plan: Drainace and Flood Control I. The project (or portions thereof) is located within a Flood Ilazard Zone; dlcrcforc. flood protection measures shall be provided as certified by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer. 2. It shall be the dcvelopcr's responsibility to have the current FIRM Zone designation removed from the project area. The devcloper's engineer shall prepare all necessary reports, plans, and hydrologic/hydraulic calculations. A Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) shall bc obtained from FEMA, prior to occupancy or improvement acceptance. whichever occurs first. 3. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final parcel map approval. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. 4, Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. 5. A permit fi'om the San Bcmardino County Flood Control District is required for work within it's right-of- way. 6. Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe measured from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk. 7. Public storm drain casements shall be gradcd to convcy overflows in the cvcnt of blockage ill a sump condition. 4 ,/ v/ v/ [mprrP.'ement Completion 1. If the required public improvements are not completed prior to approval of the final parcel map, an improvement security accompanied by an agreement executed by the Developer and the City will be required for: CtZt, U S'Rze -'r , peo e &F?5 Az, oN(,,, kub 2. If the required public improvements are not completed prior to approval of the final parcSeelT~m~ improvement certificate shall be placed upon the Final Map, stating that they will be completed upon development for: t-,-la e"e'r- -'r'eeT5 ;DE p/~t'dcc'Z5 / A,,~ D Z-; ;UL~ ~ /zgrZ4 IIJIPL2OVm'JQuT~>i Ir, lCCvr')lh(.~ F"J~nIAI~I~F F,4CtL;T/Sr5) UP~Kd or~ e'/7'k/'e~ PAtce'L 5DE 4. Ijlilities I. Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system. waler, gas, electrical power, telephone and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with tile Utility Standards. Easements shall be provided as required. 2. Waler and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet requirements of the Cucamonga County' Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardtoo. 3. Approvals have not been secured from nil utilities and other interesled agencies involved. Approval of the final parcel map will be subject to any requiremeals that may be recclved from them. 4. TIle developer shall bc responsible for the rclocation of cxisting ulilitics as necessary. C, ener:fi Requirements and kpprnvalS I. The tentative map approval is valid for the 24 month period following the approval date. Time extensions may be granted by the Panning Commission, if requested prior to file expiration date. 2. Final grading plans for each parcel shall be as required by the Building and Safety Division prior to issuance of grading permits. 3. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (C C & R's) approved by the City Attorney is required prior to approval of the final parcel map. 4. An easement for a joint use driveway shall be provided prior to final parcel map approval for: 5. Prior to approval of the final parcel map a deposit shall be posted with the City covering tile estimated cost of apportioning tile assessments under Assessment District , among tile newly created parcels. 6. A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City. covering the estimated operating costs for all new street lights for the first 6 months of operation, prior to final parcel map approval. 5 7. Prior to ~nalization ofa~y development phase, sufficient improventent plans ~hall be completed beyond the phase boundaries to assure secondan' access and drainage protection to the satisfaction of the Cit~ Engineer Phase boundaries shall correspond to lot lines shown on the approved tentative map. 8. Etiwanda/San Sevaine Area Regional Mainline, Secondary Regional, and Master Plan Drainage Fees shall be paid prior to final parcel map approval. 9. Permits shall be obtained from the following agencies for work within their right-of-way. IO. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or ,form the Law Enforcement Community Facilities District shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final parcel map approval. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. I I. Prior to recordarion of the final parcel map, the applicant shall consent to, or participate in, the establishment ofa Mello-.Roos Community Facilities District for the construction and maintenance of necessary school facilities. However, if any school district has previously established such a Community Facilities District, the applicant shall, in the alternative, consent to the annexation of the project site into the territory of such existing dis~ct prior to the recordation of the final parcel map. Fur~er, if the affected school district has not formed a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District within twelve months from the date of approval of the project and prior to the recordation of the final parcel map for said project, this condition shall be deemed null and void. This condition shall ~ waived if the City receives notice that the applicant and all affected school districts have entered into an agreement to privately accommodate any and all school impacts as a result of this project. 12. MclIo Roos Community Facilities District requirements for the Rancho Cucarnonga Fire Protection District shall apply to this project. 13. Pursuant to provisions of California Resources Code Section 21089(b). this application shall not be operative, vested or final, nor will building permiu be issued or a map recorded. until (I) the Notice of Determination (NOD) regarding the associated environmental action in filed and posted with Clerk of the Board of Supervisor~ of the County of San Bemardino; and (2) any and all required handling charges, are paid to the County Clerk ofthe County of San Bernardino. The applicant shall provide the Engineering Deparunent with a stamped and copy of the NOD together with a receipt showing that all fees have been paid. In the event this application is determined exempt from such filing fees pursuant to the provision of the California Code. or the guidelines promulgated thereunder. except for payment of any required handling charge for filing a Certificate of Fee Exemption. this condition shall be deemed null and void. Rev. 8/l/95 6 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: May 12, 1999 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Salvador M. Salazar. AICP. Associate Planner ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 99-02 - CURRY BRANDAW ARCHITECTS - An application to change the General Plan land use designation from Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 5.1 acres of land. located on the southeast corner of Hermosa Avenue and 19th Street - APN: 1076-111-09. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 99-02 - CURRY BRANDAW ARCHITECTS - An application to change the Development District zoning designation from Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 5.1 acres of land, located on the southeast corner of Hermosa Avenue and 19th Street - APN: 1076-111-09. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the above-mentioned project be continued to the June 9, 1999, Planning Commission meeting, inasmuch as additional time is needed to analyze the proposed land use and Development District Amendment. Respectfully submitted, City Planner BB:SS:mlg CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ' STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: May 12, 1999 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Salvador M. Salazar, AICP. Associate Planner ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 99-02 - CURRY BRANDAW ARCHITECTS - An application to change the General Plan land use designation from Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 5.1 acres of land, located on the southeast corner of Hermosa Avenue and 19th Street - APN: 1076-111-09. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 99-02 - CURRY BRANDAW ARCHITECTS - An application to change the Development District zoning designation from Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 5.1 acres of land, located on the southeast corner of Hermosa Avenue and 19th Street - APN: 1076-111-09. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the above-mentioned project be continued to the May 26, 1999, Planning Commission meeting, inasmuch as additional time is needed to analyze the proposed land use and Development District Amendment. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:SS:mlg ITEMS F & G Y CITY OF RANClIO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: May 12, 1999 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Nancy Fong, AICP, Senior Planner APPEAL OF A SIGN REQUEST WITHIN UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM NO. 134 - FUNCOLAND - An appeal of the City Planner's decision regarding a wall sign for Funcoland, a retail store within the Terra Vista Town Center in the Community Commercial District of the Terra Vista Community Plan, located at 10730 Foothill Boulevard, Suite #140 - APN: 1077-421-75. BACKGROUND: The appellant, Funcoland, submitted a first sign application on January 11, 1999, with the approval of the landlord. All approved sign programs in the City have a provision requiring that the landlord review a tenant's sign for compliance before the plan is submitted to the City for a permit. Staff reviewed Funcoland's sign application with the newly approved Uniform Sign Program and denied itbasedonthenoncompliancewiththesigncriteria. The appellant appealed the City Planner's action. The Commission reviewed the appeal at their March 10, 1999, meeting. and determined that the proposed multi-colored sign face did not meet the criteria contained in the approved Uniform Sign Program. The Commission upheld the City Planner's decision and denied the appeal. Because Funcoland missed the filing deadline to appeal the Commission's decision, they resubmitted the same application on March 29. 1999, with the approval of the landlord. In the Development Code there is a provision that would restrict the same or substantially the same application from being resubmitted within 12 months of the City's last action to deny the project. The Sign Ordinance does not have this provision. Therefore. the applicant's request was accepted as complete and processed accordingly. Again, the application was denied by the City Planner for noncompliance with the Uniform Sign Program. The appeal to the Commission was filed in a timely manner. ANALYSIS: General: Funcoland is a retailer of games within the Terra Vista Town Center shopping complex. The store is located west of the Ross department store as shown in Exhibit "E.' Funcoland has a leased space of 1,669 square feet and began operating the business in the fall of 1998. Their wail sign is in-place, which was installed without approval of a Sign Permit or the necessary building and electrical permits. The New Uniform Siqn Proqram for Terra Vista Town Center: Lewis Operating Corporation, property owner, updated the sign programs for Terra Vista Town Center and Town Center Square in response to market pressures and tenants' needs. Between June and September 1998, the Commission conducted three workshops to review the proposed changes, which involved relaxing of the sign criteria such as increasing the sign letter size, sign area, the choice of colors (six), and allowing national Iogos, etc. In their workshops. the Commission specifically discussed the issue of multi-colors signs with Lewis and stated the use of such signs would detract from the architecture and would not add value to the appearance of the storefronts. ITEN H PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT USP NO. 134- FUNCOLAND May12,1999 Page 2 Lewis worked with the Commission in revising the criteria to meet their concerns. On January 13, 1999, the Commission approved the Uniform Sign Program for the two centers, which included an increase in letter size, length, and sign area for tenants and increased the choice of colors from three to five. Current Siqn Criteria for Funcoland: Funcoland is permitted to have one wall sign per building elevation. with a maximum letter height of 18 inches, maximum length at 75 percent of the leased store width, and only one color for the sign face. The current Funcoland wall sign is in compliance with all provisions of the Uniform Sign Program with the exception of the multicolored letters. The Uniform Sign Program states that only one color is allowed for the sign face. Also, the City allows the use of graphic Iogos or trademarks to be placed adjacent to the sign copy (letters) if they are within the allowable sign area and letter height. Exhibit "G" is an example of a tenant sign with the combination of logo/trademark and copy. This option is available but is not used by Funcoland. Reaistered Trademark: The appellant contends that the multicolored sign is a trademarked logo as shown in Exhibit "H," and is necessary for public recognition. The City Attorney has reviewed the appeal and advised that the City cannot require the alteration of a registered trademark. However, the City Attorney stated that based on recent court cases, "A State, political subdivision or agency remains free to regulate where, and whether signs may be placed and how large they may be." Therefore, the City retains the power to prohibit the use of a registered trademark or require it to be reduced in size. Conclusion: Based on the above analysis, staff believes approval of the multicolored Funcoland wall sign is inconsistent with the Uniform Sign Program and will set a precedent for the City and lead to other similar requests. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission uphold the City Planner's decision and deny the appeal through adoption of the attached Resolution. City Planner BB:NF:DG:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" Exhibit "B" Exhibit "C" Exhibit "D" Exhibit "E' Exhibit "F" Exhibit "G" Exhibit "H' Exhibit "1" Resolution - Appellant's Appeal Letter dated April 8, 1999 - City Planner's Denial letter dated April 1, 1999 - Proposed Wall Sign Elevation - Photo of Funcoland Wall Sign - Site Plan - Excerpt from Uniform Sign Program - Example of Tenant's Sign with Logo/Trademark and Letters - Funcoland's Registered Trademark - Planning Commission Minutes dated March 10, 1999 of Denial Manha Molina Permit Department April 8, 1999 Outdoor Advertising & Lighting, Inc. Customer Service Planning Department City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive R. Cucamonga, CA 91729 Re: Letter of Appeal - FuncoLand Signage Dear Planners, We are appealing the Planning Commission to reverse the decision of the planning department regarding allowable signage for FuncoLand. The name, font and specifically colors are a nationally recognized and registered trademark of the company. The multi- colored name is necessary for proper public recognition. By asking that the colors by limited to one color is an infi'ingemcnt of the trademark code. We ask that the colors of FuncoLand be allowed as the colors in Payless ShoeSource, Electric Avenue, and the logo in Java City arc allowed. Lewis Homes agrees that the colors are trademarked, and should be allowed to enhance the center. Thank you, Marlha Molina 9461 Grindlay St., Suite 220 · Cypress, CA 90630 · (714) 995-1252 · FAX (7 14) 995-8222 T H E C I T Y 0 F ANCHQ CUCANONG April 1. 1999 A Ms. Madha Molina Outdoor Advertising and Lighting 9461 Grindlay Street, Suite 220 Cypress, CA 90630 SUBJECT: PROPOSED WALL SIGN FOR FUNCOLAND Dear Ms. Molina: As a result of comparing your sign application dated March 29, 1999, with the Uniform Sign Program as approved by the Planning Commission on Janua~ 13, 1999, staff has made the following findings and determination: The sign criteria that applies to Funcoland are: one wall sign per building elevation. maximum letter height of 18 inches for upper and lower cases, maximum sign length is 75 percent of the leased store width, and only one color is allowed for the sign face. The approved colors to choose from are: red, blue, white, green and yellow. The sign dimensions of 10 feet, 6 inches in length with 18-inch high Fetters is acceptable and within the limits of the approved criteria. 3. The multicolor sign face of your sign does not comply with the approved sign criteria. 4. The exisling Funcoland sign was installed without a Sign Permit and Building and Electrical Permits. Based upon the above findings, your sign application is denied. The sign shall be removed within 10 calendar days from the date of this letter. This decision shall be final following a ten-day appeal period beginning with the date of this letter. Appeals must be filed in writing with the Planning Commission Secretary. state the reasons for the appeal. and be accompanied by a $62 appeal fee. A solution to the non-conformity of your sign request would be to select one of the approved colors and replace the sign face of the individual letters with the color you selected. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me or Nancy Fan9 at (909) 477-2750. Sincerely, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT City Planner BB:DG:mlg cc: Richard Reinhardt, Lewis Companies Richard Alcorn, Code Enforcement Supervisor Jack Lain. AICe Cir,t Man.agc-r "="' S.: :.;-_r:~er ..~rrve ':'_. C.A ;; :'2'; (;,:';) 477-2:'St3 * ;AX r;rc~. - ° - I SIDE VIEW A B C D 18" 12 3/4" 10'-6" 3 3/4" 20" 14 1/4"11'-8" 4 1/2" 24" 17" 14'-0" 5" 30" 21 3/8"17'-6" 6 1/4" 36" 25 1/2"21'-0" 7 1/2" tEATED E~CLUSWELY FOR FUNCOLAND ,DRSS cn'Y DALLAS. TX. ~ LOCAnON VARIOUS cn'Y sr_w~c~ US 14129 DATE 10-29-97 ~ MD SCALE ;COLI~IT RB~rm~ITATIVE STEVEN BERRYMAN F. mS A~P~O~ DATE · .DmRDS ~ LEWIS HOMES COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION REVIEWED AND APPROVED SIGN ELEVATION 7t3 889 1000 940 380 9153 NOTES: IqD[V1DUALLY LIT CHANNEL LETTERS ON BLDG. WALL - FACES: 12 & T. # 2037 YELLOW, 'O" # 2283 RED, 'U" & '/~' # 2119 ORANGE, ALL VV1TH 6500 WHTE NEON - 'Ns" VIVD GREEN VI'JYL OVER WFITE ACRYLIG GREEN NEON - 'C" & 'D" # 2051 BLUE, BLUE NEON - D50 ALUM. BACK - .040 DK. BRONZE ALUM RETURN - GOLD TRIM - 120 VOLT SERVICE 30 MA. TRANSFORMER F:~qOME~KARENSXPHOTOS\LA\0325E.JPG (local) - Microsoft Interact Explorer Page 1 of I/29/99 1:46:24 PM Funcoland Store Location TERRA VISTA TR~..N r'cklTco 'L A trademark/logo may be combined with individual letters if said trademark/logo is a "registered" or regionally recognized trademark with at least six (6) open stores and is within the allowable area and size requirements. A sign shall consist of internally illuminated individual letters. Internally illuminated individual letters shall consist of one (1) channel letters/logo, two (2) neon illumination, three (3) plastic face, and four (4) trim cap. Channel letters/logo shall be made of 22 gauge steel metal, 5" deep, sides painted medium bronze. Channel letters shall be fastened to and be centered on the sign fascia. Letters shall be internally illuminated via neon lighting. Transformer shall be housed in a raceway located behind the sign fascia and exposed raceways re prohibited. Individual letter styles of Tenants shall be allowed. All non Restaurant/Theater Shop Tenants Tenants shall choose one of the following Plexigias colors: Red #2793, Blue #2214, White #7328, Green #2108 and Yellow #2037 by Rohm and Haas Co. or approved equal. Plastic faces shall be trimmed with a 3/4 trim cap medium bronze to match letter returns. Sign copy shall contain legally registered name only. No other services or product advertising will be allowed. In addition to the signs described above, each Tenant shall be permitted to place white vinyl letter (Helvetica Medium letter style) to provide store name and hours information as spedfled on attached detail sheet. The total area for this sign shall not exceed 280 square inches. Each restaurant may also display one (1) menu provided it is contained within the display area show,, on page 23. Promotional or special event signs, banners and flags shall be in conformance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Sign Ordinance and must be approved by Landlord prior to submission to the City. AI I, TENANTS UNDER 4,tc)~r') sq. fL Planning Commission Approval ln-I.ine Shop TennnLq shall be allowed one (1)C~flRS~ as shown on page 20-22, with a maximum of two (2) wall signs allowed ff the tenant is on the corner. At the Landlords discFfili~lo.tenant shall be allowed signage on one (1) of the existing monument si!tmpt~m,C~cnthittdildd,h~r~ Planning space is available. Commission with conditions and/or as noted on plans. Resolution No. Date ~ I JX~lq'~ Sheet __ OUTDO01~ 5EATING A~EA h [] 0 0 [] JAVA ~ClTY. !"" "' 1 I1[ Ill IIIIII Illill[ III I[11111 Illill "ff-r- 4 / ' '1' 1"['I'1'1 I'1']'1'1'1'1 . II1 7" |1 1 ill I11 hll III IIII IIIII1111111111 II[llllllI Int. CI.: 35 Pr. io~ U.S. Cls.: 100, 101 mid 102 ""' .. United States Patent and Trademark Office SERVICE MARK PRINCIPAL REGISTER Rcg. No. 2,085,805 Relllmtcrcd Aug. 5. 1997 Fu'hcpLa FUNCO. INC. {MINNESOTA CORPORATION) 10120 WE.ST 76TH STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MN FOR: RETAIL STORE SERVICE~ IN THE FIELD OF COMPUTER PROGRAM ~VIOEO GAME CARTRIDGES. IN CLASS 33 {U.S. CL& 100, 101 AND 102). FIRST USE 10-19-1990. IN COMMERCE IO-19-1990. OWNER OF U.S. REG. NOS. 1.708,866. 1.896.391 AND OT}IERS. TIlE/,,{ARK IS LINED FOR TIlE COLOP, S YELLOW. ORANGE, GREEN. BLUE AND RED. SER. NO. 75-14~,798. FILED CATIIERINE KAISER KR. EIIS. F_,XAMINING A'I'FORNEy ,/ LEWIS HOME9 COMI~ERCIAL CONSTRUCTION ~ AND k~U~'PROVI~D :. Ix~ ~ ') c/'.. :, · m TOTAL P.03 indicated that if the matter were extended to April 28, as requested by the applicant, it would extend the time that the sign would be left up with code enforcement action being ~7 abeyance. Commissioner Mannedno asked if the Commission could continue the matter for a shorter period i e est the matter at all and could ce~ainly continue it to an earlier date. ~n continue Commissioner Mannedno sugg ed that the item be continued tg~e next meeting. Chairman McNiel asked why the applicant wanted a continuance. Mr. Buller replied that the applicant indicated they ~a(~d time ~o prepare an appeal. .~(.- Commissioner Mannedno suggested the matter be continued to March 23 and ask tha~ the applicant have someone present at th~t,~e'eting to explain any need for a fu~her continuance. Motion: Moved by Mannednq~(~onded by Macias, to continue Appeal of Sign Permit No. 98-30 to March 23, 1999. Motion C~'ffied by the following vote: NOES: ~ ONE - carried APPEAL OF A SIGN REQUEST WITHIN UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM NO. 85 - FUNCOLAND - An appeal of the City Planners decision regarding a wall sign for Funcoland. a retail store within the Terra Vista Tcwne Center in the Community Commercial District of the Terra Vista Community Plan, located at 10730 Foothill Boulevard, Suite #140 APN: 1077- 421-75. Nancy Fong, Senior Planner. presented the staff report. Commissioner Mannedno asked if staff had seen the approved trademark registration. Ms. Fong replied that none had been submitted. Chairman McNiel invited public comment. David Bliss. OutdoorAdvertising & Lighting. 9461 Grindlay Street, #220, Cypress. provided a copy of the trademark registration indicating that the mark is lined for the colors of yellow. orange. green. blue. and red. He requested that they be able to use their registered trademark. He noted that the staff report suggested that the letters be all one color with a reduced logo box including the colors. He felt it would be redundant to have a sign reading Funcoland Funcoland. Chairman McNiel asked the type of business, Mr. Bliss responded that it is a retail store selling game software. He showed a copy of one of their advertisements which included their five colors. Planning Commission Minutes rx,i t r 'iZ " /{// March 10. 1999 Commissioner Stewart asked if the applicant had looked at staffs suggestion. Mr. Bliss replied that his company was hired to apply for the permit and do the sign installation. He stated that Funcoland wants to use their nationally recognized colors. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that the Sign Ordinance allows logos to be multicolors but it was not staffs intention to have Funcoland Funcoland on the same sign, He said staff was suggesting that the colors could be incorporated into a logo box. Mr. Bliss responded that would not be acceptable to Funcoland. He felt they would not be getting the identification they deserve. Chairman McNiel asked why separate colors are necessary since there are no other companies named Funcoland in the area. Commissioner Macias asked if the store is currently in operation. Ms. Fong replied affirmatively. Mr. Buller observed that the rules of the sign program were in place and known by both Lewis Homes and Funcoland. but the illegal sign was installed in spite of the rules. Jeremy Rodriguez, 10400 Arrow Route, K-9, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he is the store manager. He reported that the store has been in operation since September. He requested that they be allowed to keep the multi-colored sign and said many people know the store by its logo. Headng no further testimony. Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Chairman McNiel asked what position the City could take with respect to trademarks, the Sign Ordinance, and the sign program for Ihe center. Michael Estrada, Deputy City Attorney. stated he was not aware that the City's Sign Ordinance expressly authorizes trademarks. He said there is no requirement that trademarks be allowed on signs or as part of signs; however, if trademarks are permitted. the City cannot require a change to the trademark. Mr. Buller confirmed that there is no provision in the Sign Ordinance to authorize trademarks. Commissioner Mannerino thought the City Council had already dealt with the issue. Chairman McNiel stated the City had dealt with the issue a number of times and always with the same issues. He said the sign program had been in place for 8 to 10 years and a certain integrity has been maintained in the sign program. Mr. Buller observed that the matter had been reviewed during the last review of the sign program and Lewis had specifically requested approval for this sign and it was denied. Commissioner Mannerino commented that the applicant was told before the sign was ordered and in place. Mr. Bullet noted there had been several other requests from tenants for trademarks and they were denied. Planning Commission Minutes March 10.1999 Commissioner Macias observed that the sign is not in compliance with the Sign Ordinance and was installed in violation of the Ordinance. He commented that if the Commission allows the sign, it would set a precedent. Motion: Moved by Macias. seconded by Tolstoy. to deny the appeal and uphold the City Planner's decision denying the sign request within Uniform Sign Program No. 85. Commissioner Stewart observed that she had driven through the center and the store is small and has another neon sign in the window with the identical colors. She noted the store cannot be seen from Foothill Boulevard because it is set back behind another store. Commissioner Macias noted that the neon sign is also illegal. The motion to deny the appeal was carried by the t'ollowing vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO. MCNIEL, STEWART. TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried HC~t~TY REFERRAL CR99-01 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO SPHERE OF INFLbY=NCE GENERAL PLAN POLICIES AMENDMENT (Ref. County Application No. GPAJCVV'I',I~gN). To amend the County General Plan Text to revise goals and policies related to lani3t. use and growth management within the city sphere of influence. Larry Henderson. Princ~pa.! Planner. presented the staff report. He reviewed the proposed changes including the deletion_of the provision for SANBAG to act as the growth management forum and the deletion of th~ 'reference to the City's Hillside Development Ordinance. He indicated that City staff feels the cl~anges will lead to a higher concentration o~' development. Brad Bullet, City Planner. indicated that the proposed changes came to the City as a total surprise. He observed that staff called some other cities shortly after receiving the notice and the other cities had still not received copies. He reported that several other cities, including Highland and Yucaipa have ndicated they are presenting concem~a_nd will be asking the County to defer action and meet with the cities to discuss the matter. He stated that Rancho Cucamonga has always been concerned with what happens in its sphere of influence.gnd these changes seem to erode the City's influence. He questioned why the City should have a.s, phere of influence. Chain'nan McNiel asked if staff had talked with County staff'. ',., Mr. Buller responded that County staff acted very professional and indicate'd.they would consider whatever comments we submit. "', Chairman McNiel invited public comments. but there were none. "-,\. Commissioner Tolstoy believed the County has consistently disregarded the City's wishes with respect to development in the sphere of influence. He thought that if the County passes. the amendment as written. it would give it a license to do away with the sphere of influence. the City should protest the changes. Planning Commission Minutes March 10.1999 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE CITY PLANNER'S DECISION IN DENYING A SIGN APPLICATION FOR FUNCOLAND WITHIN TERRA VISTA TOWN CENTER, LOCATED AT 10730 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, SUITE 140, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1077-421-75. A. Recitals. 1. The appellant, Funcoland, has filed an application for the issuance of a sign permit as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Sign Permit request is referred to as "the application." 2. On April 1, 1999, the City Planner denied the application as inconsistent with the Uniform Sign Program for the Terra Vista Town Center. 3. The decision of the City Planner was timely appealed by Funcoland. 4. On the 12th day of May 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a meeting on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 5. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found. determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced meeting on May12, 1999, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds and concludes as follows: a, The application applies to proper~y located at 10730 Foothill Boulevard and within Terra Vista Town CenteG and b. The property owner, Lewis Operating Corporation, revised Uniform Sign Program No. 134 for Terra Vista Town Center, which was approved by the Planning Commission on January 13, 1999. The Uniform Sign Program established a hierarchy of sign criteria by size of tenants within the center; and c. On January 11, 1999, the appellant, Funcoland. submitted a sign application for their wall sign, which was installed without the City's sign approval or the necessary building permits and electrical permits. The installed sign consists of multi-colored individual letters~ and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. USP NO. 134 - FUNCOLAND May 12, 1999 Page 2 d. On January 14, 1999, City Planner denied the appellant's sign application because the multi-colored sign copy was inconsistent with the sign criteria of one color. The appellant timely appealed the City Planner's action. On March 10, 1999, the Planning Commission conducted a headng to review the appeal. The Commission denied the appeal and upheld the City Planner's decision. The appellant did not appeal the Commission's action; and e. On April 1, 1999, the appellant submitted a new, but essentially the same, sign application for their wall sign. Based on inconsistency with the approved Uniform Sign Program No. 134, the City Planner denied the sign application on April 8, 1999. The City Planner's action was timely appealed. 3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above, this Commission hereby denies the appeal and upholds the City Planner's decision. 4. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF MAY 1999. 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 Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 12th day of May 1999, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ' STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: May 12, 1999 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Larry Henderson, AICP, Principal Planner Alan Warren, AICP, Associate Planner GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AMENDMENT POLICY DISCUSSION: At the meeting on April 14, 1999, the Planning Commission discussed various policies (Exhibit "B") to limit General Plan land use amendments during the process of the General Plan Update program. The discussion focused on the three staff recommended scenarios as follows: Establish a site-specific moratorium on General Plan Amendments (GPAs) during the entire update process as established by State law. Establish a city-wide moratorium on all GPAs until a draft General Plan Update is endorsed by the City. Following that, allow those GPAs which are consistent with the Draft General Plan to proceed through the amendment process. GPA requests that are not consistent would be denied without prejudice to reapply after the General Plan is formally adopted. The consultant expects to have a draft General Plan ready for City consideration by mid-September 1999. , In addition to Nos. I and 2. a deadline for land use amendments requested for consideration within the General Plan Update process should be established. Such a policy may allow for some land use questions to be included and analyzed in the draft General Plan alternatives. Staff recommended a deadline of May 12, 1999, for such proposals and requiring the payment of the established GPA fee plus a consultant time and material fee to cover added General Plan Update costs due to expanded analysis by the consultant. The resultant analysis would be used in formulating alternative land use plans. The Planning Commissioners' discussion focused on use issues as they would be applied to the General Plan Update. Rather than any staff-recommended site specific moratorium, the Commission felt that limiting the amount of commercial land use changes (plus or minus acreage) was one of the key concerns during the update process. After discussions between Planning staff and the City Attorneys office, the City Attorney advised against limiting land use amendments to only specific land use categories. In light of further discussions with the City Attorney, staff again suggests that the Planning Commission consider area-wide moratoriums based on land use issues in specific areas of the City. Since any land use change has the potential to affect neighboring areas regardless of their land use designation, the City may wish to delay formal consideration of any land use changes in areas where commercial development requests are anticipated. ITEM I Y PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA UPDATE/POLICIES May 12, 1999 Page 2 There are three designated areas where significant land use redesignation for commercial activities has been discussed: The area around the mall site between Base Line Road and Foothill Boulevard east of the I-I 5 Freeway and west of RochesterAvenuebecause of the enhancement of the I-15 Freeway on/off ramps and large amounts of vacant land. Generally, area on either side of the I-15 Freeway from Summit Avenue to Arrow Route, and the area on either side of the Foothill Freeway Corridor from Haven Avenue to the 1-15 Freeway - Staff believes that land adjacent to these very significant transportation corridors are potentially critical commercial windows to our community and have been subject to land use change discussions in the past. Staff has defined this area as: The area 600 feet west of the Haven/Highland Avenues intersection, east to the 1-15 Freeway, north of the freeway corridor in line with (and eastJwest extension of] Lemon Avenue, south of the freeway corridor in line with Highland Avenue, and The area 2,000 feet west of the I-15 Freeway between the northern City limit and Arrow Route and between Miller Avenue and Foothill Boulevard west of Etiwanda Avenue. The area on the south side of Foothill Boulevard to Arrow Route between the Deer Creek Channel and the 1-15 Freeway - This area, like the two freeway corridors, has been discussed in the recent past and continues to be subject to requests for major land use changes of commercial character. Again, because any land use change has the potential to significantly affect neighboring properties, staff recommends that any moratoriums apply to all land use change requests within the recommended moratorium areas. Finally, staff also suggests that a 10-acre maximum be established on all GPAs not covered by the selected area moratoriums. Hopefully this approach will limit the need to amend the General Plan Uodate/EIR contract to readlust the costly consultant data ~latherinq and analysis. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider endorsing the following changes to the current GPA policies: A designated area moratorium on all General Plan land use amendments, in conjunction with a 10-acre maximum site limitation moratorium in all other areas, as authorized by the State Government Code. The payment of the current GPA fee plus a consultant time and material fee to cover added General Plan Update costs due to expanded analysis by the consultant. 3. This policy is to be applied to all GPA applications not considered complete by May 12, 1999. Any General Plan land use amendment application will be evaluated with the draft General Plan Update (after it receives General Plan Update Task Force endorsement), for compliance with the draft plan's recommended land use policies. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA UPDATE/POLICIES May 12, 1999 Page 3 The Commission's recommendations will be forwarded to the General Plan Update Task Force and ultimately to the City Council. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:AW:Is Attachment: Exhibit "A" - Proposed Moratorium Areas Exhibit "B" - Planning Commission Staff Report dated April 14, 1999 VICINITY MAP Moratorium Areas AP-,~'^ "d_,-' f A.T.& S.F. fir Exhibit 'A' CITY OF RANCHO CUC IONGA -- STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: April 14, 1999 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Rick Gomez, Community Development Director Brad Buller, City Planner Larry Henderson, AICP, Principal Planner Alan Warren, AICP, Associate Planner GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AMENDMENT POLICY DISCUSSION: During the General Plan update process, consultants will be gathering information about the community and analyzing potential alternatives and their anticipated impacts. This work, at some point. must be able to develop a preferred alternative for the General Plan Update. Developer initiated General Plan Amendments (GPA) can significantly impact the review and approval process. If these amendments are considered dudrig the General Plan Update they would complicate and fragment the consultant's work products. Attached is a listing of those amendments which are in process and those that staff anticipates may be filed in the near future (Exhibit "A"). Staff recommends that the City consider establishing a policy regarding General Plan Land Use Amendment requests during the update process from the following options: Continue to allow GPA applications to proceed as normally scheduled during the City's established GPA cycles. Presently the City has established regularly scheduled cycles for GPA review and action as follows: The 2nd meeting of the Planning Commission in the month of January. The deadline for submittal shall be no later than 5:00 p.m., November 15, of the preceding year. The 2nd meeting of the Planning Commission in the month of May. The deadline for submittal shall be no later than 5:00 p.m., March 15, of the same year. The 2nd meeting of the Planning Commission in the month of September. The deadline for submittal shall be not later than 5:00 p.m., July 15, of the preceding year. One floating date which may be scheduled as necessary by the City Council or Planning Commission, PLANNING COMMISSIOIv GPA POLICY April 14, 1999 Page 2 'AFF REPORT Establish a city-wide moratorium on all GPAs during the entire update process as established by State law. Establish a site specific moratorium on GPAs during the entire update process as established by State law. 4. Establish a site specific and acreage limitation (10 acres) moratorium on GPAs during the entire update process as established by State law. Establish a city-wide moratorium on all GPAs until an interim General Plan update is endorsed by the City and then allow those GPAs which are consistent with the Draft General Plan to proceed through the amendment process. GPA requests that are not consistent would be denied without prejudice to reapply afterthe General Plan is formally adopted. The consultant expects to have a draft General Plan ready for City consideration by mid September 1999. In addition to Nos. 2 through 5, a deadline for land use amendments requested for consideration within the General Plan update process should be established. Such a policy may allow for some land use questions to be included and analyzed in the draft General Plan alternatives. Staff recommends a deadline of May 12, 1999, for such proposals and requiring the payment of the established GPA fee plus a consultant time and material fee to cover added General Plan update costs due to expanded analysis by the consultant. The resultant analysis would be used in formulating alternative land use plan(s). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission select from Options No. 2 through 6. Staff prefers Option No. 3, and secondly Option No. 6. Option No. 1 could easily complicate the process of updating the General Plan. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:AW/mlg Attachment:: Exhibit "A" - Pending and Proposed GPA Applications PENDING AND PROPOSED GPA APPLICATIONS (Refer to attached map for locations) Presently there are three GPA's in progress as follows: 1. GPA 99-01 (Medium to Low-Medium) at the northeast corner of Highland and Lemon Avenues has been recommended for approval by the Planning Commission and is scheduled for City Council consideration on April 21, 1999. 2. GPA 99-02 (Low to Low-Medium) for 5.1 acres at the southeast corner of 19th Street and Hermosa Avenue is to be considered by the Planning Commission on May 12, 1999. 3. GPA 98-02 (Medium, Medium-High and Regionally Related Commercial to Low-Medium) for 192 acres north of the Victoria Mall site is tentatively scheduled to be forwarded to the Planning Commission in mid-June 1999. These three projects will easily fit into the consultant's draft General Plan and their inclusion should not create any significant difficulties. Staff has had discussion with development representatives on potential GPA applications at the following locations: 4. Office to Commercial at the northwest intersection of Haven Avenue and the Route 30 freeway. 5. Low-Medium to Commercial at the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and the Route 30 freeway. 6. Medium to Low-Medium east of the future Day Creek Boulevard on the north side of Base Line Road. 7. Medium to Low-Medium at the southwest intersection of East Avenue and the I-15 Freeway and Low-Medium to Medium between Etiwanda and East Avenues, north of the commercial land on the north side of Foothill Boulevard. 8 Low-Medium to Commercial or Office for land adjacent to the 1-15 Freeway, north of the commercial land on the north side of Foothill Boulevard. 9. Industrial Park to Low-Medium for about 18 acres south of the intersection of 6th Street and Archibald Avenue adjacent to the existing Griffin residential development. 10. Industrial Park to Residential for land around the golf course at the northwest corner of 4th Street and Milliken Avenue. These projects may cause significant difficulties depending on when they are formally submitted. The next Planning Commission GPA cycle is for September 22, 1999 (filing deadline is July 15, 1999), which is after the anticipated completion of the draft General Plan. EXHIBIT "A'" Pending and Proposed GPA Applications