Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000/01/12 - Agenda PacketCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA WEDNESDAY JANUARY 12, 2000 7:00 PM Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center Council Chamber 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California ~. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call Chairman McNiel Vice Chairman Macias Com. Mannerino Com. Stewart Com. Tolstoy ~. ANNOUNCEMENTS ~. APPROVAL OF MINUTES December 28, 1999, Special Meeting IV. CONSENT CALENDAR The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non- controversial They will be acted on by the Commission at one time without discussion. If anyone has concern over any item, it should be removed for discussion. A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-31 - DAY SILVA ASSOCIATES - The development of two industrial buildings totaling 93,200 square feet on 5.23 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 5) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the northeast corner of Seventh and Center Streets -APN: 209-251-10. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. B. VACATION OF EXCESS RIGHT OF WAY AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF ARROW ROUTE AND HERMOSA AVENUE, V166 - APN: 209-041-52. C. VACATION OF A STORM DRAIN AND INGRESS AND EGRESS EASEMENT NORTH OF HIGHLAND AVENUE, WEST. O~- ETIWANDA AVENUE, V167 - APN: 225-411-01. D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-52 - RANCHO SAN MARINO PARTNERS - The development of a 104,400 square foot warehouse addition to an existing 202,200 square foot building on 4.16 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 13) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 9409 Buffalo Avenue - APN: 229-263-67. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-28 - CLIFFORD - The development of a 4,500 square. foot office building on 0.61 acre of land within the Brunswick\Deer' Creek Village Center in the General Commercial District, located on the west side of Haven Avenue, north of Town Center Drive - APN: 1077-401-32. Related Files: Minor Exception 99-17 Conditional Use Permit 85-37, and Tree Removal Permit 99-26. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. F. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-64 - MASTERCRAFT HOMES - A design review of the detailed site plan and building elevations for Tract 14381, consisting of 34 single family lots in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located west of Etiwanda Avenue and north of Wilson Avenue - APN: 225-071-68. v, PUBLIC HEARINGS The fo/lowing 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 G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15993 -WESTERN PACIFIC HOUSING -A residential subdivisiof, of 94 single family lots on 18 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District {4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Victoria Community Plan, located on the northwest corner of Base Line Road and Day Creek Boulevard - APN: 227-091-21 through 24. Related File: Development Review 99-45. Staff has prepared a Negative De(~laration of environmental impacts for consideration. {Continued from December 8, 1999) H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-45 - WESTERN PACIFIC HOUSING - The desig[] review of building elevations and detailed site plan for Tentative Tract map 15993, consisting of 94 single family lots on 18 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per Page 2 acre) of the Victoria Community Plan, located on the northwest corner of Base Line Road and Day Creek Boulevard APN: 227-091-21 through 24. Related File: Tentative Tract 15993. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. (Continued from December 8, 1999) I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-25 - LEWIS RETAIL CENTERS/LEWIS OPERATING CORPORATION - The development of a master plan and design guidelines for Terra Vista Commons; the approval of Pad E (a 10,088 square foot retail building) including site plan, architecture and landscaping; and the conceptual approval of Pad D as a 3,100 square foot drive-thru restaurant on 20.40 acres of land in the Mixed Use District of the Terra Vista Community Plan (MFC), located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard between Elm and Milliken Avenues - APN: 1077-421-98 and 227-771-53 (portion). J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 15424 - LEWIS RETAIL CENTERS/L~IS OPERATING CORPORATION - A request to create five parcels on 20.4 acres in association with a commercial/retail master plan for Terra Vista Commons in the Mixed Use District of the Terra Vista Community Plan (MFC), located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard between Elm and Milliken Avenues - APN 1077-421-98 and 227-771-53 (portion). Related file: Conditional Use Permit 99-25. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-30- NORTHTOWN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION -The development of a 5,672 square foot community center facility on a 0.5-acre parcel of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on the south side of Feron Boulevard, west of Hermosa Avenue - APN: 209-085-04. Related File: Variance 98-04. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. L. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-35 - POST PLAZA - The development of an office and warehouse building totaling 11,100 square feet on .7 acre of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 13) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the east side of Charles Smith Avenue, north of San Marino Way - APN: 229-283-63. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. M. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 14405 - LEE - A request for an extension of a previously approved tentative tract map including design review for the development of 20 single family lots on 4.39 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of San Bernardino Road, east of Vineyard Page 3 Avenue- APN: 208-091-08. Related File: Variance 91-11. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. N. TIME EXTENSION FOR VARIANCE 91-11 - LEE - A request for an extension of a previously approved variance to reduce the required rear lot depth from 90 to 65 feet for one lot within a proposed 20 lot subdivision in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of San Bernardino Road, east of Vineyard Avenue - APN: 208-091-08. Related File: Tentative Tract 14405. O. VARIANCE 99-07 - AMERICAN STORES PROPERTIES - A request to exceed the maximum height requirement for one wall sign for a proposed supermarket within the Community Commercial District {Subarea 2) of the Foothill .Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-102-03, 05, 08, 09, 15, 20, 21, and 49. P. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-52 - WILLIAMS ARCHITECTS - A request to re-use an existing vacant single family home for a chumh in the Low Residential District (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre), located at 9244 19th Street - APN: 201-341-04. Related file: Variance 99-10 and Tree Removal Permit 99-45. Staff has prepared a Negative. Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Q. VARIANCE 99-10 - WILLIAMS ARCHITECTS - A request to reduce the interior side yard setback from 10 feet to 0 feet for a church in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre). Located at 9244 19th Street - APN: 201-341-04. Related file: Conditional Use Permit 99-52. v~. NEW BUSINESS R. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-54 - CABOT - The development of three industrial buildings totaling 217,210 square feet on 13.73 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 11) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the south side of Sixth Street between Richmond Place and Buffalo Avenue - APN: 229-263-56 through 61. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. VII. PUBLIC COMMENTS This is the time and place for the general public to address the commission. Items to be discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda. Page 4 COMMISSION BUSINESS S. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS T. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PROGRESS - Oral report IX. PUBLIC COMMENTS This is the time and place for the general public to address the commission. Items to be discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda. X. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11:00 p.m. adjournnment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission. I, Gall Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary 'of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on January 6, 2000, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Ddve, Rancho Cucamonga. Page 5 VICINITY MAP i-J~ '1 , j ~i..~:.~:-~:.,~ ~'~'.'.'.__'.'.'.'.~.'.~.' '.~' '-=-~ ~,,~' ~,~,' ~,~,.....':':':::::::::: :-::: :.:.:.:.:.....::.: : :.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:: :.:.:.:.::: .'~.......~ ~" ~:-;-.. ,~ I ,~ ~ I::: :::::::::~:~:~:~:~:~:~::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~ I: ::': I .. .................. ~ ~ .................. · I.....~ I L r....... .............. ~ ,~/ I.. ............. -.......I ......., ~1 I . , . ~ ~,~ ~ ' I ~ , / ,, CITY HALL CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 9400 Cherry Ave., Bldg. A · Fontana. CA 92335 Inland Empire Box 9,.RanchoOuea,,enga, OAg,,29 TEL (909) 357-0241 · FAX (909~ 357-3884 Richard W. Atwater ¢~ ~.' r~ , Chief Executive Officer General Manager January 1 l, 2000 .I.6.;,' I 3 2000 Cit,, * -~a~'}cao Cucamong Mr. Larry McNiel, Chairman of the Planning Commission ,Msion Plaiming Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California Subject: Response to Planning Commission Agenda for January 12, 2000 Dear Chairman McNiel: Thank you for the opportunity to review the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission Agenda for the meeting scheduled for Wednesday, January 12th. Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) is involved in constructing and implementing a Regional Recycled Water Distribution System in cooperation with the Cucamonga County Water District. Cucamonga County Water District is presently finalizing its Recycled Water Master Plan. Many new developments in the Chino Basin are being planned without consideration being given to utilizing recycled water. We would encourage the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to incorporate the use of recycled water into its plalming efforts. IEUA's existing recycled water system includes a large trunk line that is located very close to three of the projects listed in your January 12th agenda as shown on the vicinity map, namely, projects D, L, and R. The three projects encompass 18.6 acres of land that could use recycled water for landscape irrigation and possibly for some non-potable us~s inside. The projects could possibly use up to 20 acre-feet of recycled water per year. Additionally, projects G, H, and I encompass 77 acres. These projects could possibly use up to 77 acre-feet of recycled water per year, making a combined total of 97 acre-feet of potable water saved each year. These latter three projects are not in the immediate vicinity of a recycled water distribution line. However, with Cucamonga County Water District finalizing their plans, the three additional projects may in the near future have recycled water made available to them. As such, all six of the projects as presented in the January 12th agenda are of special interest to IEUA. Given the growing demands for a limited supply of potable water within the region, IEUA strongly endorses the requirements of the Water Recycling Act of 1991, as amend- John L. Anderson Terry Catlin Anne W. Dunihue Wyatt L. Troxel Gene Koopman President Vice President Secretary/Treasurer Director Director Water Recycling Response January 11, 2000 Page 2 ed (California State Water Code, beginning with Section 13575). The California Legislature, in its recognition of the availability and value of recycled water supplies, describes a failure to use recycled water "...as a xvaste or unreasonable use...of potable water" (Water Code Section 13550). IEUA is continuing to develop new and innovative approaches for recycled water service. For more specific information concerning the availability and supply of this reliable and cost-effective resource, please contact Mr. Neil Clifton, the Manager of Engineering, Energy, and Water Resources or Dr. Garth Morgan, Water Resources Engineer, at (909) 357- 0241, extensions 420 and 460 respectively. Sincerely, Richard W. ~twater Chief Executive Officer General Manager Copy: Doug D. Dmry, IEUA Neil Clifton, IEUA Garth Morgan, IEUA Harlan Delzer, IEUA Robert DeLoach, CCWD Traci Stewart, Chino Basin Watermaster Planning Commissioners RWA:GRM:bk:mm G:\GROUP\WTRRES\GARTI-BWater Recycling Response letierlCty of RCPlnComm.doc 9400 Cherry Ave., Bldg. A, Fontana, CA 92335 · l~O. Box 697, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 9'1729 THE C I I Y OF r]l StaffRe rt DA-i'E: January 12, 2000 TO:. Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROI~ Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Salvador M. Salazar, AICP, Associate Planner Duane Morita, Contract Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-31 - DAY SILVA ASSOCIATES - The development of two industrial buildings totaliny 93,200 square feet on 5.23 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 5) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the northeast corner of Seventh and Center Streets -APN: 209-251-10. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION A. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoninq: North - Industrial Area Specific Plan (Subarea 5), improved with existing industrial structures South - Industrial Area Specific Plan (Subarea 5), improved with existing industrial structures East Industrial Area Specific Plan (Subarea 6), currently vacant : West Industrial Area Specific Plan (Subarea 5), currently vacant B. General Plan Desi.qnations: Project Site - General Industrial North General Industrial South - General Industrial East Industrial Park West - General Industrial C. Parkinq Calculations: Parking ratios for warehouse use is 1 space per 1,000 square feet for the first 20,000 square feet and I space per 2,000 square feet for the second 20,000 square feet. Parking ratio for office is 1 space per 250 square feet. ITEM A PLANNING ,COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 98-31 -'DAY-SILVA ASSOCIATES January 12, 2000 Page 2 , Number of Number of Type Square Spaces Spaces of Use Footaqe Required Provided Building A 20,900 30 spaces 30 spaces Building B 24,600 28 spaces 28 spaces B' "ding C 25,100 32 spaces 32 spaces ~ ¢iing D 22,600 31 spaces 31 spaces TOTAL 121 spaces 121 spaces ANALYSIS A. General: This item is for environmental review only. The City Planner has final approval authority after the negative declaration is granted. The two proposed industrial buildings are 45,500 and 47,700 square feet in size, respectively. Each building is divided into two individual buildings. The first industrial building includes a 20,900-square foot Building A and 24,600-square foot Building B. The other industrial building includes a 25,100-square foot Building C and a 22,600-square foot Building D. The proposed industrial uses are permitted in Subarea 5 (General Industrial District) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. B. Desiqn Parameters: The proposed industrial buildings will be designed as concrete tilt- up buildings with green reflective glass for windows. Building exteriors will be designed with two materials, including light sandblasted and smooth finish concrete. The main entra0ce to each building is accentuated by a combination of landscaping and smooth colored concrete (Exhibits "B" and "E"). Access is provided via two driveways along Seventh Street, including one emergency access driveway adjacent to the railroad tracks to the east. Additionally, two driveways along Center Street will also be provided. The northern driveway will be a shared with the existing industrial buildings immediately to the north of the project site. C. Landscapinq: Extensive landscaping will be provided within parking lot areas and around each of the proposed buildings. Landscape berms will be provided along Seventh and Center Streets to screen views of the parking areas from the public right-of- way. I~ D. Design Review Committee: On July 6, 1999, the Design Review Committee (Stewart, Mann~rino, and Fong) reviewed the project (Exhibit "F"). Staff raised specific design issues regarding architecture and building elevations. Staff noted that the elevations did not provide two primary exterior building materials. Also, staff raised issues relating to landscaping, design of the main entry and the shared driveway, and design of a proposed retaining wall on the east side of the property. The applicant met with staff to address the design issues. On October 5, 1999, the Design Review Committee (Stewart, Mannerino, and Fong) reviewed the project and recommended approval, subject to minor revisions (Exhibit "G"). PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 98-31 - DAY-SILVA ASSOCIATES Janua~ 12,2000 Page 3 E. Technical/Gradinq Review Committees: The Technical/Grading Committees reviewed the project and recommended approval with conditions. F. Environmental Assessment: The applicant completed Part I of the Initial Study and staff completed Part II. Staff found that there are no significant impacts resulting from the proposed project. If the Planning Commission concurs with these findings, then issuance of a Negative Declaration would be in order G. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission issue a Negative Declaration. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:SS:DM:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "B" - Site Plan Exhibit"C" - Grading Plan Exhibit"D" - Landscape Plan Exhibit "E" - Elevations Exhibit "F" -. Design Review Committee Meeting dated July 6, 1999 Exhibit "G" - Design Review Committee Meeting dated October 5, 1999 Exhibit "H" - Initial Study Parts I and II Poi'. Tract No..°.°0.~ Rancho Cucamonga Cily l~og'~.5 : M.B. 54/65 Tax Ro~e Area .................. 1505 I ~ · ~ ~,.~ ~ ~ , , , '~" ' ~ ~ ACACIA STRUT .... ' ~-- ~.~ s~r;-~--~ e~o .. nrcheJon _ - ENTRY fiLDG. "D" ~ · ~"~ ,~, ~~- BUSINESS · ~ ....... DESIGN REVIEW -- ~ '---~ ' SITE P~N ~ ~' IIIIIIII : ~-- .~ ~ - .......... ENTRY BLDG. "D" ~ "~: "' SEVENTH STREET (FORMERLY 20th ~RE~) SITE PlAN ~.,. ,~ ~ .... ~ ENTBY BLBG, "A ..... PLANT PALETTE ~ Ar~h~ion ~ '="-, ~-".-~-..._..--._, ............ ~ r~ i ~-'~" --'---- .... "''" BUSffiESS ~DSC~E SE~ION ~ ....... , ....... : it om~ Arc eion .... : ....... ~LD'G "C" · "D~ = - ' ~ ~ '" H"~:" - '[ ......... ~ ' "'~ ~i '~ '{ "~' 'i ........... ~ "' ~ ~?'"~----- Z__' ~_~ · ...... ...... , ~~ BUSINESS EAST ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~' PARK DESIGN REVIEW . H??..I~:: I'i.i~, :.1.~,'.1:~ ;-,l:.'e.~.{,.-'.L;'?'l'~'~ . ~}~l~--~ll~ll/::~;'~~:'b%;'~ ~ ELEVATIONS --- SOUT. ~ ~ ~,,~ IIIIIIII ~~lmr::~l:'.~-~;:~.~l :'.:ll.4::.':'~:: :.l.,,~t':.l). ,~ ~.~:,.m .-I ' ........ ~ ~ IIIIIIll ~ ~ ~ SOUTB ~l::~'.~-. ~d.' :-:~',,~: ;;;: 'h'.liiliF'~ ~ I ~ , a~ ~a ............ , EAST '~"~ ._ ~_ ~ ~ .~'~- ...... .:?;...-. ~ ~UI~ING iZ BUSINESS / /' ~ ~ ~ . I PARK ~ ~ t ,~*. ,I I-'4.'4 I.': -: - .'- :' ~ - - ~~: ~ '~"'"¢ I? .'".:: ;.:.'J'll VA~ I..-2s%xlt/l~ '..' r'l VJ¢.I'II";;".',:' '7':'~ '.:.~ ;I I:P{ I~ ~ ~ ~ WEST II I Ill IIIlllll DETAIL I DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 5:30 p.m. Sal Salazar July 6, 1999 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-31 - ARCHEION (CENTER BUSINESS PARK) - A request to construct two industrial buildings 45,600 square feet and 47,700 square feet in size, respectively. The site is approximate Y 5.23 acres in size and is located in the General Industrial District (Subarea 5) of the InduStrial Area Spe'cific Plan.. The property s ocated at the northeast comer of 7th and Center Street-~i- APN: 209-251-10, Desi~arameters: The site is currently vacant and is relatively fiat with a gentle north to south slope, The developer is proposing to construct two spec buildings for warehouse and incidental office use. Access to the site will be provided via two driveways along 7th Street (including one emergency access driveway adjacent to the railroad tracks), and two driveways along Center Street. The northern most driveway along Center street is a shared driveway. The two industrial buildings, as proposed, will be separated into two four separate building sections (Buildings A, B, C, and D). The main entrance to each building section is accentuated by a combination of landscaping, smooth, and colored concrete. The buildings are well designed, however, the design could still be improved by the incorporating staff's recommendations. At the time the 'report was being prepared, staff informed the developer of all the design issues. The developer indicated that a revised plan, addressing all of the discussed design issues, would be submitted before the Design Review Committee meeting. Staff Comments; The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Ma[or Issues: The following design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: 1. Architecture: Planning Commission policy requires too primary exterior materials. The amount of sandblasted concrete is token and doesn't meet the policy intent. The majority of offide portions of both buildings should be sandblasted concrete to create a stronger architectural statement. 2. Buildin Elevations. The developer shall enhance the building elevations by connecting the fake sandblasted concrete columns with a wrapped around sandblasted band on the upper portion of the buildings. : -condary IsSues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the - 3mmittee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. Landscapinq adiacent to the buildinqs. The developer shall provide a landscape planter along the north side of Buildings A and B. The landscape planter shall be of sufficient width to permit the planting of landscaping. Additionally, the developer shall be required to increase the width of the landscape planter on the south side of Buildings C and D. The landsCape planter shall be increase in width from 5.5 feet to 7.5 feet. 2. k, ain ~ntry. The developer shall be required to provide special landscape (specimen trees, 7,- -:ent trees, etc) treatment at the main entry points. Additionally, all landscape fingers at the main entry shall have a minimum width of 10 feet. 3. StamPed Concrete at main entry. The developer shall be required to install stamped concrete at the entrance of all driveways. This includes the shared driveway along Center Stree~ Additionally, the stamped concrete area shall have a minimum depth of 20 feet. DRC COMMENTS DR 99-31 - ARCHEION July 6, 1999 Page 2 4. Shared driveway. The developer shall be required to protect the building on the north side ~. of the shared driveway with a sidewalk or a landscape planter. The submitted plans do not : .show the building ori the north side. The developer, however, will provide revised plans before the Design Review Committee meeting, that should address this issue. 5. Prooosed retS. If a retaining wall is needed on the east side of buildings C and D it shall be decorative and shall compliment the architecture and style of the industrial buildings. The height of the retaining wall shall comply with the City's Development Standards. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be revised and return to Design Review Committee, pdor to scheduling for Planning Commission. Desiqn Review Committee Action: Members Present: Para Stewart, John Mannerino, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Sal Salazar The Committee recommended the developer to address all issues before rescheduling this item for Design Review Committee. Additionally, the Committee recommended developer to provide additional architecturally movement on all elevations especially at the fake column location. /Jl/ DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:00 p.m. Sal Salazar October 5, 1999 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-31 - ARCHEION (CENTER BUSINESS PARK) - A request to construct two industrial buildings 46,500 square feet and 47,700 square feet in size, ,espectively. The site is approx mate yi. 5.23 acres in size and is located in the General Industrial District (Subarea 5) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. The property is located at the northeast comer of 7th and Center Streets - APN: 209-251-10. Backqround: The project was originally reviewed by the Design Review Committee on July 6, 1999. The developer was directed to work and address all design issues before rescheduling for Design Review Committee. The developer met on one occasion with staff to address these design issues. Attached is the July 6, 1999 Design Review Committee comments. The developer has addressed the design issues Isatisfactorily. Staff Comm6nts: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: iThe following design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: 1. Building. The proposed architectural feature provides some movement on the building elevations, however, is this design feature enough to address the Committee's design concern? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be revised and return to Design Review Committee, as a consent item, pdor to scheduling for Planning Commission. Attachment Desiqn Review Committee Action: Members PreSent: John Mannerino, Pam Stewart, Nancy Fong Staff Planner.. Sal Salazar The Committee recommended approval of the architectural feature. The modification requires the developer to extend the height of the fake column to the top of the building. " ENVIRONMENTAL · ' '. - · ':'.; INFORMATION FoRM ~o,.o.~oc..~o.g. (Part I - Initial Study) Planning DA4~On (909) 4~-2750 Th~ Pu~p'0~:~'~hJ~':~6:~::i~';:f~[~{~~: {he Ci~'~6f'{~. b'~i~ gu de' nes';'th=e:cal'i:(&~i~'*E~i~e=~ Qu~ ~;A'~?~a*'th~"~::'k'~i~':~a">~ed~*~' prowded m ;::: ; . ...: IN¢OMPI, ETE APPLICATIONS WlLL 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 ava#able to per[cnn work required to provide missing informa.ti, on. Application Number for the project to which this fon'n pe/lains: Name & Address of developer or p'roject $'pbnscc .Telephone Numbec INITS_TDI.WpD - 4/96 Infonnation indicated bY asterisk (') is not required of non-constn]cfion CUP's unless otherwise requested by staff. '1) Provide a full scale (8-1/2 x 11) copy of the USGS Quadrant Sheet(s) which inclpdes the project site, and indicate the site boundaries, i, 2) Provide a set of c°lor photographs which show representative views into the site from the north, south, east and west; views into and from the site from the pdmary access points which sene the site; and representative views of significant features from the ~ite. Include a map showing location of each photograph.. 4) Assesso~'s Parce, Numbers (attach additional sheet if necessaq~): O;ZOcj-~51-~ 0' '5) Gross Slle Area (ac/sq. ft.):2 2 8 · 1 1 6 $ · f; '6) Net Site Arga (total site size remus area of public streets & preposed dedications): 1 9 6 t 5 8 0 s . f. ?) Descdbe any proposed general plan amendment or zone change which would affect the pre}ect site (attach additional sheet if necessary: I: not applicable. 8) Include a description of all pencils which will be necessaq~ from the City of Rancho Cucamonga and other governmental agencies in order lo fully implement the project: New parcel map, grading plan, building department p-=rmit, pl~nn{n~ r]pnRr~-m~n~- ~nDrnvRl . INITSTD1 .WPD - 4~96 Pag~ 2 Descdbe the physical setting of the site as it exists before the project including infomlation on topography, soil stabitity, plant~ and animals, mature trees, b-ails and roads, drainage courses, and scenic aspects. Descdbe 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 souroes of information (i.e., geological and/or hydrologic studies, biotic and archeological surveys, traffic studies): The site Dresently-'contains no existing, str.uctures and no ma~,~ er~m~- The ~ is Qresentlv all dirt with no visible animals on site. The site slopes up abou~ six..feet from. 10) Descdbe the known cultural and/or historical aspects of the site. Site all sources of infon'nation (books, published reports and oral history): Tb~r~ are no known cultural or historical aspects of the site. 11) Descdbe any noise souses and their levels that now a~ct the site (a~ra~, ~adway no~e, etc.) and how they wi~ a~ct p~posed uses: N~ n~(:~ :~,,r~ ~FF~e(n? ~h~ q(fP- Both Center st. a 7th St. are very light in traffic. ' ....... INITSTDI.WPD - 4/96 ' [. Page 3 12) Desc~be the proposed project in detail. This should provide an adequate description of the site in terms of ultimate use which' will result from the prosed project. Indicate if them are proposed phases for development, the extent of development to occur with each phase, land the anticipated completion of each increment. Aifach additional sheet(s) ff necessa~y: ~'~ p~p~ed ~roje~t will consist of two liqht distribution . buildinq~. The truck areas will be dock high for 'easy access.' from bui~dln~ to trucks w/ a fork lift. The Easterly buildin~ The' Completion of construction shall occur about six months 13) Desc~bethesuff°undingproperties, includinginf°ffnati°nOnplantsandanimalsandanycultuml'hist°dca/'°rscemcaspects'* Indicate the typ~ of land use (rosidenfial. commercial, etc.), intensity of land uae (one-family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc,) and scale of development (height, frontage, setback, rear yard, etc.]: The surroundinq oroperty consists of industrial type buildings with no ~nimals or plants, present other than normal landsca~in~ ~nd no historical or cultural aspects are known. Land use shall be,! for industrial/Distribution buildings with all the r~q,~ir~d ~etbacks 'and building height shall be about 30 ft. from finish floor~ 14) W1~~ the proposed pr~je~t change the pat~em~ sca~e ~r character ~f the surr~unding genera~ area ~~ the prcject? ?he p~Oposed project is consitent with the present surround£ng deve]opm~nt & w{ll not. chanqe the oattern, scale or character of the surrounding area. 1~ ~dicate ~e type ~ ~o~ and lon~e~ no~e ~ be ~nemte~ ~duding source and amoun£ How Mil ~ese no~e ~ve~ a~ adjacent pmpedies and on-~e uses. W~al me~o~ of $ound pmo~g am pmpoaed? NQ lon~ term or ~hort term noise is anticioated to be ~enerate~ by this p~ject. ' . .16) lndicatepmposedmmovalsan~ormplacementsofmatumorscen~t~es: ~o existin~ tgees on site. 1~ indicateanybo~e~ofwater~cluding~mesticwaters~pfie~towh~hthesited~s: No existinq bodies of water on site. 18) Indicate expected amount of water usage. (See Attachment A for usage estimates). For [urthe~ cladfication, please contact the Cucamonga County Water District at 987-2591. a. Residential (gal~day) - Peak use (gal~Day) b. Commercial, find. (gal~day/ac)' ' ,~ d~zl/lT, eu, ~__ Peak use (gaYmin/ac) 19) Indicate proposed method of sewage disposal. * Septic Tank *Sewer.' lf septic tanks are pmposed, attach percolalion lasts. If discharge to a sanilary sewage system is proposed indicate expected daily sewage generation: (See Attachment A for usage estimates). For fu~her cladfication, please contact the Cucamonga County Water Distdct at 987-2591. a. Residential (gal~day) b. Commercial/Tnd. (gal/day/ac) ~[~ ~ ~t~t.., , ,~ I~ "f2__ RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS: 20) Numb~r of residential units: Detached (indicate range of parcel si~es ~ninimum !or size and maximum lot size; ~./ ~ Attached (indicate whether units are rental or for sale units): 21) Anticipated range of sale pdces and/or rents: Sale Pdce(s) $ to $' Rent (per monthl $ Io $ 22) SpeciFynumberOfbedmomsbyunittype: 23) Indicateanticipatedhduseholdsizebyunitlype: 24) Indicate the expected number of school children who will be residing within t~e project:. Contact the appropriate School Districts as shown in Attachment B: ' ' a. Elementary: b. Junior High: c. Senior High COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL PROJECTS 25) Descdbetype~f~$e(s)andmaj~r~uncti~n($)~fc~mmercia~indus~da~rinstitu~ti~na~use~ 26) Total floor area ofcommemial, indu~t~al, orin~titutionalusesbytype: ~he ~te ,.,; 1 1 hn,,cm INITSTDI.~D - 4~6 : -- Pa~e 6 27) Indicate hou= of operation: Speculative buildings, unknown hours of operation at this stage. 28) Numberofemployees: Total'. unknown · Maximum Shift: ,~ n 'k n ow n Time of Maximum Shift: 29) Provide breakd~wn ~f anticipatedj~b c~assi~cafi~ns' inc~uding wage and sa~ary r~nges~ as we~ as an indicati~n ~f the rate of hire for each classification (attach additional sheet if necessao,): 30) Estimation of the number of workers to be hired that currently reside in the City: unknown. '31) For commercial and industrial uses only, indicate the source, type and amount of air pollution emissions. (Data should be vedfied through the South Coast Air Quality Management District, at (818) 572-6283): "' unknown. ALL PROJECTS 32) Have the water, sewer, fire, and flood control agencies se/ving the project been cootacied to degen'nine their ability to provide adequate se/vice to tha proposed project? If so, please indicate theirre=ponse. NO.' INITSTD1 ,WPD - 4/96 33) ~n the kn~wn hist~ ~f this pr~pen~y" has ~here been any use~ st~age~ ~r discharge ~f hazard~us and/~r t~xic materia~s? Examples o! hazardous and/or toxic materials include, bul are not limited to PCB"s; radioactive substances; pesticides and herbicides; fuels, oils, solvents, and olherflammable liquids and gases. Also note underground storage of any of the above. Please list lhe materials and describe their use, slo~age, and/or discharge on the properly, as weft as lhe dates d/use, if known. 34) W~ the prop~sed pr~jec~ inv~ve lhe temp~ra~/ ~r ~ng~tenn u~e~ st~age ~r discharrJe ~f hazard~us and/~r t~xic maledals, includ;ng but not limited lo 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 storege and shipment areas, shall be shown and labelgd on the application plans. At this time no strorage or dischanrge of hazardous materials will be stored on site. I hereby certify Ihat the statements fumished above and in the attached exhibits present Ihe data and information required for adequate evaluation of Ihis project to the beat of my ability, that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct tot he best of rny knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaluation can be made by the Ciiy of Rancho Cucamonga. INITSTD1.WPD - 4/96: City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: Development Review 98-31 2. Related Files: None 3. Description of Project: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-31 DAY SILVA ASSOCIATES- The developer proposes to construct two industrial buildings for warehouse and incidental office uses. The buildings are 45,500 and 47,700 square feet in size. Building I is divided into two separate Suites (A and B). The Suites are 20,900 and 24,600 square feet in size, respectively. Building 2 is divided into Suites C and D and are 25,100 and 22,600 square feet in size. The buildings are designed as two concrete tilt-up buildings, with green reflective glass for the windows. The building extedor will include medium sandblasted and smooth concrete. A combination of landscaping, and smooth and colored concrete accentuates the entrance to the each building. The site is approximately 5.23 acres in size and is located at the northeast corner of 7th and Center Streets - APN: 209-251-10. 4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Day-Silva Associates 9007 Center Avenue Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 5. General Plan Designation: General Industrial 6. Zoning: General Industrial, Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 5 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The site is neighbored by vacant parcels on the east and west sides. The parcels to the north and south are improved with industrial buildings. 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: Salvador M. Salazar, AICP Associate Planner (909) 477-2750 /%?/ Initial Study ifor City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review 98-31 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," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ( ) Land Use and Planning ( ) Transportation/Circulation ( ) Public Services ( ) Biological Resources ( ) Utilities and Service Systems ( ) Population and Housing ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources ( ) Aesthetics ( ) Geological Problems ( ) Hazards ( ) Cultural Resources ( ) Water ( ) Air Quality ii ( ) Noise ( ) Recreation ( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION On the basis ilof 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. Signed: :~CP il De-C'e'~ber 15, 1999 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Pursuant to S~ction 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an explanation is required fo~ all "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potenb[lly Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact" answers, including a discussion of ways to mitigate the significant effects identified. 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) ( ) ( (x) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( ) ( ) ( (x) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ( ) ( ) ( (x) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review 98-31 Page 3 d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a-d) The industrial uses proposed for the project are permitted in the zoning of the property. Therefore, implementation of the project will not result in any significant conflicts with surrounding land uses, The project will not conflict with any environmental plans or policies or disrupt the surrounding properties, No significant impacts will result. 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major · infrastructure)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a-c) The project is an industrial development. The proposed uses will not directly increase population or induce development. Instead, the project will better respond to demands for industrial facilities in the vicinity. Displacement of housing will not occur because the site is vacant. No significant impacts will result. 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposa/ result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for Development Review 98-31 Page 4 d} Seiche hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) e) Landslides or mudfiows? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) f) Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) h) Expansive soils? ( ) ( ) 0 (x) i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: f-g) The site contains the Tujunga-Delhi soil association. The General Plan states, "The Tujunga-Delhi soil association may have soil beadng 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 soil analysis will be required as a condition of approval prior to issuance of grading or building permits. 4. WA'I ER. Will the proposal resul! in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? (x) ( ) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) (x) c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? ( ) (x) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? ( ) (x) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ( ) (x) f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ( ) (x) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review 98-31 Page 5 g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (x) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (x) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water : supplies? (x) Comments: a-i) The project will not result in any significant impacts associated with changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or rates or amount of surface runoff. The project site is relatively fiat and will not affect overall drainage patterns. The developer is required to submit plans to the Engineering Division to ensure the project provides sufficient facilities and improvements so that the site will not be subject to drainage hazards. No significant impacts will result. 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) d) Create objectionable Odors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a-d) The project is not of a scale or land use that would significantly violate any air quality standard, alter regional climate, or create objectionable odors. No significant impacts will result. 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review 98-31 Page 6 S~gn~r, canl b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) c} . Inadequate emergency access or access to , nearby uses? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a-g) Access to the site will be provided via five driveways (including one for emergency access only). Two driveways will be provided along 7th Street; one for general access and one for emergency purposes only. The emergency driveway will be located on the easterly section of the property adjacent to the railroad tracks. Two additional driveways will be provided along Center Street. The project is not of a scale or land use that would create congestive conditions on nearby roadways. The applicant is required to comply with the City Engineering regulations and standards to ensure hazards associated with access and entry turning movements will not occur. Parking will be provided in accordance with city regulations. The project is not of a scale that would conflict with alternative transportation requirements. No significant impacts will result. 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? ( ) (') ( ) (x) b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees, eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review 98-31 Page 7 d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a-e) The Industrial Specific Plan area, including the project site, is intended for future industrial development similar to the proposed project. The site is not characterized by any sensitive or significant biological resources. No significant impact will result. 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES, Would the proposah a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ( ) ) ( (x) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? ( ) ) ( (x) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? ( ) ) ( (x) Comments: a-c) The project is not of a scale or land use that would conflict with any energy conservation plan or waste any non-renewable resource or use mineral resource of future regional value. No significant impacts will result. 9, HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) ^ risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? ( ( ) ( ) (x) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review 98-31 Page 8 ¢) i: lhe 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 flammable brush, grass, or trees? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a-e) The project is not of a scale or land use that would create potential health hazard. The project will not conflict with any emergency response or evacuation plan. No significant impacts will result. 10. NOISliE. Will the proposal result in: a) ,, Increases in existing noise levels? ( ( ) ( ) (x) b) ii Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ( ) ( ) . (x) Comments: a-b) ;; The project site is located in an area proposed for industrial uses. Other industrial ~. uses currently neighbor the project site. Accordingly, sensitive receptors are not ;i located nearby. The project will not generate excessive noise levels that will :: significantly disturb neighboring uses. 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect Upon or result in a need for new or altered government servlces in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? ( ) ( ) ( (x) b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( (x) c) Schools? ( ) ( ) ( (x) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) ( ) ( (x) e) Other governmental services? ( ) ( ) ( (x) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review 98-31 Page 9 Comments: a-e) The various public agencies are prepared to provide the necessary services to the project site. Schools will not be significantly impacted by the industrial project because the project will not directly increase student enrollment. t2, UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS, Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or substantial alterations to the fo/lowing utilities: a) Power or natural gas? ( ) (x) b) Communication systems? ( ) (x) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ( ) (x) d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) (x) e) Storm water drainage? ( ) (x) f) Solid waste disposal? ( ) (x) g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) (x) Comments: a-g) The project is not expected to have any adverse effects on utilities or service systems. The various utility and service agencies are prepared to provide the necessary services to the project site. The developer is required to comply with City Engineering requirements and standards to ensure that future development is afforded adequate utilities and services, 13, AESTHETICS, Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) Create light or glare? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study ;for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review 98-31 Page 10 Comments: a-c) The project has been reviewed by the City's Design Review Committee, which addressed all issues related to aesthetics. The project, as designed, will not create any significant impacts associated with aesthetics and visual issues. 14. cuLTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a-e) The Industrial Specific Plan area, including the project site, is intended for future industrial development, similar to the proposed project. The site is not characterized by any known sensitive or significant cultural resources. No significant impacts will result. t5. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) ' Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a-e) i!The project will not increase the demand for additional parks or adversely affect ii existing recreational facilities in the area. The project applicant will be responsible ?or payment of all necessary fees at the time of building permit issuance. The impact ',is not considered significant. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review 98-31 Page 11 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 important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Short term: Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time. Long- term impacts will endure well into the future.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) ) ( ) ( ) (x) d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) 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 eadier 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) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review 98-31 Page 12 (x)Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989) (x) Industrial Area Specific Plan EIR (Certified September 19, 1981) of Rancho Cucamonga City NEGATIVE DECLARATION The following Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with the Catifornla Environmental Quality Act Section 21091 end 21092 of the Public Resources Code. Project File No.: Development Review 98-31 Public Review Period CIoses: January12.2000 Project Name: Project Applicant: Day-Silva Associates Project Location (also see attached map): Located at the northeast corner of 7th and Center Streets - APN: 209-251-10. Project Description: The development of two industrial buildings tctaling 94,200 square feet on 5.23 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 5) 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 In,al Study identified potentially significant effects but: (1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this proposed Negate 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 am included in the attached Initial Study. The project file and all miated 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. Janua~' 12, 2000 Date of Determination Adopted By THE CITY OF RANCHO C UCAMONGA TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer BY: Maria E. Perez, Assistant Engineer DATE: January 12, 2000 SUBJECT: VACATION OF EXCESS RIGHT-OF-WAY AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF ARROW ROUTE AND HERMOSA AVENUE, V166 - APN 209-041-52 BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: On Apr~ 20, 1990 the City, through condemnation ~, a~uir~ the f3m~er s~te d the Santdad~ Market ThecordaTnalbnoccur~dasaresu~d~%eAm~wRouteV~ P~ Thede~of the r{ght, of-way tc~k a redar~ubr poCdon out of the comer (see exhbit B). Staff ber~wes ~'~at the right-of- RE~DATION: Respec y submit, DJ:MEP ~: F_xhbit"A"-V~ch~ Map Exhbit "B"-Va(:atbn F_xhbit ITEM B ARROW ROUTE AREA TO BE VACATED CITY OF ITEM: V-166 I~ANCH0 CUCAMON{~A TITLE: Vicinity Map ENGINEEI~IN$ DIVISION EXHIBIT:"A" Center Sec. 11 TI S, R7W f N 89°42'34'~/ 67.42_~_..~ _ ~34'~42' ~'~ NEC Lot 21 /i Arrow Route b ~' N 89042'34" W '~. Scale: 1"=20' o.. _ / ~ 33' ///////// ~ 24' --~ ~'I1' 68.00' N 89°S0'22" E LEGEND · ~ Indicates Area of Proposed Vacation RVE DATA A = 89'32'56" R = 24' L=37.51' T = 23.81' CITY OF iTEM: V-166 RANCHO CUCA1VIONGA TITLE: VACATION MAP ENGINEERING DIVISION EXHIBIT: "B" THE CITY RANCHO C UCAMON GA Staff Report TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer BY: Maria E. Perez, Assistant Engineer DATE: January 12, 2000 SUBJECT: VACATION OF A STORM DRAIN AND INGRESS AND EGRESS EASEMENT NORTH OF HIGHLAND AVENUE, WEST OF ETIWANDA AVENUE, V167 - APN 225-411-01 BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: Tract 1381Z recorded on Nova'r,ber 29, 1990, pfovUed for a t~mComry secmda~/~s ~ d ~ easement on lot 1, of Tract 13812. of lot 1 by a .__~'-amte document A~i~:m% the pdva~ ~raa easement w~ be com~d~d by se~ar~ RECOMMENDATION: Senbr Cb, Enabler DJ:MEP A~d~ner~s: F_xhbit "A"-V~ity Map Exhb~"B"-Vaca~n Map ITEM C HIGI:ILANDAVE-NUE CITY OF ITEM: V-167 RANCHO CUCAMONGA TITLE: Vicinity Map ENGINEERING DIVISION EXHIBIT: T=8.89' R= 1030.00' 27.54' · RODEO DRIVE _. __ , o.oo. ,o.oo./ 59' PUBLIC STORM T__50.02,_/ R,=90.O0 DRAIN/INGRESS AND R=1050.00o L--15.71' EGRESS EASEMENT L=60.05' )elto- 10'00'00" 1.5' PRIVATE LOCAL lelto-03'20'22' EOUESTRIAN EASEMENT --10' PRIVATE N88'57*34"W q N88'57'34"W 150.03' 15' PEIVATI:' LOCAL 100.O2' t00,02' EQUESTRIAN EASEMENT LOT "A" - FUTURE 30 FREEWAY ~~,~ /,%~-~...-.~,. SCALE l' = 60' CITY OF fret/:v-167 RANCHO CUCAMONGA TITLE:VACATION MAP ENGINEERING DIVISION EXHIBIT: "B" the cit,~ of I~ancho Cueamonsa Staff Report DATE: January 12, 2000 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Warren Morelion, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-52 - RANCHO SAN MARINO PARTNERS * The development of a 104,400 square foot warehouse addition to an existing 202,200 square foot building on 4.16 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 13) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 9409 Buffalo Avenue -APN: 229-263-67. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North Industrial buildings; General Industrial in Subarea 13 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan South - Vacant land; General Industrial in Subarea 13 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan East Vacant land and 1-15Freeway; General Industrial in Subarea 13 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan West Vacant land with proposed industrial development; General Industrial in Subarea 13 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan B. General Plan Designations: Project Site - General Industrial North General Industrial South - General Industrial East General Industrial West General Industrial C. Site Characteristics: The site is a vacant 4.16 acre parcel of land at the southwest corner of Charles Smith Avenue and San Marino Street. The site slopes southwesterly at approximately 1.5 to 2.0 percent. The site is visible from the 1-15 Freeway. ITEM D PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DR 99-52 January 12, 2000 Page 2 I D. Parking Calculations: Number of Number of Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces of Use Footage Ratio Required Provided Office 8,200 1/250 33 33 Warehousing 194,000 1/1,000 first 20,000 20 20 1/2,000 2nd 20,000 10 10 1/4,000 above 40,000 39 39 Warehouse Addition 104,000 26 36 Total 306,600 t28 138 ANALYSIS: A. General: This review is for environmental clearance only. The City Planner has final approval authority once the Negative Declaration is granted. The applicant is proposing the development of a 104,400 square foot warehouse addition to an existing building (Bradshaw International) which was originally developed in 1996. The proposal includes combining two parcels of land into one 13.40 parcel. The site will be bordered by Buffalo Avenue to the west, Charles Smith Avenue to the east, and San Marino Street to the north (Exhibit "B"). The proposed architecture is to match the existing Bradshaw International building. B. Design Review Committee: The project design continues the architectural style of the existing warehouse with special attention to the east elevation which faces Chades Smith Avenue and is visible from the 1-15 freeway. The Design Review Committee (McNiel, Stewart, Fong) reviewed the project on November 30, 1999, and recommended approval of the project as contained in the Design Review Action Comments subject to conditions (Exhibit "H"). C. Technical Review Committee: The Technical Committee reviewed the project on December 1, 1999, and determined that the project is consistent with all applicable standards and policies. D. Environmental Assessment: Part I of the Initial Study was completed by the applicant and staff completed Part II. The site is in an area of potential Delhi Sands Flower Loving Fly (DSF) habitat. A habitat assessment was prepared (Impact Sciences, November 15, 1999) which determined that the site's exposure to non-native fill material and vegetation has created an environment that is negatively associated with potential DSF habitat. Also, the site's isolation does not provide a conspicuous connection between identified potential or known DSF habitats. No DSF were found on-site. The impact is not considered significant. If the Planning Commission concurs, then issuance of a Negative Declaration would be in order PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DR 99-52 Janua~ 12,2000 Page 3 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission issue a Negative Declaration for Development Review 99-52, Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:VVM/Is Attachments: Exhibit"A" - Site Utilization Map Exhibit "B" - Site Plan Exhibit "C" - Grading Plan Exhibit "D" - Floor Plan Exhibit "E" - Elevations Exhibit "F" - Site Sections Exhibit "G" - Landscape Plan Exhibit "H" - Design Review Committee action agenda dated November 30, 1999 Exhibit "1" - Initial Study Part I and Part II hill plncker! archltecte Inc. ',',."'.", ~ ~lte plan general ?:~'~'~'.~' "~ .__. . . ,, : ~~'~ ~ 104 K ADDITION FOR .- .................... --,-, ~.- - . -,~ :~. BRADSHAW INTERNATIONAL .... h~l~lncker~ ~rchltec~st Inc. Building Addition co~ru. ~ ,~.. ?~N~ ~--~ ~..__ ~ ~ ~~_ ~ ..... ~ ....... ·.,---...-.~--~. ..... 104 K ADDITION FOR ~ ~_~: ~ ............................. BRADSHA W INTERNATIONAL I ~1 I1~111 ~ I ti tH I I1~11t q I II H I1~11~t .......... '1 I1~',I', , ,,, ,,, ,,,, ,,,,, , ,,,,,, I.t .11~11~:t/ ~._ .'IJ--II~--'L~ -I- I I1~ ~11 ~11 I1~11~ I ~ I1~11i::t:~l~::l:::~l~l.:::)l~t]2~ , · ~ I--- II[ ii::::::'~ i:: :::i i~.-::::i 104 K ADDITION FOR ~ ~"~-~,~I~ BRADSHA W INTERNA. .. , TIONA~ Exterior Elevetlons hill plnckerl archltecls, Inc. 8AN MARINO DRIVE =-~--~-- ........ HPA __ ;=:=~_-~_.__ , :::.-_ [ - _ .l- Cr T T I Z ~ ~ ..... ',.....'r,.o =: =- _ -?___-==:-= ~ ,- ~_= ~.__= ,---===- =_--®-: '"' -"- L-3 DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:40 p.m, Warren Morelion November 30, 1999 ': ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-52 - RANCHO SAN MARINO PARTNERS - The development of a 104,400 square foot warehouse addition to an existing 202,200 square foot building on 4.16 acres of land in Subarea 13 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 9409 Buffalo Avenue - APN: 229-263-67. Desiqn Parameters: The Bradshaw International building was originally developed on 9.24 acres of land in 1996 (Development Review 96-21 ). In an effort to expand operations, the company has obtained a 4.16 acre parcel of vacant land to its east. The overall site has frontage on San Madno Street and Buffalo and Charles Smith Avenues. After development the total square footage of the building, including office space, will be 306,600 square feet. Truck loading is proposed on the south side of the building, away from street frontage, which will be screened from public view by extending existing wrought iron fence and heavy landscaping on south property line. 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: · ' 1. There are no major design issues. The applicant has work diligently with staff to resolve design issues. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. Provide pen'orated sheet metal on backside of wrought iron gates to screen loading area from public view. 2. Screen parking lot from street using undulating turf berms and shrub rows. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee approve the project subject to the modifications as recommended above. Deslqn Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Para Stewart, Nancy Fong Staff Planner. Warren Morelion The Committee reviewed the project and recommended approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Add an additional tower element to center of east elevation. 2. Pop-out tower element on southeast comer of building addition so that it matches the design of the tower element on the northeast corner. ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM (Part I - Initial Study) The purpose of this form is to inform the City of the basic components of the proposed project so that the City may review the project pursuant to City policies, ordinances, and guidelines; the California Environmental Quality Act; and the City's Rules and Procedures to Implement CEQA. It is important th. at the information requested in this application be provided in full. INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS VVI£L NOT BE PROCESSED. Please note that il is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that the appficafion is complete at the time of submittal; City staff will not be available to perform worf( required to provide missing infonwation. Application Number for the project to which this form perlains: Proiecl Title: ~0 5 ~ Name & Address of projecl owner(s): Name & Address of per~on preparfng this form (if different from above): Telephone Number:. ~ z~-~ . ~(.O ~ "{ '~ '7 0 Infotmalion indicaled by asledsk (°) is not requited of non..conslnJCtion CUP's unless otherwise tequested by staff. · I) Provide a full scale (8-1/2 x 1 1) copy of the USGS Quadrant Sheet(s) which includes the project site. and indicate the site bounda~fes. 2) Provide a set of color photographs which show representative views i.n(9 the site from ~he notlh, south, east and west; views into and fram the site ftem the pdmary access points which serve the site; and teptesontative views of significant features fnpm the site. Include a map showing location of each photograph. 3) ProjectLocalion(descdbe): ~ ~0~ ~(.t~L.O A~J~.~ 4) Assessor's Parcel Numbers (attach additional sheet if necessary): '5) Oross Site Aroa (ac/sq. ft.): '~ ~l., ~1~ ~fi'~ '6) Net Site Atea (total site size minus ama of publlc streets & proposed dedications): 71 Describe any pteposed genera/plan amendment or zone change which would affect tho project site (attach additional sheet if necessary: 8) Include a description of all penmits which will be necessary fearn tho City of Rancho Cucamonga end other governmental agencies in order Id fully implement the preject: 9) Descdbe 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. Descdbe 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): I O) Descdbe the known cultural and/or historical aspects of the site. Site all sources of information (books. published reports and oral history): 11) Oosctfba any noise sources and their levels that ngw affect lhe sito (aircrafl. readway noise, elc.) and how.tt~ey will effect proposed 12) Descdbe the proposed project in detail. This should provide an adequate description of the site in tecns of ultimate use which wfll result from the prosed project. Indicate if there are proposed phases for development, the extent of development to occur with each phase, and the anticipated c. ompletion of each increment. Attach additional sheet(s) if necessao': 13) Describe the surrounding properties, includ~hg infon~.ation on plants and animals and any cultural, historical, or scenic aspects. Indlcato tho type of land use (residential, commereial, etc.), intensity of land uso (one.family. apartment houseS, shops. department stores, etc.) and scale of development (height. frantago, setback, rear yard. etc.): 14) Will the preposod project change the pattern, scale or character of the surroundfl)g general area of the project? 15) Indicate the type of short-ten'n and long-term noise to be generated, including soun:e and amount. How will these noise levels affect adjacent properties and on-site uses. What methods of sound proofing are proposed? '16) Indicate proposed removals and/or replacements of mature or scenic trees: 17) Indicate any bodies of water (including domestic water supplies) into which the site drains: 18) Indicate expected amount o! water usage. (See Attachment A for usage estimates). For further clarification, please contact tho Cucamonga County Waler Distdct at 987-259 I. a. Residential (gal/day) Peak uso (gal/Day) b. Commeroial/Ind. (gal/day/ac) ~ c~. ~ ~, t~ Peak use (gal/mtn/ac) 19) Indicate proposed method of sewage disposal. Septic Tank_~c.- Sewer. If septic tanks are proposed, attach percolation tests. If discharge to a sanitaq/ sewage system is proposed incficate expected daily sewage generation: (See Attachment A for usage estimates). For fudher cladficalion, please contact the Cucamonga County Waler Di$ldct at 987.2591. a. Residential (gal/day) b. Commeroial/lnd. (gal/day/ac) RESI~NTIAL PROJECTS: 20) Nu~r~bo of residential units: minimum lot size and maximum lot size:  dicate range of paroel sizes. \ (indicate whet. her units are rental or for sale units): 23) Ind~nticipated household size by unit type: 24] Indicat~ho expected number of school children v/ho will be residing within tho project: Contact the appropriate School Distdcts b~ shown in Attachment B: a. Eleme~y: b. Junior Hi~: c, Senior High COMMERCIAL. INDUSTRIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL PROJECTS 25) Desct~b~ type ~f us~(s~ and maj~r functi~n(s) ~f c~mmercia~ indusld~ ~r instituti~n~ uses: 26) Total floor area of commercial, indu$1dal, or institutional uses by type: 27) Indicatehour~ofoperation; ~--~-~ 28) Number of employees: Total'. ~ ~ Maximum Shift: ~ Time of Maximum Shift: ~ 29) Provide breakdown of anticipated job classifications, including wage and salary ranges, as weft as an indication of Ihe rate of hira for each classification (attach additional sheet if necessaP/): 30) Estimation of the number of worke~ to be hired that currently reside in the Cily~ (~,~J '31) For commoreial and industrial uses only. indicate the souree, type and amount of air pollution emissions. (Data should be vohfiod through the South Coast Air Quafity Management District. at (818) 572.6283): ALL PROJECTS 32) Have the water~ sewer~ ~re~ and ~d c~ntro~ agencies serving the project been c~ntacted t~ determine their abi~ity l~ pravid~ adequate service to the proposed preject? If so, please indicate their response. 33) In the known histoq/ of this property, has there been any use, storage, or discharge of hazardous and/or toxic materials? Examples of haza~fou$ and/or toxic materials include, but are not limited to PCB's: radioactive substances; pesticides and herbicides: fuels, oils. solvents, and other flammable liquids and gases. Also note underground storage of any of the above. Please list the materials and desctfbe'their use. storage, and/or discharge on the property, as well as the dates of use, if known. 34) Will the proposed project involve the temporaq~ or long.tenn use. storage or discharge of hazardous and/or toxic materials, including but nol limited to those examples listed above? If yes. provide an inventoq, 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 Ihe application plans. I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and i~t tho attached exhibits present the data and infomnation required for adcqualo evalualion of Ihis project to tho best of my ability, that tho facts, statements, and in[on, alien presented are true and ,con~cl tot ho best of my knowledge and belief. I fudhor understand that additional infon~alion may bo required to bo submitted before an adequate e~aluation can bo made by the City of Rancho Cucam~a. ~ City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND ~ 1. Project File: Development Review 99-52 2. Related Files: Development Review 96-21 3. Description of Project: The development of a 104,400 square foot warehouse addition to an existing 202,200 square foot building on 4.16 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 13) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 9409 Buffalo Avenue - APN: 229-263-67. 4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Rancho San Marino Partners 10005 Mission Mill Road Whittier, CA 90608-0985 5. General Plan Designation: General Industrial, Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 13 6. Zoning: General Industrial, Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 13 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The site is a 4.16 acre parcel of land at the southwest corner of Rochester Avenue and San Marino Street. North of the site has been developed with industrial buildings. One large industrial building exists to the west to which the proposed project will construct an addition. The properties to the south and east are vacant. The site is visible from the 1-15 Freeway. 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: Warren Morelion Assistant Planner (909)477-2750 Initial Study for .' ¢ of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review 99-52 & 96-21 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. (x) Transportation/Circulation ( ) Public Services ( ) Land Use and Planning (x) Biological Resources ( ) Utilities and Service Systems ( ) Population and Housing ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources (x) Aesthetics (x) Geological Problems ( ) Hazards ( ) Cultural Resources (x) Water ( ) Noise ( ) Recreation ( ) Air Quality ( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance 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. Signed: ~ ~ Warren Morelion Assistant Planner December 15, 1999 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. '1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) ( ) (x) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( ) ( ) (x) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ( ) ( ) (x) d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community? ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for ~ ( of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review 99-52 & 96-21 Page 3 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposah a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ( ) ( ) (x) b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) ( ) (x) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) ( ) (x) d) Seiche hazards? ( ) ( ) (x) e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) ( ) (x) f) Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( ) (x) ( ) g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) ( ) (x) h) Expansive soils? ( ) (x) ( ) i) Unique geologic or physical features? · ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: b,c) The site is located in an area of high regional seismicity. There are no known active or potentially active faults trending toward or through the site. The proposed development lies outside of any Earthquake Fault Zone and the potential for damage due to direct fault rupture is considered very remote. A Geotechnical Engineering Investigation (Norcal, August 25, 1999) was prepared which concluded that conformance with latest Building Code standards will suffice. Initial Study for C of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review 99-52 & 96-21 Page 4 f) The topography will be altered to accommodate the project because the site is currently vacant. Grading of the site will be done under the inspection of the Soils Engineering Firm. The impact is not considered significant. h) The General Plan indicates the Tujunga-Delhi soil association for the site which "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 prepared that indicates that the soil can adequately support the weight of the 104,400 square foot warehouse addition. A Geotechnical Engineering Investigation (Norcal, August 25, 1999) was prepared which concluded that conformance with latest Building Code standards will suffice. 4. WATER. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? ( ) (x) ( ) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) (x) c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? (x) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (x) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (x) f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? (x) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (x) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) (x) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a) The project will cause changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, and amount of surface water runoff due to the warehouse addition on a vacant site. The flows will be conveyed to drainage facilities designed to handle the flow. The impact is not considered significant. Initial Study for ! of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review 99-52 & 96-21 Page 5 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) ( ) (x) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (.) ( ) (x) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ( ) ( ) (x) d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ( ) (x) 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) (x) ( ) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ( ) (x) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ( ) (x) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) ( ) (x) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) ( ) (x) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) ( ) (x) g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a) The project will slightly increase vehicle trips on neighboring streets. The present circulation system developed under the General Plan has been designed to accommodate such growth. The impact is not considered significant. Initial Study for C of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review 99-52 & 96-21 Page 6 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees, eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? ( ) ( ) (x) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? ( ) (x) d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? ( ) (x) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) (x) Comments: a) The site is in an area of potential Delhi Sands Flower Loving Fly (DSF) habitat. A biological habitat assessment was prepared (Impact Sciences, November 15, 1999) which has determined that the site's exposure to non-native fill material and vegetation has created an environment that is negatively associated with potential DSF habitat. Also, the site's isolation does not provide a conspicuous connection between identified potential or known DSF habitats. No DSF were found on site. The impact is not considered significant. 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposah a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ( ) (x) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? ( ) (x) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? ( ) (x) Initial Study for £ of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review 99-52 & 96-21 Page 7 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) 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 flammable brush, grass, or trees? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) 10. NOISE. Will the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ) ( ) ( ) (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? ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Police protection? ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) Schools? ) ( ) ( ) (x) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ) ( ) ( ) (x) e) Other governmental services? ) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for ~' ¢ of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review 99-52 & 96-21 Page 8 t2. 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? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Communication systems? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) e) Storm water drainage? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) f) Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) Create light or glare? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a) The project will be visible from the 1-15 Freeway. The architecture of the addition will match the existing building on site and has passed the design review process to make sure it is compliant with community design goals. The impact is not considered significant. 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for ' of Rancho Cucamonga ~ Development Review 99-52 & 96-21 Page 9 d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( ) ( ) ) (x) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( ) ( ) ) (x) 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) ( ) ) (x) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) ( ) ) (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 important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ( ) ( ) ) (x) b) Short term: Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time. Long- term impacts will endure well into the future.) ( ) ( ) ) (x) c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project Initial Study for ' of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review 99-52 & 96-21 Page 10 are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) 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) 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) Industrial Area Specific Plan EIR Certified September 19, 1981) City of Rancho Cucamonga NEGATIVE DECLARATION The following Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance wfth the California Environmental Quality Act Section 21091 and 21092 of the Public Resources Code. Project File No.: Development Review 99-52 Public Review Period Closes: January 12, 2000 Project Name: Project Applicant: Rancho San Marino Partners Project Location (also see attached map): Located at 9409 Buffalo Avenue - APN: 229-263-67. Project Description: The development ora 104,400 square foot warehouse add,don to an existing 202,200 square foot building on 4.16 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 13) 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 ars included in the attached Initial Study. The project file and all related documents am 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. JanuaW 12, 2000 Date of Determination Adopted By CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ~ STAFF REPORT DATE: January 12, 2000 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Rudy Zeledon, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-28 - CLIFFORD - The development of a 4,500 square foot office building on 0.61 acre of land within the Brunswick\Deer Creek Village Center in the General Commercial District, located on the west side of Haven Avenue, north of Town Center Drive - APN: 1077-401-32. Related Files: Minor Exception 99-17, Conditional Use Permit 85-37, and Tree Removal Permit 99-26. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoning: The site is surrounded by the Deer Creek Flood Control Channel to the north and west, Haven Avenue to the east, and the Brunswick\Deer Creek Village Center to the south. B. General Plan Desiqnations: · Project Site - General Commercial North Flood Control South - General Commercial East - Community Commercial (East side of Haven Avenue) West - Flood Control C. Site Characteristics: The project site is on a triangle shaped parcel, located on the northeast corner of the Brunswick\Deer Creek Village Center. The project site is the last undeveloped parcel of the approved Master Plan. The site is vacant, with the exception of 24 mature Eucalyptus trees. The site slopes from north to south at approximately 4 percent. D. Parkinf:l Calculations: Number of Number of Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces of Use Footaqe Ratio Required Provided Office 4,500 1/250 18 18 ANALYSIS: A. General: This review is for consideration of environmental clearance only. The City Planner will take final action following the environmental clearance. The applicant is proposing to construct a 4,500 square foot two-story office building. On December 11, 1985, the Planning Commission approved the Brunswick/Deer Creek Village Center and the Master Plan (CUP 85-37). The proposed development is generally consistent with the Master Plan and with the design concept of the existing center. ITEM E PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 99-28 - CLIFFORD Janua~ 12,2000 Page2 B. Desiqn Review Committee: The Committee (Mannerino, Stewart, Fong) first reviewed the project on October 5, 1999, and last reviewed the project (McNiel, Stewart, Fong) on November 30, 1999, at which time the Committee recommended to the City Planner that the project be approved with conditions. C. Technical Review Committee: The Technical and Grading Review Committees have reviewed the project and recommended approval subject to conditions. D. Environmental Assessment: The applicant has completed Part I of the Initial Study. Staff has completed the Environmental Checklist for the Initial Study Part I1. Staff has determined that no significant adverse environmental impacts would result from development of this project. If the Planning Commission concurs, then issuance of a Negative Declaration would be in order. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission issue a Negative Declaration for Development Review 99-28. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City [~lanner BB:RZ~rna Attachments: Exhibit"A" ~ Site Utilization Map Exhibit"B" - Master Plan Exhibit"C" - Site Plan Exhibit"D" - Elevations Exhibit"E" - Grading Plan Exhibit"F" - Landscape Plan Exhibit "G" - Design Review Committee Action dated November 30, 1999 Exhibit "H" - Initial Study Part I and II NORTHHAVEN EXECUTIVE OFFICE BUILDING //· ~.~,, VACANT PARCEL OWNEE T~v~OTHY CLIFFORD O0g g44 5200 x I]ITE UTIL,IZATIOFI I~AP xx Ut ,, , VACANT VACANT VACANT VACANT WATER DEPT I \ ERRA VISTA ~ ~ PARK PARCEL VACANT EX I ST I NG I~UILDING PARCEL VACANT I ~"~ VACANT PARCEL, ', VACANT CENTER · LEGEND VACANT VACANT ' SIT~ UTILIZAT ON MAP SUBJECT SITE~ ~> ,,, 18 SPACES X 250 SF =4500 SQ ALLOW §I.,IDHG / CLES STORE I* NOn'TH Hxvl~ I~c~v~ OFF~:~ ~LI.ONO I oyv~ ~[ldOTHY Ct. IF'FC~O gog 044 5200  J E*XTEPJO/~ ELEVAI~Ot~ ~.~ ~ 4-~1~ EAST ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION ~*j'~'~, REAR ELEVATION o~ ~ s c, rr BICYCLES STOP DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 8:50 p.m. Rudy Zeledon November 30, 1999 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-28 - CLIFFORD - A request to construct a 4,500 square foot office building on 0.61 acres of land within the Brunswick/Deer 'Creek Village Center in the General Commercial District, located on the west side of Haven Avenue, north of Town Center Ddve - APN: 1077-401-32. Related files: Vadance 99-09, Tree Removal Permit 99-26, Conditional Use Permit 85-37. .Backqround: This item was reviewed by the Committee (Mannerino, Stewart and Fong) on October 5, 1999. The previous Design Review Comments and action have been attached for reference. At the October 5 meeting, the applicant was directed to work closely with staff to resolve the major and secondary issues presented. In addition, the Committee recommended the applicant to simpli~ the design of the building to achieve a better amhitectural consistency with the center. The applicant has worked with staff in achieving an overall design that provides a greater architecturally consistency with the Center. Staff Comments: As noted above, the applicant has worked with staff in achieving an overall design that provides a greater architecturally consistency with the C~nter. The applicant has added a standing seam metal roof tower element, common throughout the center, to the southwest and northeast corners of the building and eliminated the previously proposed parapet design. In addition, an arched entry element has been added to the front entrance of the building. The second story window design theme h~s been enhanced to include a 4-inch deep recessed arch over each window. The width of windows, along the rear of the building, have been expanded from 6-feet in length to about 11-feet, to enhance the rear building plane of the building. Staff believes that the applicant has made substantial improvement to the project. The following design comments will further enhance the project: 1. Provide a 5-foot (inside dimension) landscape planter, along the rear of the building, to provide additional enhancement. 2. Eliminate proposed trash enclosure location, and relocate to an area away from public view. 3. Eliminate the rectangular recessed element, on the east elevation, just to the dght of the two story ar~.h window. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends that the Committee approve project subject to the modifications as recommended above. Attachment Desiqn Review Committee Action: Members Present: Staff Planner: Rudy Zeledon DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:30 p.m. Rudy Zeledon October 5, 1999 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-28 - CLIFFORD - A request to construct a 4,500 square foot office building on 0.61 acres of land within the Brunswick\Deer Creek Village Center in the General Commemial District, located on the west side of Haven Avenue, north of Town Center Drive - APN: 1077-401-32. Related Files: Vadance 99-09, Tree Removal Permit 99- 26, and Conditional Use Permit 85-37. Backqround and Desiqn Parameters: The project site is located within the Brunswick\Deer Creek village Center. It is the last undeveloped parcel of the approved Master Plan, under Conditional Use Permit 85-37, and as shown in Exhibit "A.' In 1987, a Development Review 87-57 was approved by the Planning Commission for a triangular shaped retail building and as shown in Exhibit "B." The site is improved with curb, gutter and meandering sidewalk, and contains 10 mature Eucalyptus trees: Accompanying this application is a Variance request to reduce the building setback on Haven Avenue from the required 45 to 41 feet. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide ant outline for Committee discussion: Major Issues: The following broad issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: 1, In an effort to provide compatibility to the design of the existing center, the applicant has incorporated architectural elements such as standing seam metal roof, 4-inch deep recessed arches, and tile insets to its building facade. However, the overall building design does not achieve the same level of the proper proportion in building mass, the pattern of modulation in the roof line, and the rhythm of openings, windows, storefronts, as the buildings in the shopping center. Regardless of one-story or two-story building, the design should provide the same level of building mass proportion and visual balance. 2. The northwest elevation (facing Deer Creek Channel) is not consistent with the architectural theme of the center. Provide building form and architectural treatment to this side of the building plane. 3. Eliminate the fan shape portion of the second story windows, on the south and east elevations. Provide the 4-inch recess for the windows similar to the recessed arch element. 4. Provide the same depth of recess (2 inches) for the rectangular elements above store fronts consistent with the center. 5. Revise parking area to allow for efficient circulation flow by eliminating the "dead- end" area. 6. Provide a 5-foot wide (inside dimension) landscape strip along the south elevation. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. Eliminate the 5-foot retaining wall for the row of parking spaces along Haven Avenue streets cape. 2. The colors, materials such as but not limited to stucco, roof material, ceramic tile insets, shall ~ ~, il~a~the center' ... . DRC COMMENTS - DR 99-28 - CLIFFORD October 5, 1999 Page 2 '~" 3, The proposed trash enclosure location would require trash trucks to back up, which would cause on-site traffic conflict, Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends that the project be revised per the above comments and be brought back for further review, Attachments Destqn Review Committee Action: Members Present: John Mannerino, Para Stewart, Nancy Fong Staff Planner:, Rudy Zeledon The Committee did not approve the project, and directed the applicant to work closely with staff to resolve the major and secondary issues presented. In addition, the Committee recommended the applicant simpli~ the design to achieve a better architectural consistency with the Center,  ~' ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM c,~o,R~.~oc~com~,o (Part I - Initial Study) The purpose of this form is to inform the City of the basic components of the proposed project so that the City may review the project pursuant to City policies, ordinances, and guidelines; the California Environmental Quality Act; and the City's Rules and Procedures to Implement CEQA, It is important that the information requested in this application be provided in fu![. INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT ~E PROCESSED. Please note that it is tho responsibility of the applicant to ensure that the application is complete at the tiree o! submittal; City staff will not bo available to poffon~ won~ required to provide missing infonmation. V Application Number for the project to which this form pedains: P~ect~tlo: North Haven Executive Office Building Name&Addrossofp~ectownor(s): Tim ~l(f¢~r~ Rancho Cucamonqa. CA 91730 N~mo & Addres$ of dovoloper or p~oct sponsoc =mm~ ~ ~ ~ h~vm Contact Person & Address: Pete Volbeda, ARchitect 127 W. "B" St. Telephone Number:. ( 909 ) 391 -5888 Name & Address o[ person preparing this fon'n (if different frore above): Telephone Number:, -/ INITSTD1.WPD · 4/96 ~"/3 Page 1 et 10 Information indicated by asterisk (') is not required of non-construction CUP's unless otherwise requested by staff. '1) Provide a fu~~ sca~e ~8-1/2 x11) c~py ~f the USGS Quadrant Sheet(s) which inc~udes the preject si~e~ and indicate the sila boundaries. 2) Provide a set of color photographs which show representative views ~ the sile from the north, south, east and west; views ~ end fn~m the site from the pdma~ access points which serve the site; and representative views of significant features f~ the site. Include a map showing location of each photograph. 3] Project Location (descdbe): Northeast corner lot in existing shopping re. all North of Foothillf .West of Haven 4) Assessor's Pan:el Numbe~ (attach additional sheet if necessary): 1 0 7 7 - 4 01 - 3 2 '5) Gross Site Area (~ ? ~ : 71 R · ~ ~o, Si,a ,~rea ~,o,e, si, e si~. minus araa o, pu~,ic s,ree,s ~ preposad dedica,ions~.' _ I..~Z~..4' ~ ~' ~ 7) Descdbe any proposed general plan amendment or zona change which would affect tho project site (attach additional sheet if nacassaqc None 8) Include a description of all permits which will be necessary from tho City of Rancho Cucamonga and other governmental agencies in on:far lo fully implement the project: Building Permit -* ~__~*",~ Z~ Page 2 of 10 INITSTD1.WPD - 4/96 9) Descdbe the physical setting of the site as it exists before the project including infom~ab'on on Iopogmphy. soil stability, plants and animals, mature trees, trails and roads, drainage cou~es, and scenic aspects. Descrfbe any existing structuras on site (including age and condition) and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of significant features described. In addition, site all soun:es of information (La., ge-ological and/or hydrologic studies, biotic and areheological surveys, traffic studies): Slight downhill slope with various tress to be removed. vacant land to the east; flood channel on Northwest border. 10) Descdbe the known cultural and/or historical aspects of the site. Site all sources of infonnation (books. published repo~Is and oral history): ~0~ know~l 1 I) Doscdbo any noise sources and their levels that t~w affect the site (aireraft, roadway noise, etc.) and how they will affect proposed uses: Haven Ave. traffic: existi~retail tra~f~c/D~rking lot. .- / INITSTD1.WPD - 4/96 '~'"~'""' Page 3 of 10 12) De$cdbe the proposed project in detail. This should provide an adequate description of the s~te in ten"ns o! ultimate use which v.411 result from the prosed project. Indicate if there are proposed phases for development, the extent of development to occur with each phase, and the anticipated co_repletion of each increment. Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary: 13) D~scrfb~ ~he sun~unding pr~perti~s~ inc~udin~ inf~m;ati~n ~n plants and animals and any culture~ hisl~dca~ ~r sc~nic aspects~ Indicate tho lypo of lend uae (residential. commercial, otc.), intensity of land uso (one.family. apartment houses, shops. department stores, etc.) and scale o! developme,t (height. frontage, setbeck, roar yard. etc.): Frontaqc 45': setback 20': Neiahborln~ retail ~ one story. Triangular property surrounded by flood channel, Haven ave., and One retail store. 14) Wi~~ ~h~ prop~s~d project change the pattern~ $ca~e ~r charac~er ~f the surr~unding genere~ am~ ~f the proj~ct? INITSTDI.WPD - 4196 15} Indicate the type of shoft-tetTn and long-term noise to be generated, including source and amount· How will these noise levels affect adjacent properties and on-site uses, What methods o! sound proofing are proposed? Short term construction noise. Lon~ term noise: qeneral ('~ F F ~ tq f~ NO effect ,of noise level on adjacent properties and on-site uses. '16) Indicate proposed removals ancYor replacements of malura or scenic trees: [Remove e×istinq trees as shown. 17) indicateanybodiesofwater(includingdomesticwatersupplies]intowhichlhesitedrains: None · 15] Indicatoexpoctodamountofwate~usage. (SeeAttachmentAforusagoestirnates]. Forfurlhorcladfication, ploasocontact tho Cucamonga.County Water District at 987.2591. a. Residential (gal~day) Peek uso (gal~Day} b. Commercial/Ind. (gal~day/ac) 1 0 0 5 Peak uso (gal~rain/ac) 19) Indicate proposed method of sewage disposal. Septic Tank X Sewer. I[ septic tanks are proposed, attach percolation tests. If discharge to a sanitary sewage system is proposed indicate expected daily sewage generation: (See Attachrnent A for usage estirnates~, For further clarification, please contact the Cucarnonga County Water Distdct at 987-2591. a. Residential (gal~day) 660 b. CornmerciaYlnd. (ga~/day/ac) E IDENTIA P T ' 20) Numborofrasidontialunits: ~)~teched (indicate range of paroel sizes, minimum Iai size and maximum lot slzo: INITSTD1.WPD - 4/96 ~/7 Page 5 of 10 A{~pched (indicate whether units am rental or for sale units): 21) Anticipated range of sale prices and/errants: Sale Pdce(s) $ to $ Rent (per month) 22) Specifynumberofbedmomsbyunittype: 23) Indicateanticipatedhousehold$izebyunittype:. 24) Indicate the expected number o! school children ~vho will bo residing within tho project: Contacl Iho opprepdato School Districts as shown in Attachment B: a. Elementary: b. Junior High; c. Senior High ~)MMERCIAL. INDUSTRIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL PROJECTS 25) Descdbe type ~f use($) and ma]~r ~uncti~n(s) ~f c~mmercia~~ indus~da~ ~r instituti~na~ uses~ 0££±ce builc]±ng - un]~nown commercia! use. 26) Total floor ama of commercial, industrial, or institutional uses by type: 4 5 0 0 ~'J~ Page6 et $0 INITSTD1 .VVPO. 4/96 27) Indicate hou= of operation: '7 28) Number of employees: Total: Unknown Maximum Shift: Time of Maximum Shift: 29) Pt~vid~ breakd~wn ~f anticipated ~b c~assi~cati~ns~ inc~uding wag~ and s~larY ~ang~s~ as wetl as an indicati~n ~f lhe t.at~ of hire for each classification (attach additional sheet if necessao,): Unknown 30) Eslimalion of the number of wo~e~ to be himd that cu~7~ntly reside in lhe City: Unknown · 3 t) For commercial and industrial uses only. indicate the source, type end amount of air pollution emissions. (Data should bo verified through the South Coast Air Ouality Management District. at {818) 572.6283): None.known as yet. A~L PROJECTS 32) Have the water, sewer, fire, and flood control agencies serving the project been contacted to determine their ability to provide adequate se~ice to the proposed project? If so, please indicate thoir responso. YES service available 33) ~n the kn~w~ hist~ ~f ~h~s prepedy~ has there been any use~ st~rege~ ~r discharge ~f hazard~us and/~r t~xic rnateda~s? Examples of haza~lous' and/or toxic materials include, but are not limited to PCB's: radioactive substances: pesticides and herbicides: fuels, oils. solvents, and othe. r flammable liquids and gases. Also note underground storage of any of the above. Please list the materials and descdbe their use, storage, and/or discharge on the property, as well as the dates of use. if known. [~0 34) Will the prnposad pmject involve the temporary or long-teml use, storage or discharge of hazafffous and/or toxic materials, including but not limited lo those examples lisled above? ff yes. provide an invento~'y 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. NO I hereby codify that tho statements furnished above and in tho attached exhibits present the data and infom~ation required for adequate evaluation of this project to tho best of rny ability, that the facts, statements, and infonwation presented are true and eon'ecl tot ho best of my knowledge and belief. I fudher und~e~'fl~that ad. lanai information may bo required to bo submitted before an ade~e evaluation can be made by the City of /_ INITSTD,.WPD - 4,96 ATTACHMENT A Water UsaGe Average use per day Residential Single Family 600 gal/day Apt/Condo 400 gal/day Commercial/Industrial General and Regional Commercial 3000 gal/day/ac ~- ""~ -? /,~. ~ Neighborhood Commercial 1500 gal/day/ac - General Industrial 1500 gal/daylac Industrial Park 3000 gal/day/ac Peak Usage For all uses Average use x 2.0 Sewer Flows Resldential Single Family 270 gal/day Apt/Condos 200 gal/day Commercial/Industrial General Commercial 2000 gaIIdaylac Neighborhood Commercial 100-1500 gal/daylac General Industrial 2000 galldaylac Heavy Industrial 3000 ga~/daylac Source: Cucamonga County Water District Master Plan, 9~86 ~-'"4:~/ Page 9 of 10 INITSTD 1 .VVPD - 4196 · ATTACHMENT B Contact the school district for your area for amount and payment of school fees: Elementary School Districts Alta Loma 9350 Base Line Road. Suite F Rancho Cucamonga. CA 91730 (909) 987-0766 Central 10601 Church Street. Suite 112 Rancho Cucamonga. CA 91730 (909) 989-8541 Cucamonga 8776 Archibald Avenue Rancho Cucamonga. CA 91730 (909) 987-8942 Efiwanda 5959 East Avenue P.O. Box 248 Rancho Cucamonga. CA 91739 (909) 899-2451 High School Chaffey High School 211 West 5th Street Ontario. CA 91762 (909) 988-8511 INITSTD1 .WPD - 4/96 ' ~-----~"~ Page 10 of 10 City of Rancho Cucamonga- ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART al BACKGROUND 1. Project File: Development Review 99-28 2. Related Files: Minor Exception 99-17 3. Description of Project: A request to construct a 4,500 square foot office building on 0.61 acre of land within the Brunswick\Deer Creek Village Center in the General Commercial District, located on the west side of Haven Avenue, north of Town Center Drive - APN: 1077-401-32. Related Files: Tree Removal Permit 99-26 and Conditional Use Permit 85-37. 4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Tim Clifford 10532 Acacia Street Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 5. General Plan Designation: General Commercial 6. Zoning: Designation: General Commemial 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: North: Flood Control, Deer Creek Flood Control Channel. South: General Commemial, Brunswick\Deer Creek Village Center. East: Community Commercial, Haven Avenue. West; Flood Control, Deer Creek Flood Control Channel. 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: Rudy Zeledon (909) 477-2750 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Dr 99-28 Parle 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 ( ) Transportation/Circulation ( ) Public Sewices ( ) Population and Housing (X) Biological Resources ( ) Utilities and Service Systems (X) Geological Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources ( ) Aesthetics (X) Water ( ) Hazards ( ) Cultural Resources ( ) Air Quality ( ) Noise ( ) Recreation ( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance 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. ,'~mb~;,n~9/99 tan: Planner Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Dr 99-28 Parle 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. 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a). Fault rupture? () () ) (X) b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) ( ) ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Dr 99-28 Parle 4 c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Seiche hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) ( ) (X) f) Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( ) ( ) (X) g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) ( ) (X) h) Expansive soils? ( ) ( ) (X) i) Unique geologic or physical feat0res? ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: f) The topography will be altered to accommodate the project. The design of the project site and construction of the proposed grading shall follow the recommendations of the Soils Engineer and sha~', comply with the current building standards and codes at the time of construction. Grading of the site will be done under supervision of a licensed Civil Engineer or Land Surveyor. The impact is not considered significant. 4. WATER. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) ( ) (X) c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? ( ) ( ) (X) d) Changes in the 'amount of surface water in any water body? ( ) ( ) (X) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ( ) ( ) (X) f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cut? or excavations, or through substantial loss of gr,;undwater recharge capability? ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Dr 99-28 Page 5 g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: a) The proposed project will result in an increase in paved surface areas, which could result in a decrease in absorption rates and an increase in the amount of surface water runoff. All runoff will be conveyed to existing drainage facilities, within the existing shopping center, which were designed to handle the subject water flows. 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Dr 99-28 Page 6 e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)?. ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees, eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: b) There are a total of 24 mature Eucalyptus trees on-site. The applicant has submitted a Tree Removal Permit application, requesting the removal of 9 Eucalyptus trees. All 9 Eucalyptus trees are in conflict with the construction of the proposed building and the on-site circulation layout. On-site landscaping and tree planting will mitigate the removal of the trees.; therefore the impact is not considered significant. 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal'. a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner?. ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Dr 99-28 Page 7 c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 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 flammable brush, grass, or trees? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 10. NOISE. Willtheproposalresultin: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (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 fo/lowing areas: a) Fire protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Schools? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Dr 99-28 Page 8 d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Other governmental services? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 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? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Communication systems? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Storm water drainage? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) f) Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) ~ted 13, AESTHETICS, Would the proposah a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Create light or glare? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposah a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Dr 99-28 Page 9 d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ) ( ) ( ) (X) 15. RECREATION. Would the proposah a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) · ( ) ( ) (X) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (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 important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Short term: Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long- term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time. Long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Dr 99-28 Page 10 d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the 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) 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 99-28 Public Review Period Closes: Janua~/12,2(X)0 Project Name: Project Applicant: Tim Clifford Project Location (also see attached map): Located on the west side of Haven Avenue, north of Town Center Drive - APN: 1077-401-32. Project Description: The development of a 4,500 square foot office building on 0.61 acres of land wi~in the Brunswick~Deer Creek Village Center in the General Commercial District. Related Files: Minor Exception 99-17 and Tree Removal Permit 99-26. 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 pla0s 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 am 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. January 12. 2000 Date of Determination Adopted By the city of g!ancho Cucamonsa St ffRe DATE: January 12, 2000 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Thomas Grahn, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-64 - MASTERCRAFT HOMES - A design review of the detailed site plan and building elevations for Tract 14381, consisting of 34 single family lots in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located west of Etiwanda Avenue and north of Wilson Avenue - APN: 225-071-68. SITE DESCRIPTION: The project site is located on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue, north of Wilson Avenue (see Exhibit "A"). Tract 14139 is located directly to the north and Tract 14380 is located directly to the east and south. Tentative Tract 14382 is located directly to the west. The site is currently vacant and was rough graded several years ago. The site is located directly adjacent to Phase 4 of Tract 14380, which is currently under construction. ANALYSIS: A. Backqround: On September 28, 1988, the Planning Commission approved Tract 13527 for the subdivision of 88 acres into 252 single-family lots. Prior to tract recordation and design review, Tract 13527 was broken down into smaller tracts (e.g., Tracts 13527, 14379, 14380, 14381, and 14382). Tracts 14379, 14380, and 14381 have since been recorded. Tract 14379 contains 35 lots and is currently being developed by Centex Development. Tract 14380 contains 80 lots and is currently being developed by Mastercraft Homes. B. General: This project will utilize floor plans and various elevations previously approved for the different design review applications for Tract 14380. These architectural designs were previously reviewed by the Design Review Committee and subsequently approved by the Planning Commission. Development Review 96-27 was reviewed by the Committee on December 17, 1996, and approved by the Planning Commission on January 27, 1997. Development Review 98-11 was reviewed by the Committee on August 4, 1998, and approved by the Planning Commission on August 31, 1998. Development Review 99-03 was reviewed by the Committee on May 18, 1999, and approved by the Planning Commission on June 9, 1999. ITEM F PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 99-64 - MASTERCRAFTHOMES January 12,2000 Page 2 The architectural designs include both single- and two-story units, front-on and side-on garage options, and reverse footprints for all units. The floor plans range in size from 2,820 to 4,143 square feet. The floor plans have three elevations each that were designed to reflect the architectural styles of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan (see Exhibit "C"). Architectural styles include: Ranch, Bungalow, San Juan, Santa Barbara, and Country. C. Neiqhborhood Meetinq: On November 10, 1999 the applicant held a Neighborhood Meeting to present the proposed project to the existing property owners north of the project site. A total of eight people, representing six separate properties, were present in addition to representatives of the applicant and the City. The applicant presented the project and responded to questicrts concerning proposed grading, unit placement, unit height, and off- site improvements. D. Desiqn Review Committee: The Design Review Committee reviewed the project on December 14, 1999. The elevations utilized for Committee review on this project, Development Review 99-64, are identical to the elevations utilized for Committee review on a series of related and adjacent developments (Tract ~4380 which includes DR 96-27, DR 98-11, and DR 99-03). As the elevations presented 4o the Committee had not been revised to reflect comments from the previous application's original Design Review Committee meeting and Planning Commission approval, the Committee addressed the same des!~n comments on the current project's design. The Committee (Stewart, Fong) reviewed me project and recommended approval subject to the following: 1. Provide a hip roof element above the bathroom window projection on the second floor of the Plan 4 elevation. 2. Provide shutters on the front elevation of Plan 4B. 3. Revise the openings on the turret element of the Plan 4A elevation. Since the Design Review Committee meeting, the applicant submitted revised elevations to reflect these comments. The elevations are provided as an attachment to this report (see Exhibit "D"). E. Gradinq Committee: The Grading Committee reviewed the project on December 14, 1999, but did not recommend approval due to specific design concerns. The applicant revised the project design and submitted for additional committee review. On January 4, 2000, the Grading Committee recommended approval of the project Grading Plan. F. Environmental Assessment: On October 28, 1998, the Planning Commission approved Environmental Assessment and Time Extension for Tentative Tract 13527. The tract is located in an area identified as potential habitat for endangered or threatened species and contains indicator species of sage scrub habitat. As a result, habitat assessments were required to determine potential impacts. The report concludes that because of the highly disturbed nature of the site, lack of suitable habitat, and the extensive surrounding development, further development of the site will not result in adverse effects to endangered or threatened species or their habitat. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 99-64 - MASTERCRAFTHOMES Januaw 12,2000 Page 3 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review 99-64 through adoption of the attached Resolution and Conditions. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:TG/Is ~ - Attachments: Exhibit"A"- Vicinity Map Exhibit"B" - Detailed Site Plan/Grading Plan Exhibit"C" - Floor Plans and Elevations Exhibit "D" - Design Review Committee Comments dated December 14, 1999 Resolution of Approval ~ Tract - Development (DR 99-16) 1 4379 Centex Tract 14380 - Mastercraft Homes (Approved through DR 96-27, DR 98-11, and DR 99-03) ~ Tract 14381 - Mastercraft Homes (DR 99-64) Project: Title: Vi.(,t PLAN~ N .~ ~ [,,~,,,,,. ~,~t PHASE .... ---* ........... PRECISE GRADING PLAN .................. . - TRACT 14381 ,,..-,-, ..... *~ ,-.~-- .... LOTS 1~34 :'.T:'--, . '. "' '~'"*'"~ '. ' -'"'" '" "~"' '"'. .- "--. INDEX MAP - ~,,,..~.?~- .'-,~'~r~'-~ .............. , ........ - ~,~...~ ~' ~ ,P~£o rm -- CITY OF RANCHO O..ICAMONr .... >..Xx ...... CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMON6 ~ ~'~,,.,,,~ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMON~ ,.. ..... ~ .-.. n--,-- ., ............. .,._... .~ ,~ ~.- , ..... ....-=. ......... ..~--.~-.:~,_~..f~.___., =..,. .~,,~-,.,- .-- .--'=-----.,.._ -," I ..... I ...... I ...... %, ~- ==~ I---. .....\ o-1-'/ .......... -t ',,¢.o~ -'- ........... ~m-' ,' ........ ~ -'~" "~ "-" / "=" "~:~:~' ---- ~'""~ .....~i~ j':-'---: ..... ~:- . ..,-,.--. ~,.?,?,-.'."'-'"' " -;'%';;';,, .,""".';7'~.,. k__-,~.,~,_'gT ....... ~- ~,,?,,~.~.,,::_?.~ .......... "', ' ' ,',~ ~ ,....=.' ' -.=' :'t'=-.-_~ .... · ~ ...... I-2:~ '- ' ~--' ~..-==- ,...... . -=~ j=..,=...~..L_.%.~-7- ,:-_.-- ;'i"~11 '~¢--' '. ,., .... " ........ ~" · s~ '~...':Z..~- ' [J TRACT 14~6i '~'"'" ~*~ ' ~ ....... PRECISE GRADtNG PLAN ' ..c ,. ~..~.,t-....=,..,,.:.- ~'' 'I) ,~-', ,h ~ ,..~tl~ ~),r .... ,// ~-~.-~ ALT. MASTER BEDROOM ~ ~.~.~ ~'~ '~ .......... ' ........ ~ [,;~,'; .......... ~"~ '- ' ~' ~ / ...." ....... -~,r"- '['~"l' 'il I . ~ ~ ~- ~-- --~T · -~-=~=.~ I I ! ! - -~ ........ 'lll~llll ~.~ % I -,~-t~* ~'~- ~ --~ ~ I lift I I I "-~ ............... '- ~='~='==" J~Jlll ~.~~'~O.T. COUrtYArD ' ~-' .... '" ' ' ~ ~.~~ FLOOR PLAN ROOF PLAN REAR ELEVATION ' ='~"'='-- ~-,,~.~ -'~- FRONT ELEVATION .... ~" · -~ ~,~ --"'"-~----~ -' '--" BUNGALOW _j~' ~r..:,.. ' RIGHT ELEVATION LEFT ELEVATION ==== =' P~""._..=~ ...,. 8 ROOF PLAN FRONT ELEVATION .~.-.- .... .-; - -: - - -.- - -,!'l- ' ' -.-_-: ' ' -: .... ~1~ u__/___a ,~ , --'-~ ~~ FLOOR PLAN ADDENDA PARTIAL ROOF FRAMING LEFT ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION ~_~_. = =. ~,~_,~,., '~=::"~ r'~/' FRONT ELEVATION ~m VEMT[ATIO. NOTE~ ROOF PLAN , ,~., ,t~l I FLOOR PLAN ADDENDA ~:=~ 11 ....... ... ...... ......, :.L ...j t ~ / ~,~o~,,o.: ~:~' ' RIGHT ELEVATIQN LEFT ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION ... ~==~ FLOOR....,. PLAN ADDENDA '--'-=,-.~ .."~"'-'"'"'" .._ =~FRONT. ELEVATION -'~" ~-'" ~ '~ = = =='=':""""' ' ..... BUNGALOW ____---: '----=:=,=~..,~.,, ~..., ..... --'--... _ -- . ~ . ~ = =-. ~_~.,~., RIGHT ELEVATION ~ ..... ~ LEFT ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION · ~..~.,.,.~_~,,_-..~.,~,.---~.=-~-.._:~, RIGHT ELEVATION LEFT ELEVATION ~==-~_~., 16 REAR ELEVATION ,3- FRONT ELEVATION FLOOR PLAN ADDENDA SAN JUAN ~= ='[~, 1 7 I"ITAI*[ATION "OTll .... RIGHT ELEVATION · II II Ir--n~ll' ",~" '1/ II-H-iL-'. '1" " LEFT ELEVATION ~!_~ 18 OPTIONAL FIREPLACE OPTIONAL DECK & ENTERTAIN. CENTER BEDROOM 4 & BATH 4 OPTION BEDROOM 4 OPTION $.~,EC~.O.?D FLOOR PLAN .T-.-~.~-¢.~.~,~ .2 1 ' I I ROOF PLAN REAR ELEVATION :?.~.~_.?~_.-.. - -... L=~ ~ Z ' :*m ~.m:m" m~l F~ONT ~I[~ATION -~-~=~ ~==~- 28 RIGHT ELEVATION LEFT ELEVATION~ ROOF PLAN REAR ELEVATION ..... FRONT ELEVATION -' 31 RIGHT ELEVATION LEFT ELEVATION .=. "~ = =' ~"~= 32 I '1 ~_11~~1~:1t1~1111_. II FRONT ELEVATION · ~ v~o~ ~o~ COUNTRY RIGHT ELEVATION ___ ~,~ LEFT ELEVATION 35 REAR ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION ~ ~ ~.~ ........... . RIGHT ELEVATION LEFT ELEVATION ~ .... 38 ',,_'-': R£AR ELEVATION [ FRONT ELEVATION ATT~ PLAH ADDENDA ~ FLOOR ....... ~~ '"~=~'~ ~IOHT ELEVATION II ii~~ll~ll II '1 U~Lllmmm~m~ml/~m~mJ- 1 LEFT ELEVATION '- ...... ~-_-~ ",,,...E _A .R..,.E L E V A T IO N ,l-[='"..=-:h-.__, __ ,--- , ,[.. ,,:,~,',';;,',,"" [ FRONT ELEVATION FLOOR PLAN ADDENDA --(~)-- .'"~ ='~-~.~,~'..~. -=E:-..~..~---.-:~-:-~: =.....~ ............. FIRST FLOOR PLAN .... z ....... t'T~.~..~,~ ,'-.' ~ .-. ,, ,", " OPTIONAL DEQK ~ M.BED , ..~... I .. : ,1~ · ._ OPTIONAL BEDROOM 5 I~'~r-] SECOND FLOOR PLAN ~1' ROOF PLAN REAR ELEVATION I~-~FI I~11 I~ _iL il Il, ~l ~111 :1/ FRONT ELEVATION A~ VEKATION NOTEI ~A ~B~ RIVIV~ ............ RIGHT ELEVATION LEFT ELEVATION ROOF PLAN REAR ELEVATI~ .... . ~~-: '~:~~ ~ ...... · ~~.- . .... , ............ , , .~, /,;c~ , ~>>.,.~, . ~~ .,~ · ~ ~- .-- ~,~ ......... ~%~ -: IIIIUII . ' ..[.~ k~,,}.:,W,,'.,',:,~;~lll irt nl I~ ~l II~,%,~ ~1 I FRONT ELEVATION RIGHT ELEVATION LEFT ELEVATION ROOF PLAN -;I '-- R..~E A~ .R.~.E LEV A TIO N FRONT ELEVATION "I,,~.G_H.T.,. E L E V A TI 0 N LEFT ELEVATION RIGHT ELEVATION LEFT [LEVATIO~ R.~E _A..R..EL E V A TIO N XROOF PLAN ,~ ~ INITALL&TION HOTEl ~ v[.~m..o~ FRONT ELEVATION ..... ~CH RIGHT ELEVATION --"------"'-- -- LEFT ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION .~.~. :..:. d~-~- - - - FR NT ELEVATI N COUNTRY ..........-'---- =' = =' ~"~"~-'= 68 RIGHT ELEVATION 8 Q*JA~qE FOOTAOE FIRST FLOOR PLAN . ~ -~"~,~.., 7 1 BEDROOM 6 OPTION . . SECOND F!.OOR PLAN ::=::='~'?'~'~ [] [] ~ ~':'='.. "-:,-- · m ! .,' ~, - , FRONT ELEVATION AT BEDROOM B OPTION RIGHT ELEVATION ROOF PLAN LEFT ELEVATION ,.. ~d,,.~., 81 FRONT ELEVATION COUNTRY RIOHT ELEVATION ROOF PLAN LEFT ELEVATION COUaT.~ ~==~, '" 84 REAR ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION :~ RANCH ~ ..... RIGHT ELEVATION LEFT ELEVATION ~ ..... 87 CONSENT CALENDAR 7:00 p.m. Tom Grahn December 14, 1999 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-64 - MASTERCRAFT HOMES: A design review of the detailed site plan and building elevations for Tract 14381, consisting of 34 single family lots in the Low Residential Distdct (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located west of Etiwanda and north of Wilson Avenue - APN: 225-071-68. Desiqn Parameters: The project site was initially approved as Tract 13527 which provided for the subdivision of 88 acres into 252 single family lots. Prior to tract recordation and design review, Tract 13527 was broken down into smaller tracts (e.g., Tracts 13527, 14379, 14380, 14381 and 14382). Tracts 14379, 14380, and 14381 have been recorded. Tract 14379 is currently being developed by Centex Homes; Tract 14380 is currently being developed by Mastercraft Homes. The architectural designs of the proposed project were used on the adjacent b'act (Tract 14380) and were previously reviewed by the Design Review Committee and subsequently approved by the Planning Commission. Development Review 96-27 was reviewed by the Committee on December 17, 1996, and subsequently approved by the Planning Commission on January 27, 1997. Development Review 98-11 was reviewed by the Committee on August 4, 1998, and subsequently approved by the Planning Commission on August 31, 1998. Development Review 99-03 was reviewed by the Committee on May 18, 1999, and subsequently approved by the Planning Commission on June 9, 1999, The cun'ent project, Development Review 99-64, will utilize the floor plans and various elevations previously approved for the different design review applications for Tract 14380. The design includes both single- and two-story units, front-on and side-on garage options, and reverse footprints of all units. The floor plans range in size from 2,820 to 4,143 square feet. The floor plans have three elevations each that were designed to reflect the architectural s~es of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan (see attached exhibits). Architectural sb/les include: Ranch, Bungalow, San Juan, Santa Barbara, and Country, Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: There are no design issues associated with the current development application. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of Development Review 99-64. Attachment Desiqn Review Committee Action: Members Present: Para Stewart, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Tom Grahn CONSENT CALENDAR COMMENTS DR 99-64 - MASTERCRAFT HOMES December 14, 1999 Page 2 The Committee reviewed the project and recommended approval subject to the fo~__ 'wing: The elevations utilized for Development Review 99-64 are the same elevations used on the previous applications, Development Review 99-03, Development Review 98-11 and Development Review 96-27. These elevations have not been revised to reflect the comments from the previous application's Design Review Committee meeting, so the same comments were incorporated into this projects design. 1. Provide a hip roof element above the bathroom window projection on the second floor of the Plan 4 elevation. 2.' Provide shutters on the front elevation of Plan 4B. 3. Revise the openings on the turret element of the Plan 4A elevation. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 99-64, LOCATED WEST OF ETIWANDA AVENUE AND NORTH OF WILSON AVENUE IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) OF THE ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 225-071-68. A. Recitals. 1. Mastemraft Homes has filed an application for the approval of Development Review No. 99-64, 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 January 2000, 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, deten-nined~ 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 January 12, 2000, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; b. That the proposed design is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code, the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; c. That the proposed design is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code and the Etiwanda North Specific Plan; and d. That 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. 3. Based up(~n the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1 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. Planninq Division 1) All applicable conditions as contained in Planning Commission Resolutions 88-200, 88-200^, 90-119, and 90-120 shall apply. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 99-64 - MASTERCRAFTHOMES January 12,2000 Page 2 2) Rear yard drainage swales shall not exceed a maximum slope of 6 percent. 3) Provide a minimum of 15 feet of fiat, usable rear yard area adjacent to the rear of each structure. The usable rear yard area shall not exceed 5 percent slope. 4) Provide, where possible, .~ minimum 18-foot area in front of each garage that does not exceed 5 percent slope. Maximum driveway slope shall not exceed 15 percent. 5) Driveways for side-on garage units shall not exceed a width of 12 feet from the front property line to the turnaround area in front of the garage. 6) Ddveway widths shall not exceed 16 feet at the curb. 7) Masonry return walls shall be provided between each unit. The walls shall be provided a decorative finish to match the building elevations. 8) Comer side yard walls shall be provided. The walls shall be provided a decorative finish to match the building elevations. The walls shall be set back a minimum of 5 feet behind the sidewalk. Landscaping shall be provided between the wall and the sidewalk and maintained by the homeowner. Enqineedn,q Division: 1) Install 12-inch pipe'in each pdvate cross lot drainage easement, with the grading permit, and a transition structure to each curbside drain outlet (shown on the public improvement plans). 2) Pdor to issuance of a grading permit, revise the grading plan to include existing elevations at each property line that backs onto Tract 14380 (Lots 1-10 on sheets 2 and 3). The existing Iow block wall, as shown in section C-C, shall appear on all applicable sections (for instance, D- D, G-G, O-O). The proposed grading of Lots 7, 8, and 9 to drain to North Overlook Ddve shall not adversely impact the existing facilities along their south property lines. If this is not feasible, cross lot drainage serving more than one lot will be allowed with the following additional conditions: a) Private drainage easements shall be recorded for Lots 10 and -7 and/or 9, pdor to the issuar~ce of building permits. b) Provide a single pipe system serving Lots 9 and 10 (and possibly 8). Install a V-gutter above the pipe system to catch overflows in the event of blockage of the inlet on Lot 9 (and possibly 8). c) Provide a single pipe system serving Lots 6 and 8. Install a V-gutter above the pipe on Lot 7 to catch overflows in the event of blockage of the inlet on Lot 8. If this is not feasible with Lot 7 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 99-64 - MASTERCRAFTHOMES January 12,2000 Page 3 draining to the street, we will consider alternatives of a pipe on Lot 7 with overflows to Lot 9 or draining Lot 8 across Lots 9 and 10 and Lot 70 of Tract 14380. 3) Drive approach locations shall be consistent on the grading and street improvement plans. 4. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2000. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY:' Lam/T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Bullet, Secretary I, Brad Bullet, 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 January 2000, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT #: Development Review 99-64 SUBJECT: APPLICANT: Mastercraft Homes LOCATION: West side of Etiwanda Avenue, north of Wilson 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: A. General Re.luirements Completion Date 1. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, __ I__ its agents, officers, or er~ployees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative', to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. 2. A copy of the signed Resolution of Approval or City Planner's letter of approval, and all __ I__ 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 1. DevelopmentJDesign 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 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans whici include site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sigr program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein Development Code regulations and the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. sC -12/99 1 Project No. DR 99-64 Completion Date 2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all I Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 3. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code I 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. 4. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be I submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for / consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development I Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at t;~e time of building permit issuance. 7. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be I 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. 8. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, I including proper illumination. 9. 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 cohstruction activity, dust control measures, and security fencing. 10. Six-foot decorative b~ock'walls shall be constructed along the project perimeter. If a double / wall condition would result, the developer shall make a good faith effort to work with the adjoining property owners to provide a single wall Developer shall notify, by mail, all contiguous property owner at least 30 days prior to the removal of any existing walls/fences along the project's perimeter. 11. For single family residential development, a 2-inch galvanized pipe shall be attached to each I 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. 12. Wood fencing shall be treated with stain, paint, or water sealant. I 13. Slope fencing along side property lines may be wrought iron or black plastic coated chain link I to maintain an open feeling and enhance views. 14. On corner side yards, provide minimum 5-foot setback between walls/fences and sidewalk. / 15. For residential development, return walls and corner side walls shall be decorative masonry. / 16. Where rock cobble is used, it shall be real river rock. Other stone veneers may be I manufactured products. SC -12199 7 Project No. DR 99-64 Completion Date D. Building Design 1. All dwellings shall have the front, side and roar elevations upgraded with architectural I treatment, detailing and increased delineation of surface troatment subject to City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 2. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or I projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Details shall be included in building plans. E. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans) 1. Multiple car garage driveways shall be taperod down to a standard two-car width at street. I F. Landscaping 1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home I landscaping in the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for City Planner roview and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. 2. All private slopes of 5 feet or more in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope, but less than I 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. 3. AIl private slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or / groater 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 _=lope 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 requirod by this section shall include e permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. 4. All slope planting and irrigation 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. 5. Front yard and corner side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required per the Development Code and the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. This requirement shall be in addition to the required street trees and slope planting. 6. The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included in the required landscape plans and shaiJ 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. 7. 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. 8. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division. SC -12199 Project NO. DR 99-64 Completion Date 9. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipa~ Code. Environmental 1. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Fourth Street Rock Crusher project in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. 2. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the City Adopted Special Studies Zone for the Red Hill Fault, in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. H. Other Agencies 1. The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location of mail boxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for mail boxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mail boxes and the design of the overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: I. General Requirements 1. Submit four complete sets of plans including the following: a. Site/Plot Plan; b. Foundation Plan; c. Floor Plan; d. Ceiling and Roof Framing Plan; e. Electrical Plans (2 sets, detached) including the size of the main switch, number and size of service entrance conductors, panel schedules, and single line diagrams; f. Plumbing and Sewer Plans, including isometrics, underground diagrams, water and waste diagram, sewer or septic system location, fixture units, gas piping, and heating and air conditioning; and g. Planning Division Project Number (i.e., *FI' #, CUP #, DR #, etc.) clearly identified on the outside of all plans. 2. Submit two sets of structural calculations, energy conservation calculations, and a soils report. Architect's/Engineer's stamp and "wet" signature are required prior to plan check submittal 3. Separate permits are required for fencing and/or walls. 4. Contractors must show proof of State and City licenses and Workers' Compensation coverage to the City prior to permit issuance. J. Site Development 1. Plans shall be submitted for plan check and approved prior to construction. All plans shall be marked with the project file number (i.e., 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 permit application. Please contact the SC -12~99 4 project No. DR 99-64 Completion Date Building and Safety Division for availability of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. 2. 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. Applicant shall provide a copy of the school fees receipt to the Building and Safety Division prior to permit issuance. 3. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract~parcel map recordation I and prior to issuance of building permits. 4. For projects using septic tank facilities, written certification of acceptability, including all supportive information, shall be obtained from the San Bernardino County Department of Environmental Health and submitted to the Building Official prior to the issuance of Septic Tank Permits, and prior to issuance of building permits. 5.Construction activity shall not occur between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. Monday through Saturday, with no construction on Sunday or holidays. K. New Structures 1. Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for required occupancy separation(s). 2. Roofing material shall be installed per the manufacturer's "high wind" instructions. g Grading 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. 2.A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. 3. 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. 5. A separate grading plan check submittal is required for all new construction projects and for existing buildings where improvements being proposed will generate 50 cubic yards or more of combined cut and fill. The Grading Plan shall be prepared, stamped, and signed by a California Registered Civil Engineer. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477- 2730, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: M. General Fire Protection Conditions 1. Fire flow requirement shall be: 1500 gallons per minute, Per '97 UFC Appendix Ill-A, 3, (b) (Increase). a. A fire flow shall be conducted by the buildeddeveloper and witnessed by fire departmenl personnel prior to water plan approval. SC -12/99 Project No. DR 9964 Completion Date b. For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional fire flow test of the on-site hydrants shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department personnel after construction and prior to occupancy. 2. Fire District fee(s), plus a $1 per "plan page" microfilm fee will be due to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District as follows: a. $132 for Single Family Residence Development 3. Project is located in a high fire hazard area and is subject to special wildland/urban interface hazard mitigation requirements. Such requirements may include requirements related to vegetation management plans, special construction enhancements, emergency access, water supply, automatic fire extinguishing systems, and other special requirements. AN EXTRA SET OF PLANS IS REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITI'ED TO THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT AT THE TIME OF BUILDING PLAN SUBMITTAL. THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT COORDINATES ALL PLAN SUBMITTALS AND WILL FORWARD THE EXTRA SET TO THE FIRE PREVENTION NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT FOR FIRE PLAN REVIEW. If you have any questions regarding your plan review in fire, please contact the Fire Prevention New Construction Unit located in the Building and Safety Department at (909) 477-2730. SC -12~99 the city of .... _ Rancho-Cucamonga DATE: January 12, 2000 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Rudy Zeledon, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO.15993 WESTERN PACIFIC HOUSING- A residential subdivision of 94 single family lots on 18 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) District of the Victoria Community Plan, located on the northwest corner of Base line Road and Day Creek Boulevard - APN: 227-091-21 through 24. Related Files: Development Review 99-45. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-45 - WESTERN PACIFIC HOUSING- The Design Review of building elevations and detailed site plan for Tentative Tract map 15993 consisting of 94 single family lots on 18 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) District of the Victoria Community Plan, located on the northwest corner of Base line Road and Day Creek Boulevard - APN: 227-091-21 through 24. Related File: Tentative Tract 15993. BACKGROUND: This item was continued at the request of staff from the December 8, 1999, Planning Commission meeting. Staff requested the continuance in order to allow time for the applicant's biologist to address the Department of Fish and Game environmental concerns with the project. To date, staff has not received any documentation from the applicant addressing the environmental issues. Therefore, staff is requesting to continue this item until February 9, 2000, to allow environmental issues to be resolved before the public hearing. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue the item to February 9, 2000, to allow the environmental issues to be resolved. Respectfully Submitted, Brad Buller City Planner ITEM G THE CITY OF I~AN CI~ 0 C U CAM 0 N CA StaffR rt DATE: January 12, 2000 TO:. Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Debra Meier, AICP, Contract Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-25 - LEWIS RETAIL CENTERS/LEWIS OPERATING CORPORATION - The development of a master plan and design guidelines for Terra Vista Commons; the approval of Pad E (a 10,088 square foot retail building) including site plan, architecture and landscaping; and the conceptual approval of Pad D as a 3,100 square foot drive-thru restaurant on 20.40 acres of land in the Mixed Use District of the Terra Vista Community Plan (MFC), located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard between Elm and Milliken Avenues - APN: 1077-421-98 and 227-771- 53 (portion). ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 15424 - LEVVIS RETAIL CENTERS/LEWIS OPERATING CORPORATION - A request to create five parcels on 20.4 acres in association with a commercial/retail master plan for Terra Vista Commons in the Mixed Use District of the Terra Vista Community Plan (MFC), located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard between Elm and Milliken Avenues - APN 1077-421-98 and 227-771-53 (portion). Related file: Conditional Use Permit 99-25. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoninq: North- Existing Apartments/Medium High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) South - Undeveloped land/Industrial Specific Plan Sub-Area 7 Industrial Park East Existing Rancho San Antonio Medical Canter; undeveloped land/MHO (Hospital, Related Facilities, Office) West Existiflg Town Center Square/Community Commercial B. General Plan Desiqnations: Project S. ite - Commercial North - Medium-High Residential South - Industrial Park East Mixed Use West Commercial ITEMS I & J PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 99-25 & PM 15424 - LEWIS RETAIL CENTERS January 12, 2000 Page 2 C. Site Characteristics: Terra Vista Commons is a mixed us_e_.district of the Terra Vista Community Plan. The MFC district is intended to focus on a combination of uses which include financial, restaurants, and residential. A residential component is identified in the northeast corner of the block; however, precise development review of the residential portion will occur at a later date, under separate review and approval. Conditional Use Permit 96-21 was approved in December 1996 for the Texaco service station and associated fast food restaurant subtenants. This existing development now occupies 1.15 acres of the 20.40 acre master plan area, located at the corner of Foothill Boulevard and Elm Street. D. Parkinq Calculations: Number of Number of Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces of Use Footaqe . Ratio Required Provided Retail Center 133,300 5 spaces/1000 SF 667 771 ANALYSIS: A. General: The Terra V~-~,'~ Commons is a master plan for commercial, retail, and restaurant uses located on the nr r;~ side of Foothill Boulevard between Milliken Avenue on the east and Elm Avenue on the west. Phase I of The Commons consists of the existing Texaco service station and associated fast food restaurants. Phase II includes pads D and E located along the Foothill Boulevard frontage. Pad D is a proposed fast food use with drive-thru capability, totaling 3,100 square feet. Pad E is a proposed retail space which can be divided into two or more tenant spaces. Pad E includes a total of 10,088 square feet. Improvements associated with Phase II include the drive approach from Foothill Boulevard and Elm Avenue, along With circulation and parking lot improvements required for the function of the two pad structures (refer to Master Site Plan construction phasing line, Exhibit "B"). Specific design review approval is only requested for Pad E; however, a conceptual elevation of the Major storefronts is shown. Future phases of The Commons, approved in master plan concept only, include Pad F (retail) consisting of 6,100 square feet; the shops and restaurants focused on tlie Foothill Boulevard activity center (food court, shops, and pads A and B) totaling 37,000 square feet; and Major tenants (noted as Major 1, 2, and 3) which total 70,012 square feet. The high density residential component of the master plan is provided i~ concept only. The Terra Vista Community Plan indicates 6 acres of High Density resid~;~al (24-30 dwelling units per acre) within the Commons master plan site. The residential project, along with future phases of the commercial/retail component, will be subject to separate development/de.~,iq.q review applications prior to development. The architectural co,-,cept is a continuation of the Mediterranean style established by Town Center and Town Center Square. Details include barrel mission clay tile roof, stained wood corbels, detailed cornice elements, ceramic accent tiles and medallions, and detailed building wainscot and column base featuring the use of "Flexi-Rock." Flexi-Rock will also be used to trim archway and entry features, and as "keystone" elements. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 99-25 & PM 15424 - LEWIS RETAIL CENTERS January 12, 2000 Page 3 The Commons master plan also includes design guidelines for both architectural design elements and landscaping. The design guidelines are prepared in order to implement the master plan Concept and emphasize the unique design features of the project. Although The Commons is architecturally compatible with the Town Center style, it also different in its surroundings and in the featured design elements, such as Flexi-Rock. Development of the various portions of the project shall conform to the theme, materials, colors and standards described in the guidelines to ensure implementation of the architectural, landscape and site design elements of the master plan. B. Desiqn Review Committee: The Design Review Committee (McNiel, Stewart, and Fong) reviewed the project on November 2, 1999. The Committee discussed the primary master plan and design guideline issues: 1. The master plan lacks a primary focal point, such as a large plaza or significant architectural feature. 2. Consider separating the access of the commercial/retail portion of the project from the future residential component, particularly from Chumh Street. 3. The Design Guidelines should incorporate the design elements that were conditions of approval for the Texaco service station. 4. Introduce an additional building material (other than stucco) that can be used as the base/wainscot details and trim. 5. Complete the design of the Type III Gateway at the corner of Foothill Boulevard and Elm Street. 6. Respond to the specific design concerns associated with Pads D and E. The project returned to Design Review Committee on November 16, 1999, at which time the applicant reviewed revised plans with the Committee. The Committee recommended approval of the revised project based on the following conditions: : 1. At the time of development review process for Majors 1, 2, or 3, the focal point shall be determined based on the actual building, pedestrian/traffic, and hardscape design. The focal point shall be a plaza area and shall also include vertical- substance (i.e. fountain, flag pole, sculpture, etc.) as well as the ground level hardscape and landscape component. 2. At the time of development review of either the apartments or Majors 1, 2, or 3, the cimulation-from Church Street shall be analyzed. The design shall incorporate appropriate access to both the apartments as well as the commercial area, without encouraging traffic to short-cut through the center, avoiding traffic control at Milliken Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. 3. The building and column base, archway trim, tower accents and "key-stones" and other similar elements shall be "Flexi-rock" as presented to the Design Review Committee. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 99-25 & PM 15424 - LEWIS RETAIL CENTERS Janua~ 12,2000 Page 4 C. Technical Review Committee: The Technical Review Committee reviewed the project on November 3, 1999. All requirements of the committee are included as conditions of approval. The Grading Committee requested that any future grading plan submittals be provided on a larger scale, separate from the master plan conceptual grading plan that will clearly detail the phased improvements on the site. Particular attention will be paid to the interface of the developed and undeveloped portions of the site as construction progresses (i.e. the need for AC berms, slopes, interim drainage, and erosion control). D. Environmental Assessment: The Initial Study Part 11 was prepared for the project. The attached resolution contains mitigation measures for air quality impacts during project construction. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the project site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve issuance of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolutions of Approval for Conditional Use Permit 99-25 and Parcel Map 15424 subject to all conditions of approv,. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner. BB:DM:Is:mlg Attachments: Exhibit"A" - Location Map Exhibit "B" - Master Site Plan Exhibit"C" - Landscape Plan Exhibit"D" - Grading Plan Exhibit"E" - Elevations Exhibit"F" - Design Guidelines Exhibit "G" - Tentative Parcel Map Exhibit "H" - Design Review Committee Minutes of November 2 and 16, 1999 Exhibit"l" - Initial Study Resolutior. of Approval Conditional Use Permit 99-25 Resolution of Approval Parcel Map 15424 BASE' ~ RoAD '- ' ' :at PRO~£CT SIJA4J~t~d~,Y THE COLONS ~ ~. ,~ , ~TER P~N % ~ -' v~ I & PH~E 2 ~ !ill ?,~,~-,.~ LEWIS OPERATING CORP. hhhlu~ ~--- :',,' ---' ,~ h~.~,: · [ ~--~- ..~- .................... =_ ............................. ;,&;~;~ ;;;~;~.. ~ NWC FOOIHILL BOULEVARD & MILLIKEN AVENUE RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA CONCEPTUAL LEWIS_, ~,~OPERATING CORP. LANOSCAPE ~.. ........ MASTER PLAN SITE] SUMMARY CONCEPTUAL GRAOING PLAN THE COMMONS ' ~ MASTER PLAN ~ ~ ~ ............................. ~": ?: .......... : '",]' ........ i':c'z]:~_ ' ~' ~ ,' ,' '"-'".-; ' ~, '- A " '-' / ;:.:'~,! "' ->'.' r ......... ]'-~: ......... ~ II1 I I LE~IS OPERATING CORP, ~,. ~ ~' '~' A Member 0F The Lewis Group 0F Companies 1156 N. MOUNTA]N AVE. UPLAND , CA 91785 (909) 949- ' ~ O I-'+ %~ _~ %~x~ Z~' ~ %=v ~ ,,.%1 , ~ % % , ~ ~ ,~,,~-e ~¢~ .... ~- ¢~- == - ~ =--.'= ........................... " ~ ~ :;---~ / ~,~. ,- ~ ,. ~ ..= .... ¢ _ TEXACO-,-, I SS O I L / ~ ~ ...... ~ ;' ....... I - ' . 7.~ SITE SUMMARY .................. L _:.:..:----~ :- FOOTHILL:, BL CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN .................... ~ .......... ' · - - -' ' > ' - .... ' ' ,/ ..... 'VACANT"' ~ THE COMMONS '~ '. ;' /' f ~ ........... ~ f',,"" .... "'" ' . .. ....' ..' ., ...... ' PHASE 1 AND PHASE 2 P~N -. LEWIS OPERATING CORP A Member Of The Lewis Group Of Componies }l,?i,~il, .,~.,,~,,~..,, 1156 N. MOUNTAIN AVE. UP~ND , C* 91785 (909) 949-6702 SOUTH ELEVATION ~JORS ~-~: ~ ~' ' :":"- SO~ EL~AIION ~T E~ATION , ~ .~.... .-..-~ ~..~ ~ NORTH [L~AnON ~ST EL~AnON MASTER PLAN PAD [ ~ PHASE 2 Illll i ,~.,,., LEWIS OPERATING CORP. I,l,,,,l,] ,c,-, A Member Of The Lewis Group O( Companies ,~.'~_~l~.,: '-...'.~__,,.."0'.-'~'~." 1~S6 N. MOUNT~ AVE. UPLAND, (909) 949-[~F The Commons Rancho Cucamonga, California Design Guidelines Generally, development within The Commons shall be consistent and adhere to the requirements set forth in the Terra Vista Community Plan, latest addition. Specifically, architectural, landscape and site design shall conform to the theme, materials, colors and standards described in these guidelines. Quality of materials and professional workmanship is required for all aspects of design and construction within The Commons. Architectural Guidelines All buildings, with the exception of restaurants, shall reflect the design theme as described and depicted herein. The theme is a Mediterranean style patterned after the Spanish Colonial Architecture indicative of the history of early California and compatible with the Terra Vista Town Square and Town Center projects located along Foothill Boulevard to the West. Freestanding restaurant buildings will be allowed to express a particular theme but must reflect compatible colors, materials and building forms harmonious to the overall theme. Proposed development which vades fz'om the City of Rancho Cucamonga approved Site Plan, with respect to materials, building layout, facades and parking lot and/or driveways, will require submittal of revised Site Plan materials to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department for review and approval. Prior to construction, working drawings consistent with the approved Site Plan shall be submitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department for review and approval. A. Building Mass and Form Particular concem must be shown to establish a varied project skyline. Buildings shall be designed to avoid uniformly fiat silhouettes. Massing and Form shall vary, conveying an image of evolution and development over time. Massing should be simple and possess strongly integrated geomethc forms. The massing should relate to the internal function and nature of the space it is intended to enclose. The use of Crchitectural elements such as arcades, colonnades and covered walkways that define and organize space are encouraged. Flush surfaces and continuous cladding materials brought straight into the ground without transition is discouraged. See Exhibit No. 1 B. Elevation Treatment Depth in elevations shall be provided by the layering of planes, masses and elements that vary in height. Articulation of the elevation surfaces is encouraged through the use of openings and recesses which create visual interest and create shadow patterns to provide vadety in the building plane and surface. Building facades should be designed in accordance with the architectural theme through the use of form, light, shadow, texture and color. Enhancement of larger flush surfaces with the use of subtle changes in color or textural variations, or grid patterns through the use of screeds is encouraged. Details or elements that appear, in the opinion of The City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department, to be arbitrary or out of scale are not permitted Each elevation shall incorporate colored accent elements. See Exhibit No. 1 C. Screening of Exterior and Mechanical and Electrical Equipment All rooftop utility and mechanical equipment should be screened by building parapets or compatible buitding elements. Parapet and screen profiles should be at a minimum equal to the height of adjacent rooftop equipment. Meters, electrical cabinets and 'switch gear shall be located within the building they serve or be screened with landscape or an enclosure designed within the theme of the project, Ground mounted utility vaults, transformers, and detector check valves shall be screened with landscape or incorporated into trash enclosures or an enclosure designed within the theme of the project. Trash enclosures and screen enclosures shall be made of noncombustible materials and incorporate finishes and colors complimentary to the style of the adjacent building. No storage bins or containers are permitted. See Exhibit No. 5 Refer to Exhibit No. 4 D. Colors The palette of building colors should generally be warm and rich in tone. Refer to Colors and Finishes Palette Exhibit No. 2. The accent colors should be used purposefully to express entries, bases or special areas. The use of accent colors for building details such as mullions, awnings, etc. is encouraged. Refer to Colors and Finishes Palette Exhibit No. 2. :wning or umbrella coldrs may be used as accents. Col0rs that reinforce and enhance the theme ' · encouraged. When used, awning and umbrella colors shall be compatible with the project :ors and Finishes Palette and be submitted to The City of Rancho Cucamonga planning Department for review and approval E, Building Materials All buildings in the project shall be finished with "Mission Finish" stucco (plaster). The use of accent colored and textured or scored stucco is encouraged to be used in the most prominent building elements and exposures. Refer to Exterior Elevations Exhibit No. 1, and to the Colors and Finishes Palette Exhibit No. 2. Wainscot materials such as tile or precast concrete may be used. F. Clay Tiled Roofs All pitched roofs shall be covered with U.S. Tile, 2 Piece Straight Barrel Mission Clay Tile, 'q'erre Vista Blend" with 5% Booster Tiles. All tiled roofs shall have a 4 to 12 pitch. Eaves shall be designed with either simply a cornice, or with a corbeled overhang with a cornice. Refer to Elevations Exhibit No. 1, Colors and Finishes Palette Exhibit No. 2, and Details Exhibit No. 4. G. Canopies. and Soffits Canopies and soffits shall be similar to the conceptual construction details provided herein. Refer to Elevations Exhibit No. 1, and Colors and Finishes Palette Exhibit No. 2. Arcades and Colonnades are encouraged. H. Building Construction Each construction site shall be surrounded and secured by either a 5 foot high plywood or vinyl covered chain link fence. Construction matedal must be stored within the enclosure, and to the extent practical below enclosure height. Construction site and adjacent area shall be maintained neat, clean and orderly. Businesses shall not open without Certificate of Occupancy. I. Miscellaneous Shopping cart storage must be approved on a Site Plan and designed to be integrated with the building architecture. See Landscape Design Guidelines for exterior lighting, Patio Tables and Chairs, Benches, Accessories, Paving and Landscape requirements. See Sign Design Guidelines for signage requirements. J. Construction Details The construction details in Exhibit 4 represent conceptual architectural details for which each BuyeflLesee's architect should properly review and incorporate into their design and construction documents. All designs shall be submitted to the SelleflLessor for review and approval. ELEVATIONS COLORS AND FINISHES PALLEI-I'E EXHIBIT NO. 2 EXTERIOR FINISH LEGEND KEY A CLAY TILE ROOF B STAINED WOODEN CORBEL C PAINTED EXTERIOR PLASTER OVER FOAM CORNICE D PAINTED EXTERIOR CEMENT PLASTER E PAINTED EXTERIOR CEMENT PLASTER WAINSCOT F PAINTED EXTERIOR CEMENT PLASTER BASE G PAINTED ALUMINUM STOREFRONT H PAINTED METAL LIGHT FIXTURE J CERAMIC ACCENT TILE OF,'. MEDALLION J--J G.)LOR SCHEDULE KEY 1 FRAZEE 4320W KUBUKI MAIN WALLS 2 FRAZEE 4341 SNOWY PEACH MAIN ENTRY MASSES 3 FRAZEE 4342M INDIA SPICE .WAINSCOT, COLUMN BASE, ACCENT 4 FRAZEE 4994D CHRISTOPHER STOREFRONT 5 FRAZEE 4344D SEQUOIA ACCENT 6 OLD QUAKER #434 STAINED WOODEN ELEMENTS 7 US. TILE "TERRA VISTA BLEND" TILE ROOFS 8 FRAZEE 001 WHITE ACCENT CLAY ROOF TILES - "TERRA VISTA" BLEND EXTERIOR CEMENT PLASTER 85% "BERMUDA BLEND", 15e~ "STANDARO REO" "INOIA SPICE" FRAZEE 4342M BY U.S. TILES EXTERIOR CEMENT PLASTER EXTERIOR CEMENT PLASTER "WHITE" FRAZEE 001 "SEQUOIA" FRAZEE 4344D EXTERIOR CEMENT PLASTER EXTERIOR CEMENT PLASTER "KUBUKr' FRAZEE 4320W . "CHRISTOPHER" FRAZEE 4994D EXTERIOR CEMENT PLASTER EXTERIOR STAIN "SNOWY PEACH" FRAZEE 4341W OLD QUAKER -ff434 ,,.~r .0.: .,.~.~ THE ~ DESIGN GUIDELINES COMMONS '" ~ '-' ~ ~ h i, ~ ,-~ ,,, EXHIBIT NO. 3 NWC OF FOOTHILL BLVD. ~.~ ~ & MILLIKEN AVE. :-. ..... Jl~]J,]~! RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA .... 0'-3' ~' , 0'-5 i -.- PARAPET 1 DETAIL PARAPET 2 DETAIL SOFFIT AT ENTRY VESTIBULE DETAILS ~'/~/-//'~/7--'~'-ff" EXHIBIT 4 ~_- c~.~ /6 TRASH ENCLOSURE EXHIBIT 5 Page I LANDSCAPE DESIGN GUIDELINES A. Introduction Design Guidelines for The Commons are intended to define and emphasize the uniqueness Of the project areas, Milliken Avenue, Foothill Boulevard, Elm Avenue and Church Street are impodant business corridors of the City; they carry a significant amount of through-travel, and they will provide an important focus for the City of Rancho Cucamanga. ~;3 In general, it is intended that The Commons landscaping and site design be organized and informal in nature, complementing its structured, urban character. Site design and landscape'development should promote a strong identity and "sense of place" within the Specific Plan area. The emphasis for design treatments should advance these objectives through forms and materials in streetscapes, "~'"/ project perimeter, and on-site project areas. Combined, these elements can allow The Commons to be distinctively different from its surroundings, and provide a sense of identity to this project. B. Landscape Concept Plan The Conceptual Landscape Master Plan is an integral element in achieving a distinctive development character for the project area (Exhibit 1). This character is reinforced through the coordinated design and selection of landscape and paving materials, and emphasis on special features. Required guidelines are specified for the following categories: 1. Streetscape 2. Project Entries 3. Project Edges 4. Internal Roadways 5. On-Site Landscaping 6. Hardscape Design Elements The Landscape Concept Plan contained herein establishes a framework for consistency of design between the ultimate development pattern and phased increments. As phases are implemented, landscape plans that are consistent with these concepts and which implement them shall be approved. The Commons maintains the final approval of all landscape improvements and maintenance guidelines. The above categories are described in the following pages. Streetscape a. Landscape Edge Adjacent Surrounding to Arterial Corridors In order to create a unifying element surrounding the project area, a landscape edge will be maintained adjacent to Foothill Boulevard, Elm Avenue, Church Street, and Milliken Avenue. It will include informal shrub masses with groundcover and informal dense trees on parkways, which will be bermed at a 3' maximum height. Minimum widths of 5 feet between the curb and the meandering sidewalk shall be maintained except where the walk meets the curb. Concrete mowstdps shall separate the turf and shrub/groundcover planting areas (Exhibits 2, 3, 4 and 5). Recommended plant materials for streetscape are as follows; Trees; Foothill Blvd.: Pinus canariensis (Canary island Pine) Platanus acerifolia (London Plane Tree) Prunus cerasifera (Purple Leaf Plum) Rhus lancea (African Sumac) Milliken Avenue:Brachychiton acedfolia (Flame Tree) Liquidambar styraciflua (American Sweet Gum) Elm Avenue: Koelreuteria bipinnata (Chinese Flame Tree) Melaleuca quinquenervia (Cajeput Tree) Church Street: Pinus halepensis (Aleppo Pine) Platanus acerifolia (London Plane Tree) Shrubs; Dietes vegeta (Fortnight Lily) Liriope muscad (Big Blue Lily Turf) Phormium tenax (New Zealand Flax) Photinia frased (Photinia) Pittoporum tobira 'Vadegata' (Variegated Tobira) Pittosporum tobira 'Wheelerii' (Wheeler's Dwarf) Podocarpus macrophyIIus 'Maki' (Shrubby Yew Pine) Hemerocallis hybrids (Daylily) Prunus laurocerasus (English Laurel) Tulbahgia violacea (Society Garlic) Rhaphiolepis indica 'Ballerina' (India Hawthorn) ~ Page 3 ~ Viburnum tinus (Laurustinus) ~ Xylosma congetum 'Comp~c[a' (Dwarf Xylosma) ~ Groundcovers; Hedera helix 'Hahnii' (Hahn's English Ivy) ~ Trachelospermum jasminoides (Star Jasmine) Parthenocissus tdcuspidata (Boston Ivy) Pag~ b. Primary Comer Quadrant Corner quadrants at major corridors' intersections are the large-scale elements of The Commons' identity. It is intended to be visible from a distance in terms of scale, contrast of color, texture and materials (Exhibit 6). "~ Trees; Washingtonia robusta 'Hybdd' (Hybrid Fan Palm) ~ Sophora japonica (Japanese Pagoda Tree) Shrubs; Dietes vegeta (Fortnight Lily) Liriope muscad (Big Blue Lily Turf) Phormium tenax (New Zealand Flax) "~'"'/ Photinia fraseri (Photinia) Pittosporum tobira 'Vadegata' (Variegated Tobira) ~ Pittosporum tobira 'Wheelerii' (Wheeler's Dwarf) ""'"1 Podocarpus macrophyllus 'Maki' (Shrubby Yew Pine Hemerocallis hybrids (Daylily) Prunus laurocerasus (English Laurel) ~ Tulbaghia violacea (Society Garlic) "'---- Rhaphiolepis indica 'Ballerina' (India Hawthorn) Viburnum tinus (Laurustinus) Xylosma congetum 'Compacta' (Dwarf Xylosma) Groundcovers; Hedera helix 'Hahnii' (Hahn's English Iv,/) Trachelospermum jasminoides (Star Jasmine) Padhenocissus tdcuspidata (Boston Ivy) Page 5 2. Project Entries Secondary comer quadrants at Ih~ entry ddves to The Commons shall be a specially accented, which announce the arrival to the space and the theme of The Commons. a. Accent Planting Flowering canopy trees along with larger scale background trees will be utilized at specific project entries to highlight and provide an entry gateway at project sites (Exhibits 7 and 8), Recommended plant materials are as follows: Trees; Phoenix dactylifera (Date Palm) - minimum 15' brown trunk height Lagerstroemia indica (Crape Myrtle) Prunus cerasifera (Purple-leaf Plum) Shrubs; Dietes vege!a (Fodnight Lily) Liriope mus~.ad (Big Blue Lily Tun') Phormium tenax (New Zealand Flax) Photinia frased (Photinia) Pittoporum tobira 'Variegata' (Variegated Tobira) Pittosproum tobira 'Wheelerii' (Wheeler's DwarO Podocarpus macrophyllus 'Maki' (Shrubby Yew Pine) Hemerocallis hybdds (Daylily) Prunus laurocerasus (English Laurel) Tulbahgia violacea (Society Gadic) Rhaphiolepis indica 'Ballerina' (India Hawthom) Vibumum tinus (Laurustinus) Xylosma congetum 'Compacta' (Dwarf Xylosma) Groundcovers; Hedera helix 'Hahnii' (Hahn's English Ivy) Trachelospermum jasminoides (Star Jasmine) Padhenocissus tdcuspidata (Boston Ivy) Pag b. Special Paving Specially enhanced paving shall be utilized at specific project entdes, but shall not be a pad of the public dght..of-wa~;'. The special paving will highlight the entry by providing a visual and texlural contrast to the surrounding paving materials. Recommended materials: Field Paving: L.M.Scofield Chromix C-15 Coachella Sand with light broom finish Stone Pattern: L.M.Scofield Lithochrome Base A-55 Pecan Tan with release agents, Deep Chocolate (1503) and/or Rose Taupe (4365) Page 7  3. Proiect L, ,. ~ The objective of landscaping this edge is to visually screen offsite buildings and to create a sense of enclosure. The edge buffer shall consist of a dense, informal planting of trees in a minimum five (5) foot landscape sldp (Exhibit 9). This consistently landscaped edge will · '~ establishedidentify the boundadeSunder the trees.°f The Commons and will provide a buffer from the adjacent lend use activities. Permanent groundcover will be "~ For recommended plant materials, see Streetscape section· Pag 4. Internal Roadways To provide a unifying element within the project boundaries, the following slreetscape guidelines shall be implemented. Major circulation roadways in The Commons shall be landscaped in an informal urban arrangement. These roadways shall be laced with consistent tree species to identify roadways as the pdmary circulation feature, to create interest and give a Strong sense of direction. All roadways shall maintain a minimum 5-foot landscape stdp between the curb and parking or building edge. These stdps of areas shall be planted with informal shrub rows along the parking lot edges (Exhibit 10). Recommended plant materials are as foIIows:· Trees; Prunus cerasifera (Purple Leaf Plum) Phoenix dactylifera (Date Palm) ~, PIatanus acedfolia (London Plane Tree) Pyrus calleryana 'Aristocrat' (n.c.n.) I Shrubs; Agapanthus africanus 'Queen Anne'(Lily of the Nile) ),..._._~ Dietes vegeta (Fodnight Lily) Escallonia 'Newport DwarF(Dwarf Escallonia) Hemerocallis Hybrids (Daylily) ~ Ligustrum japonicum 'Texanum' (Japanese Privet) ~ Phormium tenax (New Zealand Flax) Rhaphiolepis indica 'Ballerina' (India Hawthorn) Rhaphiolepis indica 'Pink Lady' (India Ha'~hom) Viburnum tinus 'Spring Bouquet' (Laurestinus) Groundcovers; Hedera helix 'Hanhii' (Hahn's English Ivy) Lonicera japonica 'Halliana' (Hall's Honeysuckle) Rosmadnus oflicinalis 'Prostratus' (dwarf Rosemary) Trachelospermum jasminoides (Star Jasmine) Page 9 5. On-Site Landscapinq- Parkinq Lots In addition to the selections previously specified, the following trees, shrubs, groundcovers and turf shall be incorporated into the site where appropriate (Exhibit 1). Alternative choices are subject to Site Plan approval. Developers shall have the option to incorporate materials other than what are listed below; however this will be subject to the approval of the City of Rancho Cucamanga. a. Building Entrances paving as well as densely planted shrubs, annual and Entrances to buildings will be accented with enhanced concrete perennial colors and accent trees in larger sizes (24' box), while maintaining visibility to users. b. Parking Lots All open parking area and their adjacent vehicular access ways shall incorporate landscaping, which may be comprised of trees, shrubs and groundcovers. Landscaping shall include Rt least one (1) fifteen (15) gallon tree per 8 parking stalls in open parking area and vehicular access way. Planting areas shail be a minimum of 5'x5' diamond shaped. Recommended parking lot trees are as follows: Cinnamomum camphora (Camphor Tree) Platanus acerifolia (London Plane Tree) Pyrus calleryana 'Aristocrat' (n.c.n.) Washingtonia robusta 'Hybdd' (Hybdd Fan Palm) c. Landscape Planter Installation Any landscaped area shall be separated from an adjacent vehicular area by a wall or curb. Pag~ d. Tree Planting Trees shall be planted to enhance the identity of architecture and sense of place, at the same time accenting entrances to buildings, complementing building perimeter, and providing shade in parking lots. They shall be planted in a minimum 15 gallon container size. Phoenix dactylifera (Date Palm) Washingtonia robusta 'Hybrid' (Hybrid Fan Palm) Strelitzia nicolai (Giant Bird of Paradise) Sophora japonica (Japanese Pagoda Tree) Lagerstroemia indica (Crape Mydle) e. Shrub Planting Shrubs shall be used for screening of parking areas and for special effects at building entrances, building perimeter and parking lot islands and planting stdps. Shrubs of similar species shall be used in large masses to avoid spotty and disconnected ground planes. They shall be planted at a minimum rate of one per 16 square-feet, and 90% of shrub planting shall be with 5 gallon size materials. Vines may be used in place of tall hedges to screen trash enclosures and utility equipment. They shall be in a minimum 1 gallon container. Agapanthus afdcanus 'Queen Anne'(Lily of the Nile) Dietes vegeta (Fortnight Lily) Escallonia 'Newport Dwarf(Dwarf Escallonia) Hemerocallis Hybirds (Daylily) Ligustrum japonicum 'Texanum' (Japanese Privet) Phormium tenax (New Zealand Flax) Rhahphiolepis indica 'Ballerina' (India Hawthorn) Rhaphiolepis indica 'Pink Lady' (India Hawthorn) Viburnum tinus 'Spring Bouquet' (Laurestinus) f. Groundcover Planting For use in planting beds to complement turf area, groundcevers shall be of types that are easy to maintain. Groundcovers shall be planted at maximum spacing of 12" on center from fiats or larger. Page 11 Hedera helix 'Hahnii' (Hahn's English Ivy) Lonicera japonica 'Halliana' (Hall's Honeysuckle) Rosmadnus officinalis 'Prostratus' (Dwarf Rosemary) Trachelospermum jasminoides (Star Jasmine) Page 6. Hardscape Desiqn Elements Hardscape design elements shall be incorporated into the overall design scheme for plaza, coudyard or transitional spaces within The Commons. Hardscape elements will function as visual and physical connections between buildings and landscape materials in a \ coordinated and consistent manner, The elements, which are depicted in Exhibit 11, shall include but may not be limited to the following: Promenade 10' high Memphis Collection, precast concrete, pearl gray color, etched finished (E40) with acorn luminaire by Stress Crete Parking Light Poles 13' high, Spider mounted Round Galleria by McGraw Edison with standard bronze color. Waste Receptacles/Ash Urns Catifomia Series QR-Cal 2533 W/QR-Ca11472A, natural conc. with light sandblast finish by QuickCrete Products. '~:~.. Planter Pots /,.._..~ California Series, various sizes, natural conc. with light sandblast finish by QuickCrete Products. Benches' ~ California QR-Cal-72B nat. conc. With acid etched finish by QuickCrete Products. Series, Bike Racks 1700 Series Loop Bike Racks, 7 Position, Dark Bronze color, UItrum Collection by Game Time, Inc. Page 13 C. Installation and Maintenance 1. Water Permanent automatic irrigation facilities shall be provided for all landscape areas. This system may be augmented by drought- resistant vegetation. 2. Maintenance All landscaping shall be permanently maintained in a neat, clean and h' ' ~'ndition. lll l i THE COMMONS ~ o ~ '°°' CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE MASTER PLAN Exhibit I Street trees Pinus canafiensis Platanus acedfolia Prunus cerasifera Rhus lancea Turf Meandering sidewalk "¥"i Informal shrub masses (:~' with groundcover ~ g 2" overhang .~ 25' ! 1~5' min..~ Parl~[ng / setback ]~ · 15' Parking lot 40' minimum Foothill Blvd. SECTI'ON ,A,: FOOTHILL AVENUE Exhibit 2 Street trees Brachychiton acerifolia Liquidambar styraciflua Turf Meandering sidewalk Informal with groundcover ~ Parkin.q setbac'E ~,. 15' Building 40' minimum Milliken Avenue SECTI'ON' 'B' · MILLIKEN AVENUE ' 'Exhibit 3 Street trees Koelreuteria bipinnata Melaleuca quinquinervia Turf Concrete sidewalk Informal shrub with groundcover on earth mound ~, Parkin.q 2" overhang setback 10' to 15' (varies) 15' Parking lot 25' minimum Elm Avenue SECTION'" C. ELM AVENUE Exhibit4 ~ Street trees · ,~ Platanus acerifolia Pinus halep,ensis ' Turf t~ Meandering sidewalk ' · Informal shrub ma.. with groundcover on earth mound setback ~- 10' .~. 15' Parking lot 25' minimum Concours SECTION 'D': CHURCH STREET E J(hibit 5 '~ LM sf _~ Washlnstonla robusta 'Hybrid' Sophora Japordca La§erstroemla Indlca Plnus canarlensls TREATMENT PER TERRA VISTA COMMUNITY PLAN MONUMENT SIC2',1 -- BUS SHELTER MEANDER!NC CONCRETE SIDEWALK FOOTHILL BLVD ~ PRIMARY COR.~NER QUADRANT AT MILLIKEN AND FOOTHILL BLVD Exhibit 6 ' , ¥,/~y,~1~/'~ ,, ,~ ~ ~/~,~'~x~. TURF . SECONDARY CORNER QUADRANT AT ~ILLIKEN AVENUE Exhibit 7 ~~ Pad C ~o Rest. o 7,000 sf ':..; i:."! ~i:i.-ii.:..:.':, MONUMENT SIGN CORNER MONUMENT SIGN TURF MEDIAN ACCENT PLANTING MEANDERING ENTRY ACCENT TREES CONCRETE SIDEWALK Lagerstroemla Indlca Phoenix dac/yllfera ENHANCED CONCRETE- Pinus canarlensls ENTRANCE PAVING TO Prunus cerasllera MATCH EXISTING FOOTHILL BLVD SECONDARY CORNER QUADRANT AT FOOTHILL BLVD Exhibit 8- ~ ~ __ Sc!een trees ~--"J ~ Pmus ~nariensis 'i~---l ,./ {. ~. ~- Shrub massing and  Groundcover %. On-Site Building5' mira. Parking Isle SECTION 'E'- TYPICAL EDGE BUFFER @ EXISTING TEXACO Exhibit 9 Median tree Phoenix dactylifera En~ roadway accent Washington~a fllifera and groundcover -I Median -I Parkway Parkway Internal roadway SECTION 'F': ENTRY ROADWAY AT FOOTHILL BLVD Exhibit 10 LIGIITIt~IG LIGII'I]NG ' h ~-' ',~'- ~ TRASH CONTAINER SIGNAGE RECEPTACLE PLANTIt~G Hardscape Elements Exhibit 11 NORTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION PAD E ELEVATIONS DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Debra Meier November 2, 1999 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-25 - LEWIS RETAIl CENTERS/LEWIS OPERATING CORPORATION - The request for the approval of a Master Plan and Design Guidelines for Terra Vista Commons; the approval of Pad E including site plan, architecture and landscaping; and the conceptual approval of Pad D as a drive-thru restaurant. Pad E includes a 10,088 square foot retail building and Pad D is intended to accommodate a 3,100 square foot restaurant with a drive-thru. The Terra Vista Commons is a 20.40 acre site located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard between Elm and Milliken Avenues in the Mixed Use District of the Te~'a Vista Community Plan - APN: 107~.~'~21-98 and 227~771-53 (portion). Desiqn Parameters: Conditional Use Permit 96-21 was approved in December 1996 for the Texaco gas station and associated fast. food restaurant subtenants. This existing development utilized approximately 1.15 acres of the master plan area located at the corner of Foothill Boulevard and Elm Avenue. The master plan concept and design guidelines were not included in the review and approval of Conditional Use permit 96-21. The Terra Vista Commons is a mixed-use master plan concept, including retail, restaurants (including drive-thru), and service station; along with a High Density Residential (24-30 dwelling units per acre) component which is located at the northeast corner of the master plan area at Church Street and Milliken Avenue. The residential component is reflected in the master plan only to determine the appropriate access and relationship to the retail/commercial portion of the site. The residential units and internal site plan will be reviewed at a later date. Note: Milliken Avenue and Church Street do not meet. Staff Comments.: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Master Plan/Desiqn Guideline Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus ol~ Committee discussion regarding the Master Plan and Design Guidelines: 1. The Master Plan lacks a primary focal point, such as a large plaza or significant architectural feature. The natural location for such a focal point would be the line-of-sight from the main driveway on Foothill Boulevard looking northerly into the site. 2. Consider providing a separate means of access into the residential component of the site. As an example, the driveway from Church Street could be used for residential access, with the commercial and delivery traffic directed through other entrances to the site. 3. The Design Guidelines should incorporate the design elements that were conditions of approval for the Texaco service station (photographs of cedain details and elements will be available for review at the meeting). That includes: a. Provide decorative pavement within the handicap parking spaces in front of the main entries; b. Provide a minimum depth of 6-inches to all recessed areas with a pre-cast concrete trim (or similar) around all recessed elements. c. Provide 2-inch metal for tubing for all proposed trellis'. d, Provide a concrete trim to the top of the tile paver base where it transitions to the stucco column. e. Provide pre-cast concrete caps to all screen walls along drive-thru lanes. Split face material is acceptable for the side of the wall that does not face Foothill Boulevard. DRC COMMENTS CUP 99-25 - LEWIS RETAIL CENTERS/LEWIS OPERATING CORP. November 2, 1999 " Page 2 f. Provide a decorative end to all wood trellis. 7. Introduce an accent building material (other than stucco) that can be used as a base for columns, wainscot, or other locations as identified for each building to create changes in color and texture of the building face. 8. Complete the design of the Type III Gateway at the corner of Foothill Boulevard and Elm Avenue. The completion of the gateway monumentation was deferred at the time that building permits were issued for Texaco. Pad E Issues: The following design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding the specific approval of Pad E, including site plan, architecture, and landscaping: 1. Provide pedestrian access from the Foothill Boulevard sidewalk to Pad E. in addition, provide pedestrian access between the existing Texaco development to Pad E. 2. Provide opportunities for trees to be panted along the noah and east building elevations. 3..-.. Provide an accent building material used as a column base, wainscot or similar treatment (refer to comment ~ above). Pad D Issues: The following design issues ~,ill be the focus of Committee discussion regarding the conceptual location of the drive-thru restaurant intended for Pad D: 1. The placement and circulation of the drive-thru restaurant pad is acceptable in concept. Once an actual tenant has been identified more specific information will be required to determine the appropriate number of staking spaces, and other related issues, as identified in Development Code Section 17.12.040.C.5. Staff Recommendation: Review these and any other issues identified by the Committee; suggest modifications; and return for Committee approval at subsequent meeting. Desiqn Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Para Stewart, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Debra Meier The Committee reviewed the Master Plan and Phase 2 (Pads D and E) proposal and agreed with' staff identified design issues as listed in the report. The applicant agreed to address them and resubmit to the Committee for further review. The Committee agreed to review the revised plans under Consent Calendar agenda on November 16, 1999, meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR COMMENTS 9:45 p.m. Debra Meier November 16, 1999 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-25 - LEWIS RETAIL CENTERS/LEWIS OPERATING CORP.. - The development of a Master Plan and Design Guidelines for Terra Vista Commons, a 10,088 square foot retail building (Pad E) and a 3,100 square foot drive-thru restaurant (Pad D), on 20.4acres of land in the Mixed Use District of the Terra Vista Community Plan, located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard between Elm and Milliken Avenues - APN: 1077-421-98 and 227-771-53 (portion). Desiqn Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Nancy Fong Staff Planner; Debra Meier The Committee reviewed the revised plans and elevations that addressed the November 2, 1999 Design Review comments, which was presented by the architect at the meeting. The Committee recommended that the project be forwarded to the Planning Commission for approval in January, 2000 with the following conditions: Master Plan/Buildinq Design 1. The development of a focal point for the project has not been formally resolved at this level of design. At the time of development review process for Majors 1, 2, or 3, the focal point · shall be determined based on the actual building, pedestrian/traffic, and hard scape design. The focal point shall be a plaza araa and shall have vertical substance (i.e., fountain, flag pole, sculpture, etc.) as well as the ground level hard scape and landscape component. 2. At the time of development review process of either the apartments or Majors 1,2, or 3, the circulation from Church Street shall be analyzed. The design shall incorporate appropriate access to both the apartments as well as the commercial area, without encouraging traffic to short-cut through t; ~ center, avoiding traffic control at Milliken Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. 3. The architect introduc~ secondary building material, known as "Flexi-rock" to be used as wainscot base, colur" ~d archway trim, tower accents and "'~3y-stones," and similar accent components r ouildir.. :, design. The proposed material was acceptable to the Committee. 4. The building colodr¢~a~erial palette, as presented by the architect and reflected on the revised color elevations, were acceptable to the Committee. Pad D/E Issues Issues specific to pads D/E shall be incorporated as appropriate and required by Code as noted in Design Review Comments of November 2, 1999. ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM (Part I - Initial Study) The purpose of this form is to inform the City of the basic components of the proposed project so that the City may review the project pursuant to City policies, ordinances, and guidelines; t~e 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 tA~£L NOT BE PROCESSED, Please note that it is Ihe responsibility o! the applicant to ensure that the application is Complele at Ihe time of submitlal; City staff will not be a va#able lo per/otto wo~ required to provide missing in[orrnalion. Application Number for the project to which this [on'n pertains: Project Tit/o: Terra Vista - · .............. , , ,v .! !Name&Addressofprejeclowneds): LDC Couqar LLC, 1156 N, Mnl,qtnirl Avcpue. Uplnnd, CA 91785-0670. Name & Address of developer or project sponsoc Lewis Retail Centers 1156 North Mountain Avenue, P.O. Box 670, Upland, CA 91785-0670 ContactPe~on&Addres$: Gary G. Bauer, Director - Commercial Construction & Project Mgmt. Lewis Retail. 1156 North Mountain Avenue, P.O. Box 670, Upland, CA 91785-0670 Telephone Number:. 909/949-6702; fax 909/949-6740 Name & Address of per$on prepa_dng lhis form (if different from above): Elaine V. Carbrey. AIA. AICP Gruen Associates, 6330 San Vicente Boulevardr Suite 200~ Los Anqeles, CA 90048-5425 prepared portions of this form. ITelephoneNumbor; 323/937-4270; fax 323/937-6001 INITSTD1.WPD - 4196 InfotTnation indicated by asterisk (*) ia not required of non-construction CUP's unless othen~,ise requested by staff. '1) Provide a full scale (8-1/2 x 11) copy of the USGS Quad~nt Sheet(s) which includes the project $ile. and indicate the site boundaries. 2) Provide a set of color photographs which show representative views ~n~ the site from the north, south, east and west; views into and [~m the site from the pdmaq/ access points which serve the site; and representative views of significant features fr~m the site. Include a map showing location of each photograph. 3) Project Location (descdbe): The proiect is located on the southern border of the Terra Vista Community, aloncj Foothill Boulevard. The two adjacent parcels are bounded Foothill Boulevard, Mayten Avenue, Church Street and Elm Avenue. 4) Assessor's Paroel Numbers (attach addltional sheet if necessaO,): A.N. 1077-421-98, A.N. 0227-151-53, A,N. 0227-151-51 '5) Gro~s S#e Ama.(aclstl. f~.)~.The Te, rra Vista C~mmynify include~ l ,321acres. TheHresid_entialwhichistobemovedfromthe MFC parcel to'th~ ~HO parcel i~ 6.5 ~cres~ A~cordinq to'the Terra Vista Community Plan, the MFC parcel (proposed to be chanqed to CC} is 23.3 acres lincludinq the 6.5 acres of H residential); the MHO parcel is 21.0 acres. This appric~tion does not include the existinq qas station or hospital/office facility, but these areas are included in the parcel acreaqe tatars of the Te~ Vista Community Plan referenced above. '6) r~,. ~ .hie Area (tolal $~le s~ze m~nu$ area o! puOlic streets & proposed dedications): The net site area of the MFC (proposed to be chanqed lo CC) parcel, excludinq the existinq .qas ~tation is 20.743 acres; the net site area of the MHO parcel includi~I proposed residential, but excludinq the existinq hospital/office facility is 18.531 acres. 7) De$cnbe any proposed general plan amendment or zone change which would affect the project s~te (attach additional sheet See the attached text of the Draft Amendment No.' 10' to the Terra Vista Commurlity Plan. 8) Include a description of all pen, nits which will be necessa~ from tho City of Rancho Cucamonga and other governmental a.qench, ~ in on:let to fully ~mplement the project: ~ ~.'cier to fully implement the proiect, the necessary permits are: a Conditional Use Permit~ a Buildinq Permit~ a Cradinq Permit~ and a Cucamonqa County Waf;~r District Permit. INITSTD1.WPD - 4196 _ ,7/ . Page 2 et 10 9) Descdbe the physical seeing of the site as it exists before the ~,lect including inforrnation on topography, soil stabifity, 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 stnJctures. 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): The MFC parcel is vacant except for a gas station constructed in 1998 located on the southeast comer of the property. A hospital, with associated surface parkinq, was constructed in the early 1990s in the northeast comer of the MHO parcel. The hospital has been converted to offices. Norlh/south roads near the parcels include Elm and Milliken Avenues; easFwest roads include Foothill Boulevard and Church Street. Animal life on the parcels includes rabbits, squlfrels, lizards such as the waster fence and side blotch lizards, and various insects. According to the 1981 EIR for the Ten'a Vista Planned Community, 'No rare, threatened, endanqered, or othem~ise sensitive (plant or animal) species were observed or are expected to occur on the site...'. The 'Report of 1998 Focused Surveys for Delhi Sands Flower-Lovinq Fly on 'The Commons Development' Parcel' reported no observation of the Delhi Sands Fly (DSF). The report further stated ~the probability of the OSF actually occun-inq on the site is judqed as low..., the Proiect site is not suited for servinq any siqnificant role in DSF movement, even if the species did occur in the vicinity.' Cufrenfiy, portions of the parcels which are undeveloped are cleared of vegetation, or covered by coastal saqe veqetation consistinq of qrass, weeds and brush. No mature trees qrow on the site. The site is basically fiat, and lies within the Chino plain. Soils consist of a top layer of silty sand which is underlain by coarser, well-consolidated sand, qravel and cobble deposits. Based on tests conducted by RMA Group and reported in the 'Sudace Soil Evaluation for the Commons Proposed Shoppinq Center' surficial soils at the site 'do not meet the USOA Soil Conservation Service's criteria for Delhi sand.' The*Phase I Site Assessment by RMA Group further reported no records of contaminated soils on the 'Commons' site. The sites do not drain into any bodies of waler. Run-off from the sites is tributary to existinq and proposed ston'n drain facilities within Foothill Boulevard per the Terra Vista Master Plan of Drainaqe. Due to the absence of a hiqh groundwater table under the parcels, liquefaction and drainaqe problems are considered remole. The pdmary scenic aspects of the site are the rnou'ntain views to the north and east which are visible on clear days. 1 O) Describe the known cultural and/or historical aspects of the site. Site all sources of information (books. published reports and oral history): An archaeoloqical su~ey in 1977 revealed no hisdorical or prehistorical sites in the protect area. The proiect area was vacant ['of buildinqs or structures) before the Tefra Vista Community Development, and had no other siqnificant cultural function. Accordinq to the Final EIR for the Terra Vista Planned Community, there are no significant paleontoloqical or archaeoloqical resources ['prehistoric or historic} on or near the Terra Vista Planned Community. 1 I) Describe any noise sources and their levels that now effect tho-site (aircraft. roadway noise, otc.) end how they will effect proposed uses: Current noise sources around the protect area include traffic alonq Foothill Boulevard and Milliken Avenue~ as wel[ as the Ontario Airport. These noise sources create a Iow ambient noise level which is consistent with the proposed uses. 12) Describe Ihe proposed proiect in detail. This should provide an adequate description of the site in ten'ns of ultimate use which will result from the prosed project. Indicale if there are proposed phases for development, the extent of development to occur with each phase, and the anticipated completion of each increment. Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary: The proiect proposes chanqinq the land use desiqnation of the parcel bounded on the west by Elm Avenue, on .the east by Milliken Avenue, on the north by Church Street and on the south by Foothill Boulevard from MFC (mixed use Financial/Residential/Commercial) to CC for commercial uses such as retail sales, service and .restaurants. The proiect also proposes relocatinq the 6.5 acres of hiqh density (H) residential on this parcel to the parcel directly east. This parcel to the east is bounded by Foothill Boulevard, Mat4en Avenue, Church Street and Milliken Avenue. The project proposes that the 6.5 acres of H residential be located in the northeastern comer of this parcel. This project is proposed in order to allow for the development of a mater retail buildinq in the northeast comer of the MFC parcel. The shift in location of housinq is necessary to make room for development, without reducinq the lolal areas for housinq planned in the Terra Vista Community Plan. Tho ultimate uses on the site consist of residential and retail uses. 13) Desc~fbe the sun'ounding p~ope~lies, including informalion on plants and animals end any cullur~l, hislodcal, or scenic aspects. Indicate the type o! land use (residential. commercial, etc.), inlensily of land uso (one-family. apartment houses, shops, dep~rlment $1ores. etc.)and scale of development (height. fronlage, selback, mar yard. etc.): .Plant, animal, cultural, historic and scenic aspects of the surroundinq properties are similar to the condition~, described in question number 9. See lhe attached land use map for further information reqardinq land use and intensity with 500 feet of the parcels. The pamel directly west of the MFC parcel contains restaurants and retailinq activity. The restaurant buildinq on the northwest corner et' Foothill Boulevard and Elm Avenue is setback approximately 30 feet, and the larqe retailinq facility on the northern portion of the parcel is setback approximately 70-80 feet from the curb of Elm Avenue. Northwest of the MFC parcel is vacant land. North of the MFC parcel is medium density residential wilh qaraqes setback approximately 20 feet from the curb and at a heiqht of two sto:ies. North, east and south of the MHO parcel is vacant land. South of the MFC parcel is vacant tn approximately 400-450 from Foothill Boulevard. The remaininq land contains sinqle-sto~ liqht industrial buildinq,;. such as the Prime Paper Company. Southwest of the MFC pamel is vacant land. 4) Will the proposed project change the pallem, scale or cha~cter o! the sun'ounding general area of the project? The proposed protect is cbnsistent with the pattern, scale ahd character of the recently constructed proiects north of Foothill Boulevard, inctudinq the Promenade, Town Center Square and the Terra Vista Town Center. Directly south of the proposed proiect on Foothill Boulevard, the property is currently vacant but slated for industrial park development. 15) Indicate the type of shoal.term and Iong-ten"n noise to be generated, including source and amount. How will these noise levels affect adjacent prope~ies and on-site uses. What methods of sound praofing ara proposed? Short-term noise includes construction-related activity and increases in truck traffic to and from the construction site. Lance-term noise may be qenerated from the increase of automobile traffic* ~9 and fr~m the site. It is not anticipated that this will affect adjacent uses. · 16) Indicate proposed removals and~orraplacernents ofmatura orscenic trees: The project sites do not currently house mature or scenic trees, and thus no proposed removal or replacement is indicated. Trees show in the attached photoqraphs in the southeast corner of the intersection of Elm Avenue and Church Street are in temporary planters, and thus are not considered to be part of the land area, or to be "removals". 17) Indicate any bodies of water (including domestic water supplies) into which the site drains: The parcels do not drain into an), bodies of water. Run-off from the parcels is tributary to existing and proposed storm drain facilities within Foothill Boulevard per l;he Terra Vista Master Plan' of Drainaqe. · t8) Indicate expected amount of water'usage. (Soo Attachment A for usage estimates). For further clan'ficafion, please contact Ihe Cucamonga County Water DistEct at 987.259 I. a. Residential (gal~day) 70,000 Peek uso (gal~Day) 140,000 (400 gal/day/unit! . 125,200 * b. Commercial~Ind. (gal~day/ac) 62,100 Peak uso (gal/mtn/ac] (:3,000 gal/day/ac) 19] Indicate proposed method of sewage disposal. Septic Tank X Sewer. I! septic tanks are proposed, attach percolalion lasts. I[ discharge lo a sanitary sewage sy$1em is proposed indicale expected daily sewage generalion: (See Attachment A for usage estimates). For [urther cladfication, please conlacl tho Cucamonga County Water Oistdct al 987.2391. a. Residential (gal~day) 35 f 000 (200 gal/day/unit) * b. Commercial~ind. (gal~day/ac) 41,400 (2,000 gal~day~ac) RESIDENTIAL PRO~IE~TS: 20) Number of residential units: Detached (indicate range oYparcel sizes, minimum lot size andmaximum lot size: Not applicable. Includes CC parcel only. INITSTD1.WPD- 4/96 ~ ~ ..,~'~'"~/ Page5of 10 Attached (indicate whether units are mntal or for sale unit$): 6~5 acres of H would generate 175.5 units at the midpoint of the density range of~ 24-30 dwelling units/acre. These would be rental units. 21) Anticipated range of sale pdce$ and/or rants: Sale Pdce(s) $ to $ Rent (per month) $ N IA to $ · ' 22) Specify nurnber of bedrooms by unit type: Subject to final plan review. 23) Indicate anticipated household size by un!t type: St~biect to f,inal plan review. 24) Indicate the expected number of school children who will be residing wilhln tho project: Contact tho appn~pdalo School Disldcts as shown in Attachment B: a. Elementary: K-5 - Etiwanda .13 aener'~tion rate or 23 students. b. Junior High: 6-8 - Etiwanda .02 .cjeneration rate or 4 students.. c. SeniorHigh .20 -Chaf,'f,e¥ High - .20 gen. eration rate or 35 students. q[,)MMER~IA£, IND~I~TRIA~, AND IN~TITUTIONA£ pROJECTS 25) Descdbetype~fuse(s)andmaj~r~uncti~n(s)~fc~mmen:ia~~industda~~rinsti~uti~na~uses: The proposed CC parcel will contain an approximately 220,000 sq-ft retail shopping center with a sin,c]le tenant occup¥inct the major retail structure. The MHO parcel uses are the same as in the cu'rrent community plan. 25) Totalfloorareaofcomme~cial, industdal, orinstitutionalusesbytypo: Approximately 220,000 sq-ft retail shopping center is planned on the proposed CC parcel. The MHO parcel is the same as the community plan. 27) Indicalehou~'~ofoperation: Some businesses in the retail shoppinq center would be open 24 hours. 28] Numberof employees: Total: 630 employees. Maximum Shift: ~me of Maximum Shift: 29) Pn~vide bmakd~wn ~f anticipated j~b c~assi~cati~ns~ inc~uding wage and sa~a~Y ranges~ as we~ as an indicati~n ~ the rate of hire for each classification (attach additional sheet if necessary): Antic, ipated job classifications include retail sales and marketing and temporary construction iobs consistent with the wa.cjes and salary ranc, le in the area. 30] Estimation of the numberer workec~ Io be hired Ihat cun'ently reside in the City: Not available. '3 I) For co~me~ial and industrial uses only. indicate the source, type and amount of elf pollution emissions. (Data should bo verified through {he South Coast Air Duality Management District. at (8 ! 8) 372-5283): The proposed 220,000 sq-fl proiect would qenerate from mobile and enerqy sources 173.2 lb/day of ROC; 43.4 of NOX, 1376.4 of CO, and 17.6 of PM10. Usinq SCACMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook 1993, the proposed protect would not exceed handbook thresholds considednR the level of development in Terra Vista Community Plan as a baseline. ALL PROJECTS 32) Have the water, sewer, fire. and flood control agencies serving the project been contacted to determine their ability to provide adequale service to the proposed prcject? If so. please indicate their response. Water, sewer, fire and flood control agencies were contacted during the preparation of the Terra Vista Community Plan EIR in 1981. It was determined that the Terra Vista development' would increase demand 'for water, sewer and fire protection services and that adequate service could be provided. These agencies were contacted by the developer before construction of the gas station on the proposed CC site and the)' indicated that adequate service could be provided. 33) In the known histoG' of this properly, has there been any use. stot-~ge, or discharge of hazarEous and/or toxic materials? Examples of hazardous and/or toxic materials include, but are not limited to PCB's: radioactive substances; pesticides and herbicides; fuels, oils. solvents, and other flammable liquids and gases. Also note underground storage of any of the above. Please list the materials and describe their use, storage, and/or dischar~je on the property, as well as the dates of use, if known. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of the "Commons" performed by RMA ' Group found no contaminated soils or ground water wells at the subject site. The site is currently vacant an[' ,no prior contaminating materials or uses known on the site. RMA concluded that a Phase II assessment would not be necessary. 34) Vv~ll Ihe proposed preject involve the temporaq/ Or long-term use. storage or discharge of hazardous and/or toxic materials, including but not limited Io Ihose examples lisled above? If yes. provide an inventoq/ of all such maledals to be used and pmposed method of disposaL The location of such use$. along wilh the storege and shipment areas, shall be shown and labeled on the application plans. No. The proposed proiect will not involve the use~ storaqe or discharqe of hazardous or toxic materials. I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and infon"nafion required for adequate evaluation of this project to the best of my ability, that tho facts, statements, and information presented are true and COrTeCt tot he best of my knowledge and belief. I further under~tand that additional information may be required to be submitted be/ore an adequate evaluation can bo made by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. ** ATTACHMENT A Water Usaqe Average use per day Residential Single Family 600 gal/day Apt/Condo 400 gal/day Commercial/Industrial General and Regional Commercial 3000 gal/day/ac Neighborhood Commercial 1500 gal/day/ac General Industrial 1500 gal/day/ac Industrial Park 3000 galldaylac Peak Usage For all uses Average use x 2.0 Sewer Flows Residential Singte Family 270 gal/day Apt/Condos 200 gal/day Commercial/Industrial General Commercial 2000 gal/day/ac Neighborhood Commercial 100-1500 gal/day~ac General Industrial 2000 galldaylac Heavy Industrial 3000 gal/day/ac Source: Cucamonga County Water District Master Plan, 9/86 INITSTD1,WPD - 4/g6 ~_ (~ ~'--~'-~"'-~ Page 9 of 10 · ATTACHMENT b Contact the school district for your area for amount and payment of school fees: Elementary School Districts Alta Loma 9350 Base Line Road, Suite F Rancho Cucamonga. CA 91730 (909} 987-0766 Central 10601 Church Street, Suite 112 Rancho Cucamonga. CA 91730 (909) 989-8541 Cucamonga 8776 Archibald Avenue Rancho Cucamonga. CA 91730 (909) -°57-8942 Etiwanda 5959 East Avenue P.O. Box 248 Rancho Cucamonga. CA 91739 (909) 899-2451 H~gh School Chaffey High School 211 West 5th Street Ontario. CA 91762 (909) 988-8511 .... City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND t. Project File: Conditional Use Permit 99-25 and Parcel Map 15424 2. Related Files: 3. Description of Project: The request to create five parcels and approve a Master Plan and Design Guidelines for Terra Vista Commons; the approval of Pad E including site plan, architecture and landscaping; and the conceptual approval of Pad D as a drive-thru restaurant. Pad E includes a 10,088 square foot retail building and Pad D is intended to accommodate a 3,100 square foot restaurant with a drive-thru. The Terra Vista Commons is a 20.40-acre site located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard between Elm and Milliken Avenues in the Mixed Use District of the Terra Vista Community Plan (MFC) -APN 1077- 421-98 and 227-771-53 (portion). 4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Lewis Retail Centers/Lewis Operating Corp. 1156 North Mountain Avenue Upland CA 91785 5. General Plan Designation: MFC 6. Zoning: Terra Vista Community Plan/MFC Mixed Use (financial/restaurant/residential) 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Terra Vista Commons is located in the southwest quadrant of the Terra Vista Planned Community. Existing multi-family residential and commercial development is predominant throughout this quadrant. The site has previously been graded into a super pad condition; there are no structures or significant vegetation remaining. 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: Debra Meier, Contract Planner (909) 477-2750 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: None Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Conditional Use Permit 99-25/Parcel Map 15424 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 (x) Transportation/Circulation ( ) Public Services ( ) Population and Housing ( ) Biological Resources ( ) Utilities and Service Systems (x) Geological Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources (x) Aesthetics (x) Water ( ) Hazards ( ) Cultural Resources (x) Air Quality (x) Noise ( ) Recreation ( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance 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: ~~ Debra Meier, AICP Contract Planner December 14, 1999 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Conditional Use Permit 99-25/Parcel Map 15424 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. 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Wou/dtheproposa/: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: The proposed master plan and Tentative Parcel Map are consistent with the Mixed Use Designation established by the Terra Vista Community Plan and the General Plan Land ' Use. 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposah a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrast[ucture)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Conditional Use Permit 99-25/Parcel Map 15424 Page 4 Comments: a-c) The site area of the proposed master plan and Tentative Parcel Map is consistent with the Terra Vista Community Plan land use designation. No existing housing will be displaced by the development of the proposed project. 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ( ) ) ( ) (X) b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) ) ( ) (X) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) ) ( ) (X) d) Seiche hazards? ( ) ) ( ) (X) e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) ) ( ) (X) f) Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) h) Expansive soils? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: The topography of the site will be modified by the phased gra:Jing and construction of the proposed project. Grading impacts will have a minimal impact on the surrounding area because much of the perimeter streets and infrastructure is existing. The Tujunga-Delhi soil association is of relatively loose texture, which can result in wind erosion. On-site grading will be performed under the supervision of a licensed civil engineer. The resulting impact will not be significant. g) The General Plan (Figure V-2) indicates that the site is located within the Tujunga: Delhi soil association. This soil association may have soil bearing capabilities that could limit some development. Structures proposed on this soil type are permitted only after a site specific soils investigation has been performed that indicates that the soils can adequately support the weight of the proposed structure. Standard Conditions of approval will require a site specific soils report for review by the Building and Safety Division, prior to the issuance of building permits. The resulting impact will not be significant. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Conditional Use Permit 99-25/Parcel Map 15424 Page 5 4. WATER. Wi//the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, (X) ( ) or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) (X) c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? ( ) (X) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? ( ) (X) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ( ) (X) f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or througb interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ( ) (X) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) (X) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: a) The absorption rate will be altered due to the increase in pavement, hardscape, and building coverage. All runoff will be conveyed to existing and/or proposed drainage system facilities, which have been designed to accommodate anticipated flows. The impact is less than significant. b) There are no special flood hazard areas within or near the project site. NO IMPACT. e) The project will not alter the course or direction of water movement. Surface runoff that currently reaches the site from off-site areas will be conveyed to the existing and/or proposed drainage facilities, which have been designed to handle the anticipated flows. NO IMPACT. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Conditional Use Permit 99-25/Parcel Map 15424 Page 6 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal'. a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) (X) ( ) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) ( ) (X) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ( ) ( ) (X) d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ( ) ) (X) Comments: ' a) The short term and long-term air quality impacts were addressed in the certified EIR for the Terra Vista Planned Community. Typically, construction of a project of this size will exceed SCAQMD thresholds during grading activities for P~o and NOx and may also exceed SCAQMD thresholds for developed conditions (operational impacts) for NOx. The proposed project represents only a fraction of the total emissions for NOxin the couaty; therefore, this impact is less than significant. The following miti¢~tion measures will be required to reduce short term construction ir ~acts to a less than significant. 1) The co~struction contractor shall select the construction equipment used On-site based on Iow emission factors and high-energy efficiency. The construction contractor shall ensure that construction-grading plans include a statement that all construction equipment will be tuned and maintained in accordance with manufacturer's specifications. 2) The construction contractor shall utilize electric or diesel-powered equipment in-lieu of gasoline powered engines where feasible. 3) The construction contractor shall ensure ~'.~,at construction-grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut-off equipment when not in use. During smog season (May through October), the overall length of the construction period should be extended, thereby' decreasing the size of the area prepared each day, to minimize vehicles and equipment operating at the same time. 4) _The construction contractor shall support and encourage ride-sharing and transit incentives for the construction crew. 5) Dust generated by the development activities shall be retained on-site and kept to a minimum by the following dust control measures listed below: Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Conditional Use Permit 99-25/Parcel Map 15424 Page 7 i) During clearing, grading, earth moving, excavation, or transportation of cut or fill material, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to create a crust after each day's activities cease. ii) During construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to keep all areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent dust from leaving the site. At a minimum this would include wetting down such areas in the later morning and after work is completed for the day, and whenever wind exceeds t5 miles per hour. iii) After clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation is completed, the entire area of disturbed soil shall be treated immediately by pickup of the soil until the area is paved or otherwise developed so that dust generation will not occur. Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation. iv) Trucks transporting soil, sand, cut or fill material and/or construction debris to or from the site shall be tarped from the point of origin. 6) The construction contractor shall utilize, as much as possible, pre- coated natural colored building materials, water-based or Iow-VOC coating, and coating transfer or spray equipment with high transfer efficiency, such as high volume Iow pressure (HVLP) spray method, or manual coating applications such as paint brush, hand roller, trowel, spatula, dauber, rag or sponge. 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (X) ( ) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ( ) (X) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ( ) (X) · d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) (X) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Conditional Use Permit 99-25/Parcel Map 15424 Page 8 f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: a). The project will generate additional trips due to the new construction of 133,300 square feet of commercial/retail/restaurant space. However, the project will not increase vehicle trips or traffic congestion of projections for the adopted land use for which street widths were evaluated at a build-out condition. Traffic impacts were addressed in the certified EIR prepared for the Terra Vista Planned Community. In addition, a Trip Generation analysis was performed for the proposed project by Lawrence S, Eisenhart, Consulting Engineer, dated November 17, 1999. The Guidelines for CMP Traffic Impact Analysis Reports in San Bernardino County provided by the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SanBAG) indicates that TIA reports are required to be prepared by local jurisdictions when projects are __forecast to equal or exceed the CMP threshold of 1,000 two-way peak hour trips for -retail land uses. The trip generation forecast indicates that this project will generate 734 two-way p.m. peak hour trips. Therefore, no additional analysis is required. Standard Conditions of approval are included for the improvement of any missing street improvements such as curbs, gutters, sidewalks, drive approaches, street signs, traffic signs, striping and signage along Church Street, Milliken and Elm Avenues, and Foothill Boulevard, which have been designed to handle the anticipated traffic volume. b) The circulation design features conform to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Division Street Design for intersection Line-of-Sight policies. NO I M PACT. c) The proposed project is designed with adequate emergency access. NO IMPACT. e) The required street frontage improvements will include sidewalks and/or bike lanes in accordance with the Terra Vista Community Plan. NO IMPACT. Irnpacl Less 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Conditional Use Permit 99-25/Parcel Map 15424 Page 9 b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees, eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: a) The site was previously graded to a super-pad condition in 1984. There are no structures, or significant vegetation remaining on the site, with the exception of one eucalyptus tree located along the Foothill Boulevard frontage. The site was previously evaluated for presence of suitable habitat for the Delhi Sands Flower Loving Fly; based on the findings, no further studies are required. (Report of 1998 Focused Surveys for Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly on "The Commons Development" Parcel of the Terra Vista Master Planned Area; prepared by Larry Munsey International, January 1999). 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Conditional Use Permit 99-25/Parcel Map 15424 Page 10 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 peoi.' ~ existing sources of potential health h~_ .,'~'Js? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 10. NOISE. Will the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) ( ) (X) ) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) (X) ( ) ) Comments: a) The primary existing noise sources in the project area are the transportation corridors. Traffic along Church Street, Elm and Milliken Avenues and Foothill Bo~=- ard are the predominant sources contributing to the ambient noise level in the are~ The incremental traffic level noise increases are consistent with the Terra Vista Community Plan traffic and noise projections; therefore, the resulting noise level increase would be less than significant. NO MITIGATION IS REQUIRED. b) Multi-family residential dwellings are the proposed land use north of Church Street. The proposed h)ading area, which is located on the north elevation of Majors 1, 2, and 3, may impact future residential dwellings. Therefore, the following mitigation has been included: At the time of Development Design Review for Majors 1, 2, or 3, the noise impacts associated with the loading area shall be evaluated and mitigated to reduce impacts to the future apartment units. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Conditional Use Permit 99-25/Parcel Map 15424 Page 11 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the fo/lowing areas: a) Fire protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Schools? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Other governmental services? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: a-e) ' The Terra Vista Commons master plan includes approximately 6 acres of High Density (24-30 dwelling units per acre) in the Terra Vista Master Plan. However, the residential (~omponent of The Commons is not under review at this time. The residential aspect of the project must be reviewed/approved by separate application. The project site is within the attendance boundaries of the Central School District and the Chaffey Joint Union High School District, Both districts have previously entered into mitigation agreements for the entire Terra Vista Planned Community and formed a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) to fund schoot facilities. NO MITIGATION IS REQUIRED, 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? ( ) ( ) ( ) ' (X) b) Communication systems? ( ) ( ) ) (X) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ( ) ( ) ) (X) d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ( ) ) (X) e) Storm water drainage? ( ) ( ) ) (X) 0 Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) ) (X) g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) ( ) ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Conditional Use Permit 99-25/Parcel Map 15424 Page 12 '13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Create light or glare? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) Comments: c) Development of the proposed project will result ih additional sources of light and glare within the community. This project is similar to existing and proposed development along Foothill Boulevard in the immediate area. The additional lighting would not result in a significant impact. 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) ( ) (X) b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) ( ) (X) c) Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) ( ) (X) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( ) ( ) (X) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( ) ( ) ). (X) 15. RECREATION. Would the proposah a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: a-b) The proposed master plan for commercial/retail/restaurant development will not increase the demand for existing parkland, nor will it impact existing recreational opportunities. The future residential component of The Commons, as noted in the Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Conditional Use Permit 99-25/Parcel Map 15424 Page 13 Terre Vista Community Plan, will increase the demand for developed parkland in the Terra Vista Community. Developed parkland is provided throughout Terra Vista as part of the Park Implementation Plan in conjunction with the review and approval of any residential project. 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 important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ( ) ( ) ( (X) 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.) ( ) ( ) ( (X) c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) ( ) ( ) ( (X) d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ( ) ( ) ( (X) 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 I.nit~al Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Conditional' Use Permit 99-25/Parcel Map 15424 , Page 14 such effects were addressed by mltlgatk;m measures based on the earlier analysis. The foilowi~tc; eartie~ analyses were utJtJzed iff completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the Cit) of Rancho Cucamonga, Plsnning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check ali that apply): (1) General Plan EIR (Certified April 6, 1981) (2,1Master Environmen~l Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH #88020115. certified January 4. 1989) (3) Terra Vista Planned Community EIR (SCH ~1082808. certified February 16. 1983) APPLICANT CERTIFICATION I certify that I am the appiicar~ for the project described in this Initial Study I acknowledge that I have read this Initial Study and the propase(l mitigation nleasures. Further, ! have revised the project plans or proposals and/or hereby agree to the proposed m~gation measures to avoid the effects or rn;tigate the effects to a poi~ where Ctearly no sign~cant environmental effects would occur. a d:L~z:LSI. OZl Oi/~v~.S operat:;hl$ t;ot'p. ~ · -'./..: i..t.-2~,/-~..~' ,'1' / Signature: ~a~K. ~/~-. :! .: .j ~.-~... -'.' I,-/ Date: /- 9'-,lo~ a PrJn! Nam~ ~06 Ti~e; Joh~ · ~*i .... aueh~rXzed Agent ORIGINAL 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.: Condrdonal Use Permit 99-25 and Parcel Map 15424 Public Review Period Closes: January 12, 2999 Project Name: Project Applicant: Lewis Retail Centers/Lewis Operating Corp. Project Location (also see attached map): Located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard between Elm and Milliken Avenues - APN: 1077-421-98 and 227-771-53 (podJon). Project Description: The creation of five parcels and the development of a Master Plan and Design Guidelines for Terra Vista Commons, a 10,088 square foot retail building (Pad E), and a 3,100 square foot drive-thru restaurant (Pad D), on 20.4 acres of land in the Mixed Use District of the Terra 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 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 mquired; Reasons to support this finding am included in the attached Initial Study. The project file and all related documents am 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. January 12, 2000 Date of Determination Adopted By RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-25, FOR A MASTER PLAN FOR A MIXED USE RETAIL SHOPPING CENTER LOCATED BETWEEN MILLIKEN AVENUE AND ELM AVENUE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD WITHIN THE TERRA VISTA PLANNED COMMUNITY, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF- APN: 1077-421-98 AND 227-771-53 (PORTION). A. Recitals. 1. Lewis Retail Centers has, filed an application for the issuance of Conditional Use Pen,nit 99-25, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 12th day of January 2000, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public headng on the application and concluded said headng on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites pdor to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. The Planning 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 the Planning Commission dudng the above-referenced public hearing on January 12, 2000, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, the Planning Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to the property located between Milliken and Elm Avenues on the north side of Foothill Boulevard with a street frontage of approximately 1,050 feet and lot depth of approximately 850 feet and is presently improved with a Texaco service station on 1.15 acres with 19.25 acres of vacant land; and b. The property to the north of the subject site is in the Medium High Residential Distdct of the Terra Vista Community Plan and is developed with apartments, the property to the south is designated Industrial Park (Sub-Area 7) and is undeveloped, the property to the east is a Mixed Use and is dev_eloped with Rancho San Anton_io Community Hospital, and the property to the west is developed with the Town Center Square; and c. The application proposes construction of a Mixed Use retail shopping center of 133,300 square feet of leasable space and related parking facilities. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the above-referenced public hearing, and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, the Planning Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 99-25 - LEWIS RETAIL CENTERS January 12, 2000 Page 2 a. The proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, the Terra Vista Community Plan, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and b. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Plan? .~ Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant e~'~.- .,;;on the environment and adopts a Mitigated Negative Declaration based upon the findings as foiiows: a. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmg~tal Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereu~?Jer; that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the application. b. Based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the Califomia Code of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission during the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, the Planning 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. Plannin,q Division 1) Conditional Use Permit 99-25 pertains to the approval of a Master Plan and Design Guidelines for Terra Vista Commons; the approval of Pad E including site plan, architecture and landscaping; and the conceptual site plan approval of Pad D as a drive-thru restaurant. Pad E includes a 10,088 square foot retail building and Pad D is intended to accommodate a 3,100 square foot restaurant with a drive-thru. 2) Subsequent Design/Development Review will be required for Pad D (architecture and specific site and landscape details) and all other pads, shops, and major tenants. The project shall be developed in accordance with the Master Site Plan and the Design Guidelines for the Terra Vista Commons. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 99-25 - LEWIS RETAIL CENTERS January 12,2000 Page 3 3) The development of the focal point for the project has not been formally approved with the Master Plan. At the time of the development review process for Majors 1,2, or 3, the focal point shall be determined based on the actual building, pedestrian/traffic, and hardscape design. The focal point shall be a plaza area and shall also include a vertical component (i.e. fountain, flag pole, sculpture, etc.) as well as the ground level hardscape and landscape. 4) The east elevation of Major 3 shall include landscaping only, no sidewalk or hardscape is necessary along this elevation. (Pedestrian traffic from the north would be directed to either Elm or Milliken Avenues) 5) The ddveway from Elm Avenue shall be widened and re-striped subject to approval of the City Engineer and the City Planner. 6) At the time of development review of either the apartments or Majors 1, 2, or 3, the circulation from Church Street shall be analyzed. The design shall incorporate appropriate access to both the apartments as well as the commercial area, without encouraging traffic to short-cut through the center, avoiding traffic control at Milliken Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. 7) The building and column base, archway tdm, tower accents and "key- stones," and other similar elements shall be "Flexi-rock" as approved by the Design Review Committee. 8) Additional landscaping shall be added to the west elevation of shops located near the comer of Milliken Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. Landscape can be added as "fingers" along this frontage, and specifically a tree cluster should be located at the easterly terminus of the drive aisle, which runs north of Pad C to these shops. Engineedn.q Division 1) Install all missing public improvements including drive approaches, sidewalk, street signs, street trees, street lights, traffic signs, striping, and signage along the project (master plan) frontages on Church Street, Milliken and Elm Avenues, and Foothill Boulevard as follows: a) Full frontage improvements on Foothill Boulevard and Elm Avenue with Phase 2 (Conditional Use Permit 99-25). Foothill - Boulevard sidewalk shall be-extended to Milliken Avenue, and Elm Avenue sidewalk shall be extended to Church Street. b) Full frontage improvements on Church Street upon development of Parcel 5 of Parcel Map 15424. Church Street sidewalk shall be extended to Milliken Avenue. c) Milliken Avenue upon development of "Not A Part" of Parcel Map 15424. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 99-25 - LEWIS RETAIL CENTERS January 12,2000 Page 4 2) All dfive approaches shall conform to Standard Drawing No. 101, type C and be peq3endicular to the street. The minimum commercial/industrial approach width is 35 feet and only 50-foot driveways can be medians (20-10-20). Special ddveway pavers, medians and entry monuments shall be located behind the ddve approach, outside the public right-of- way. 3) A single fight-turn-only ddveway will be allowed on Foothill Boulevard halfway between Milliken and East Elm Avenue 4) Upon development of "Not A Part" parcel shown on the Master Plan: a) Retain four southbound through lanes on M~ ~ken Avenue. Add a 300-foot fight turn lane for the Foothill Boulevard intersection and a 200-foot dght turn lane for the proposed drive approach (can be combined as one 550-foot dght turn lane). Driveway on Milliken Avenue shall be at least 300 feet from intersection, to minimize weaving problems for traffic right-turn-only driveway and making a left turn at the nearest signal. b) Existing traffic si~-,?ls at Milliken Avenue/Foothill Boulevard shall be modified as needed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. c) An in-lieu fee for one-fourth the cost of constructing special pavers within the Foothill Boulevard/Milliken Avenue intersection shall be paid to the City pdor to issuance of building permits. The fee amount shall be based on the square footage of the intersection. 5) Provide a 2-inch conduit on Foothill Boulevard from Milliken Avenue to Elm Avenue for traffic signal interconnect. 6) Parkways shall slope at 2 percent from the top of curb to 1-foot behind the sidewalk along all street frontages. : 7) Sidewalks shall cross drive approaches at the zero curb face. Provide' additional public right-of-way as needed. Driveway accent paving shall be located outside the public fight-of-way. 8) Right turn lanes are not required for drive approaches on Church Street. Protect the existing bus bay in-place and provide a standard drive approach ~:;,er the existing bus bay. If the developer chooses to combine th.. ,~sting bus bay with a fight tum lane for the driveway, the length woui~ ~e 335 feet, per Standard Drawing No. 119. Environmental Mitigation AIR QUALITY The following mitigation measures will be required to reduce short term construction impact= to a less than significant level. 73-- __/_ PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 99-25 - LEWIS RETAIL CENTERS Janua~ 12,2000 Page 5 1) The construction contractor shall select the construction equipment used on-site based on Iow emission factors and high energy efficiency. The construction contractor shall ensure that construction Grading Plans include a statement that all construction equipment will be tuned and maintained in accordance with manufacturer's specifications. 2) The construction contractor shall utilize electric or diesel-powered equipment in-lieu of gasoline powered engines where feasible. 3) The construction contractor shall ensure that construction Grading Plans include a statement that work crews will shut-off equipment when not in use. During smog season (May through October), the overall length of the construction period should be extended, thereby decreasing the size of the area prepared each day, to minimize vehicles and equipment operating at the same time. 4) The construction contractor shall support and encourage ride sharing and transit incer~{ives for the construction crew. 5) Dust generated by the development activities shall be retained on-site and kept to a minimum by the following dust control measures listed below: a) During clearing, grading, earth moving, excavation, or transportation of cut or fill material, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to create a crust after each day's activities cease. b) During construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to keep all areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent dust from leaving the site. At a minimum this would include wetting down such areas in the later morning and after work is completed for the day, and whenever wind exceeds 15. miles per hour. c) After clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation is completed,' the entire area of disturbed soil shall be treated immediately by pick up of the soil until the area is paved or otherwise developed so that dust generation will not occur. d) Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation. e) Trucks transpoding soil, sand, cut or fill material and/or construction debris to or from the site shall be tarped from the point of origin. 6) The construction contractor shall utilize, as much as possible, pre- coated natural colored building materials, water-based or Iow-VOC coating, and coating transfer or spray equipment with high transfer efficiency, such as high volume Iow pressure (HVLP) spray method, or PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 99-25 - LEWIS RETAIL CENTERS January 12, 2000 Page 6 manual coating applications such as paint brush, hand roller, trowel, spatula, dauber, rag or sponge. NOISE At the time of Development Design Review for Majors 1, 2, or 3, the noise impacts associated with the loading area shall be evaluated and mitigated to reduce impacts to the future apartment units. 6. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2000. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Lan~ T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Bullet, Secretary to the Planning Division for th~ ;fy of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regular;.. ;ntroduced, 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 January 2000. AYES: COMMISSIONERS NOES: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS City of Rancho Cucamonga MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Project File No.: Conditional Use Permit 99-25 This Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) has been prepared for use in implementing the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the above-listed project. This program has been prepared in compliance with State law to ensure that adopted mitigation measures are implemented (Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code). Program Components - This MMP contains the following elements: 1. Conditions of approval that act as impact mitigation measures are recorded with the action and the procedure necessary to ensure compliance. The mitigation measure conditions of approval are contained in the adopted Resolution of Approval for the project. 2. A procedure of compliance and verification has been outlined for each action necessary. This procedure designates who will take action, what action will be taken and when, and to whom and when compliance will be reported. 3. The MMP has been designed to provide focused, yet flexible guidelines. As monitoring progresses, changes to compliance procedures may be necessary based upon recommendations by those responsible for the program. Program Management - The MMP will be in place through all phases of the project. The project planner, assigned by the City Planner, shall coordinate enfomement of the MMP. The project planner oversees the MMP and reviews the Reporting Forms to ensure they are filled out correctly and proper action is taken on each mitigation. Each City department shall ensure compliance of the conditions (mitigation) that relate to that department. Procedures - The following steps will be followed by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 1. A fee covering all costs and expenses, including any consultants' fees, incurred by.the City in performing monitoring or reporting programs shall be charged to the applicant. 2. An MMP Reporting Form will be prepared for each potentially significant impact and its' corresponding mitigation measure identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Checklist, attached hereto. This procedure designates who will take action, what action will be taken and when, and to whom and when compliance will be reported. All monitoring and reporting documentation will be kept in the project file with the department having the original authority for processing the project. Reports will be available from the City upon request at the following address: City of Rancho Cucamonga - Lead Agency Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Mitigation Monitoring Program Conditional Use Permit 99-25 Page 2 3. Appropriate specialists will be retained if technical expertise beyond the City staff's is needed, as determined by the project planner or responsible City department, to monitor specific mitigation activities and provide appropriate written approvals to the project planner. 4. The project planner or' responsible City department will approve, by signature and date, the completion of each action item that was identified on the MMP Reporting Form. After each measure is verified for compliance, no further action is required for the specific phase of development. 5. All MMP Reporting Forms for an impact issue requiring no further monitoring will be signed off as completed by the project planner or responsible City department at the bottom of the MMP Reporting Form. 6. Unanticipated circumstances may arise requiring the refinement or addition of mitigation measures. The project planner is responsible for approving any such refinements or additions. An MMP Reporting Form will be completed by the project planner or responsible City department and a copy provided to the appropriate design, construction, or operational personnel. 7. The project planner or responsible City department has the authority to stop the work of construction contractors if compliance with any aspects of the MMP is not occurring after written notification has been issued. The project planner or responsible City department also has the authority to hold certificates of occupancies if compliance with a mitigation measure attached hereto is not occurring. The project planner or responsible City department has the authority to hold issuance of a business license until all mitigation measures are implemented. 8. Any conditions (mitigation) that require monitoring after project completion shall be the responsibility of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Development Department. The Department shall require the applicant to post any necessary funds (or other forms of guarantee) with the City. These funds shall be used by th~ City to re~-.!.-, consultants and/or pay for City staff time to monitor and report on the mitigation measure ,?' the requ!red period of time. 9. In those instances requiring long-term project monitoring, the applicant shall provide the city with a plan for monitoring the mitigation activities at the project site and reporting the monitoring results to the City. Said plan shall identify the reporter as an individual qualified to know whether the particular mitigation measure has been implemented. The monitoring/reporting plan shall conform to the City's MMP and shall be approved ~ the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of building permits. \\S RV_ClTY~Departme nfs\PLANNING\FI NAL~P LNGCOMM\ENVDOC~CU P99-25MM P.doc j MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST (INITIAL STUDY PART III) Project File No,: Conditional Use Permit 99-25 Applicant: Lewis Retail Centers Initial Study Prepared by: Debra Meier Date: December 14, 1999 Selection of Iow-emission construction equipment. CP/BO B/C Plan check C/A 2/4 .~.) Utilization of electric or diesel-powered equipment CP/BO C Ongoing A 4 where feasible  Grading Plans state equipment shut off when not in CP/BO C Plan check C 2 use. Extend construction period during smog season (May-October)  Ride sharing & transit incentives encouraged for CP/BO C Ongoing A 4 construction crew Dust control measures to be utilized CP/BO C Ongoing A 4 Noise ~ -' . .i , ; · : . ~ : **~ -;!".'.: ~ , ~:",':.;:i [,'!.. "'..,. . . Noise impacts associated with Majors 1/2/3 shall be CP A During Design Submittal of 2 evaluated during Development/Design Review Review Noise Study Key to Checklist Abbreviation~ ResponslblePerson .. MonltorlngFrequency.,,~.,, . '.. ':;: Method of Verlficatlon ~ .~ : .., Sartatlone'~ CDD - Community Development Director A - With Each New Development A - On-sita Inspection 1 - Withhold Recordation of Final Map CP - City Planner or designee B - Prior To Construction B - Other Agency Permit / Approval 2 - Withhold Grading or Building Permit CE - City Engineer or designee C - Throughout Construction C * Plan Check 3 - Withhold Certificate of Occupancy BO - Building O~ficial or designee D - On Completion D - Separate Submittal (Reports / Studies / Plans) 4 - Stop Work Order PO - Porice Caplain or designee E - Operating 5 - Retain Deposit or Bonds FC - Fire Chief or designee 6 - Revoke CUP COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT #: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-25 SUBJECT: THE COMMONS - MASTER PLAN/PADS D AND E APPLICANT: LEWIS RETAILCENTERS LOCATION: NWC FOOTHILL AT MILLIKEN ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. General Requirements ~,,o~,,o. Date 1. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its ~ / agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. 2. 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 1. Conditional Use Permit, Variance, or Development/Design Review approval shall expire if --J I 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 1. The site shall be d~veloped and maintained in ac(~ordance with the approved plans which __/ / include site plans, arohitectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, Development Code regulations, and theTerra Vista Community Plan. 2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all --/ / Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. SC -12/99 1 Project No. CUP 99-25 Completion Oate 3. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as a~l 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. 4. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be .--/ ! submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for ---/ / consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development / / Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 7. A detailed on-site lighting plan, including a photometric diagram, shall be reviewed and /.__/ approved by the City Planner and Police Department (477-2800) prior to the issuance of building permits. Such plan shall indicate style, illumination, location, height, and method of shielding.so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination. 11. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property /---J owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall be submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and approved prior to the issuance of building permits. 12. Where rock cobble is used, it shall be real river rock. Other stone veneers may be /---J manufactured products. D. Shopping Centers 1. The Master Plan is approved in concept only. Future development for (each building pad/parcel) shall be subject to separate Development/Design Review process for Planning Commission approval. Modifications to the Shopping Center Master Plan shall be subject to Planning Commission approval. 2. The Design Guidelines, which include uniform hardscape and street furniture design (seating .---/ / benches, trash receptacles, free-standing potted plants, bike racks, light bollards, etc.), shall be utilized for future development of each pad/parcel within the Commons Master Plan. 3. Provide for the following design features in each trash enclosure, to the satisfaction of the City Planner: a. Architecturally integrated into the design of (the shopping center/the project). ~ ! b. Separate pedestrian access that does not require the opening of the main doore and to '--/ ! include self-closing pedestrian doors. c. Large enough to accommodate two trash bins. ---/ / d. Roll-up doors. J / Project No. CUP 99-25 (~omoletion Date / /-- e. Trash bins with counter-weighted lids. I /~ f. Architecturally treated overhead shade trellis. g. Chain link screen on top to prevent trash from blowing out of the enclosure and / / designed to be hidden from view. 4. Graffiti shall be removed within 72 hours. I~ I 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 dB during the hours of 7 a.m. until 10 p.m. b. Loading and Unloading - No person shall cause the loading, unloading, opening, I'~/ closing, or other handling of boxes, crates, containers, building materials, garbage cans, or other similar objects between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. unless otherwise specified herein, in a manner which would cause a noise disturbance to a residential area. Textured pavement shall be provided across circulation aisle, pedestrian walkway, and plaza. / / They shall be of brick/tile pavers, exposed aggregate, integral color concrete, or any combination thereof. Full samples shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior ,'~ the issuance of building permits. 8. All fu~,re building pads shall be seeded and irrigated for erosion control. Detailed plans shall ! ! be included in the landscape and irrigation plans to be submitted for Planning Division approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 9. 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. 10. The design of store fronts shall compliment the architectural program and shall have subtle / I variations subject to Design Review Committee approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 11. All future projects within the shopping center shall be designed to be compatible and .---/ ! consistent with the Design Guidelines established. 12. 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. '~3. Cart corrals shall be provided for temporary storage. No permanent outdoor storage of /.~J 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. E. Building Design 1. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or / ! projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets as required by the Planning D~vision. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Details shall be included in building plans. F. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans) 1. All parking spaces shall be 9 feet wide by 18 feet long. When a side of any parking space!/.- abuts a building, wall, support column, or other obstruction, the space shall be a minimum of 11 feet wide. Project NO. CUP 99-25 2. All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet and shall I / 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. 4. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, / ! entrances, and exits shall be striped per City standards. 5. Handicap accessible stalls shalt 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. 6. Motorcycle parking area shall be provided for commercial and office facilities with 25 or more / ! parking stalls. Developments with over 100 parking stalls shall provide motorcycle parking at the rate of one percent. The area for motorcycle parking shall be a minimum of 56 square feet. 7. 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. 8. Carpool and vanpool designated off-street parking close to the building shall be provided for ~ / commercial, office, and industrial facilities at the rate of 10 percent of the total parking area. If covered, the vertical clearance shall be no less than 9 feet. G. Trip Reduction 1. Transit improvements such as bus shelters, bus pullouts, and bus pads shall be provided. ---J ! H. Landscaping 1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home ~ / landscaping in the case of residential development, shatFbe 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. 2. A minimum of 20% of trees planted within industrial projects, and a minimum of 30% within /--~ commercial and office projects, shall be specimen size trees - 24-inch box or larger. 3. Within parking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-gallong tree for every three parking stalls, sufficient to shade 50% of the parking area at solar noon on August 21. 4. Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent to and along structures at a rate of one tree per 30 linear feet of building. 5. All private slopes of 5 feet or more in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope, but less than /--J 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. 6. 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 project NO. CUP 99-25 (;:0rm3~etion Date required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. 7. 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. ' ' 8. Special landscape features such as mounding, alluvial rock, specimen size trees, meandering / ! sidewalks (with horizontal change), and intensified landscaping, is required along Foothill Boulevard and Milliken Avenue. 9. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on / / the perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer. 10. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, ! ! the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division. 11. Tree maintenance criteria shall be developed and submitted for City Planner review and .~J / approval prior to issuance of building permits. These criteria shall encourage the natural growth characteristics of the selected tree species. 12. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of ----/ / Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. I. Signs 1. The signs indicated on the submitted plans are conceptual only and not a part of this /'--/ approval. Any signs proposed for thL~ development shall comply with the Sign Ordinance and shall require separate application an~, approval by the Planning Division prior to installation of any signs. 2. A Uniform Sign Program for this development shall be submitted for City Planner review and /.~.J approval prior to issuance of building permits. J. Environmental 1. Mitigation measures are required for the project. The applicant is responsible for the cost of ! implementing said measures, including monitoring and reporting. Applicant shall be required to post cash, letter of credit, or other forms of guarantee acceptable to the City Planner in the amount of $719.00, prior to the issuance of building permits, guaranteeing satisfacto~ performance and completion of all mitigation measures. These funds may be used by the City to retain consultants and/or pay for City staff time to monitor and report on the mitigation measures. Failure to complete all actions required by the approved environmental documents shall be considered grounds for forfeit. In those instances requiring long term monitoring (i.e. beyond final certificate of occupancy), the applicant shall provide a written monitoring and reporting program to the City Planner prior to issuance of building permits. Said program shall identify the reporter as an individual qualified to know whether the particular mitigation measure has been implemented. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: K, General Requirements 1. Submit four complete sets of plans including the following: ! ! a. Site/Plot Plan; b. Foundation Plan; c. Floor Plan; d. Ceiling and Roof Framing Plan; e. Electrical Plans (2 sets, detached) including the size of the main switch, number and size of service entrance conductors, panel schedules, and single line diagrams; Project No. CUP 99-25 Completion Date f. Plumbing and Sewer Plans, including isometrics, underground diagrams, water and waste diagram, sewer or septic system location, fixture units, gas piping, and heating and air conditioning; and g. Planning Division Project Number (i.e., TT #, CUP #, DR #, etc.) clearly identified on the outside of all plans. 2, Submit two sets of structural calculations, energy conservation calculations, and a soils /----/ report. Architect's/Engineer's stamp and "wet" signature are required prior to plan check submittal. 3. Separate permits are required for fencing and/or walls. /----/ 3. Contractors must show proof of State and City licenses and Workers' Compensation /.--/ coverage to the City prior to permit issuance. 4. Business shall not open for operation prior to posting the Certificate of Occupancy issued by /---/ the Building and Safety Division. L. Site Development 1. Plans shall be submitted for plan check and approved prior to construction. All plans shall be /--J 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 permit application. Please contact the Building and Safety Division for availability of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. 2. 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. Applicant shall provide a copy of the school fees receipt to the Building and Safety Division prior to permit issuance. 3. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation /.---/ and prior to issuance of building permits. 4. Construction activity shall not occur between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. Monday /----/ through Saturday, with no construction on Sunday or holidays. 5. Construct trash enclosure(s) per City Standard (available at the Planning Division's public /-~ counter). M. New Structures 1. Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for the property line clearan~:es /----/ considering use, area, and fire-resistiveness. 2. Plans for food preparation areas shall be approved by County of San Bernardino Environmental Health Services prior to issuance of building permits. 3. Provide draft stops in attic areas, not to exceed 3,000 square feet, in accordance with UBC /---/ Table 5-A. 4. Exterior walls shall'be constructed of the required fire rating in accordance with UBC Table /.--/ 5-A 5. Upon tenant improvement plan check submittal, additional requirements may be needed. /.~/ N. Grading 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City /.~/ Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. Project No. CUP 99-25 (~omoletion Date 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to ! / perform such work. 3. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of application for grading plan check. 4. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. / / 5. A separate grading plan check submittal is required for all new nonstruction projects and for / I existing buildings where improvements being proposed will generate 50 cubic yards or more of combined cut and fill The Grading Plan shall be prepared, stamped, and signed by a California Registered Civil Engineer. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: O. Dedication and Vehicular Access 1. Corner property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards. ~ ! 2. Easements for public sidewalks and/or street trees placed outside the public right-of-way shall I.~J be dedicated to the City. 3. Additional street right-of-way shall be dedicated along right turn lanes, to provide a minimum /-~/ of 7 feet measured from the face of curbs. If curb adjacent sidewalk is used along the right turn lane, a parallel street tree maintenance easement shall be provided. P, Street Improvements / /_.-. 1. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limit+d to: Street Name Foothill Blvd. Elm Avenue Church Street Milliken Avenue Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan check. (c) If so marked, sidewalk shall be curvilinear per Standard 114. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu of construction fee shall be provided for this item. (e) Subject to special conditions. 2. Improvement Plans and Construction: a. Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety I / 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. b. 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. c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, .~/ !. and interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or ----/ / reconstruction project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future sc_, 99 £? , Project No. CUP 99-25 ~:omoletion Date 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. e. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City ~ ! Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with ----/ / adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. g. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall /-~-J 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. 3. Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in / accordance with the City's street tree program. · 4. 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: Foothill / / .Boulevard Q. Public Maintenance Areas 1. 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. 2. Parkway landscaping on the following street(s) shall conform to the results of the respective .---/ ! Beautification Master Plan: Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. R. Drainage and Flood Control 1. 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. S. Utilities 1. Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, / ! gas, electric power, telephone, and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility Standards. Easements shall be provided as required. 2. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. ! / 3. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the / / Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from the CCWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. Project No. CUP 99-25 Comoletion Date T. General Requirements and Approvals 1. A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated operating costs for / / all new street lights for the first six months of operation, prior to final map approval or prior to building permit issuance if no map is involved. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: U. General Fire Protection Conditions 1. Fire flow requirement shall be: 2,500 gallons per minute, Per '97 UFC Appendix Ill-A, 5, (b) I ! (Table). a. A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire departmenl / / personnel prior to water plan approval. b. For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional fire flow test of the on-site hydrants shaI: / / be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department personnel afte~ construction and prior to occupancy. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. Prior to the issuance of 'building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be .~/ / submitted'to the Fire District that ~n approved temporary water supply for fire protection is available, pending completion of the required fire protection system. 5. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for all hydrants and installed prior to ~ / final inspection. 6. An automatic fire extinguishing system(s) will be required as noted below: ~ / a. Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15. b. Other: 1997 UBC. --'-/ ! Note: Special sprinkler der~sities are required for such hazardous operations as woodworking plastics manufacturing, spray painting, flammable liquids storage, high piled stock, etc Contact the Fire Safety Division to determine if the sprinkler system is adequate for propose¢ operations. 7. Sprinkler system monitoring shall be installed and operational immediately upon completion of ---J ! sprinkler system. 8. A fire alarm system(s) shall be required as noted below: a. Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15. ~ 'J 9. Roadways within project shall comply w th the F~re D~str~ct s f re lane standards, as noted: a. All roadways per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 32. ----J / 10. Fire department access shall be amended to facilitate emergency apparatus. 11. Alt 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. Project No. CUP 99-25 Completion Date 12. A Knox rapid entry key vault shall be installed prior to final inspection. Proof of pumhase shall /.~/ be submitted prior to final building plan approval. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specific details and ordering information. 13. Fire District fee(s), plus a $1 per "plan page" microfilm fee will be due to the Rancho ! / Cucamonga Fire Protection District as follows: a. $677 for New Commercial and Industrial Development (per new building).** **Note: Separate plan check fees for Tenant Improvement work, fire protection systems (sprinklers, hood systems, alarms, etc.) and/or any consultant reviews will be assessed upon submittal of plans. 14. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1997 UBC, .~/ ! UFC, UPC, UMC, and RCFD Standards 32 and 15 and 1996 NEC. NOTE: SEPARATE PLAN CHECK FEES FOR TENANT IMPROVEMENTS, FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS (SPRINKLERS, HOOD SYSTEMS, ALARMS, ETC.), AND/OR ANY CONSULTANT REVIEVVS WILL BE ASSESSED UPON SUBMITTAL OF PLANS. NOTE: A SEPARATE GRADING PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL IS REQUIRED FOR ALL ' NEW CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS AND FOR EXISTING BUILDINGS WHERE IMPROVEMENTS BEING PROPOSED WILL GENERATE 50 CUBIC YARDS OR MORE OF COMBINED CUT AND FILL. THE GRADING PLAN SHALL BE pREPARED, STAMPED AND SIGNED BY A CALIFORNIA REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Security Lighting 1. All parking, common, and storage areas shall have minimum maintained 1-foot candle power. These areas should be lighted from sunset to sunrise and on photo sensored cell. 2. All buildings shall have minimal security lighting to eliminate dark areas around the buildings, !----J 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. /.~J W, Security Hardware 1. All roof openings giving access to the building shall be secured with either iron bars, metal / /--- gates, or alarmed. X. Security Fencing 1. When utilizing security gates, a Knox box sub-master system security device sha~l be used /.~/ since fire and law enforcement can access these devices. Y, Windows 2. Store front windows shall be visible to passing pedestrians and traffic. / /-~ Z. Building Numbering 1. Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for / /---- nighttime visibility. 2. Developer shall paint roof top numbers on one or more roofs of this development. They shall ! /-~ be a minimum of three feet in length and two feet in width and of contrasting color to background. The stencils for this purpose are on loan at the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department. sc_ 9 Project No. CUP 99-25 P,;omotefion Date 3. All developments shall submit a 8 Y2"'x 11" sheet with the numbering pattern of all multi-tenant /---/ developments to the Police Department. AA. 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. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 15424, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD BETVVEEN MILLIKEN AND ELM AVENUES, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1077-421-98 AND 227-771-53. WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 15424, submitted by Lewis Retail Centers, applicants, for the purpose of subdividing into 5 parcels, the real property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bemardino, State of California, identified as APN: 1077-421-98 and 227-771-53, located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard between Milliken and Elm Avenues; and WHEREAS, on January 12, 2000, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public headng for the above-described map. NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the following findings have been made: 1. That the Tentative Parcel Map is consistent with the Terra Vista Community Plan and the General Plan. 2. That the improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the Terra Vista Community Plan and the General Plan. 3. That the site i$ physically ~uitable for the proposed development. 4. That the proposed subdivision and improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or public health problems or have adverse effects on abutting properties. SECTION 2: Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, together with all 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 ,.?;~ have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration based upon . :~ndings as follows: 1. That the Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the Califomia Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder;, that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the application. 2. That, based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PM 15424 - LEWIS RETAIL CENTERS January 12, 2000 Page 2 3. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission dudng the public headng, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. SECTION 3: Tentative Parcel Map 15424 is hereby approved subject to the following Special Conditions: En.qineerinq Division 1) Install all missing public improvements including ddve approaches, sidewalk, street signs, street trees, street lights, traffic signs, stdping and signage along the project (master plan) frontages on Church Street, Milliken and Elm Avenues, and Foothill Boulevard as follows: a) Full frontage improvements on Foothill Boulevard and Elm Avenue with Phase 2 (Conditional Use Permit 99-25). Foothill Boulevard sidewalk shall be extended to Milliken Avenue, and Elm Avenue sidewalk shall be extended to Church Street. b) Full frontage improvements on Church Street upon development of Parcel 5 of Parcel Map 15424. Church Street sidewalk shall be extended to Milliken Avenue. c)Milliken Avenue upon development of "Not A Part" of Parcel Map 15424. 2) All ddve approaches shall conform to Standard Drawing No. 101, type C i and be perpendicular to the street. The minimum commercial/industrial. approach width is 35 feet and only 50-foot driveways can be medians (20-10-20). Special driveway pavers, medians, and entry monuments shall be located behind the drive approach, outside the public right-of- way. 3)A single right-turn-only ddveway will be allowed on Foothill Boulevard halfway between Milliken Avenue and East Elm Avenue. 4) Upon development of the "Not A Part" parcel shown on the Master Plan: a) Retain four southbound through lanes on Milliken Avenue. Add a 300-foot right turn lane for the Foothill Boulevard intersection and a 200-foot right turn lane for the proposed drive approach (can be combined as one 550-foot right turn lane). Driveway on Milliken Avenue shall be at least 300 feet from the intersection, to minimize PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PM 15424 - LEWIS RETAIL CENTERS January 12, 2000 Page 3 weaving problems for traffic right-turn-only ddveway and making a left turn at the nearest signal. b) Existing traffic signals at Milliken Avenue/Foothill Boulevard shall be modified as needed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. , c) An in-lieu fee for one-fourth the cost of constructing special pavers within the Foothill Boulevard/Milliken Avenue intersection shall be paid to the City prior to issuance of building permits. The fee amount shall be based on the square footage of the intersection. 5) Provide a 2-inch conduit on Foothill Boulevard from Milliken Avenue to Elm Avenue for traffic signal interconnect. 6) Parkways shall slope at 2 percent from the top of curb to 1 foot behind the sidewalk along all street frontages. 7) Sidewalks shall cross drive approaches at the zero curb face. Provide additional public right-of-way as needed. Driveway accent paving shall be located outside the public right-of-way. 8) Right turn lanes are not required for drive approaches on Church Street. Protect the existing bus bay in place and provide a standard drive approach after the existing bus bay. If the developer chooses to combine the existing bus bay with a right turn lane for the driveway, the length would be 335 feet, per Standard Drawing No. 119. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2000. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Bullet, 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 January 2000, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT #: PARCEL MAP 15424 SUBJECT: THE COMMONS APPLICANT: LEWIS RETAIL CENTERS LOCATION: NWC FOOTHILL AT MILLIKEN ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. General Requirements co,.o~,.~o. ~o 1. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, / its agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attomey'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 racy, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. 2. A copy of the signed Resolution of Approval or City Planner's letter of approval, and all I 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 1. This tentative tract map or tentative parcel map shall expire, unless extended by the I Planning Commission, unless a complete final map is filed with the City Engineer within 3 years from the date of the approval. C. Si~ Development 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which / include sit~ 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 Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. SC -12/99 1 2. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code ' I I__ 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 pdor to occupancy. 3. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be I /__ submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 4. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for I 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. 5. 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. D. Shopping Centers 1. The Master Plan is approved in concept only. Future development for (each building 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. 2. All future building pads shall be seeded and irrigated for erosion control. Detailed plans shall be included in the landscape and irrigation plans to be submitted for Planning Division approval pdor to the issuance of building permits. VITPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE H THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: E. Dedication and Vehicular Access 1. Comer property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards. 2. Vehicular access dghts shall be dedicated to the City for the following streets, except for approved openings: Foothill Boulevard, Church Street, and Elm Avenue. 3. Reciprocal parking agreements for all parcels and maintenance agreements ensuring joint maintenance of all common roads, ddves, or parking areas shall be provided by CC&Rs or deeds and shall be recorded pdor to or concurrent with the final parcel map. 4. Additional street right-of-way shall be dedicated along dght turn lanes, to provide a minimum of 7 feet measured from the face of curbs. If curb adjacent sidewalk is used along the right turn lane, a parallel street tree maintenance easement shall be provided. F. Street Improvements 1. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: Curb & A.C. Side- Drive Street Street Comm Median Bike Other Gutter Pvmt walk Appr. Lights Trail Street Name Trees Trail Island Foothill Blvd. c x x x e Elm Avenue x x x Church Street x x x x e Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement reconstruction and overlays will be determined dudng plan check. (c) If so marked, sidewalk shall be curvilinear per Standard 114. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu of construction fee shall be provided for this item. (e) Subject to special conditions. 2. Improvement Plans and Construction: a. Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety __ / I 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, pdor to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. b. Pdor 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. c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal __1 I conduit, and interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or __/ / reconstruction project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and intemonnect 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 En~f ,-er. Notes: (1) Pull b:. :all be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200 fee unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer. (2) Conduit :~. ~,e 3-inch (at intersections) or 2-inch (along streets) galvanized steel with p, ! ..~pe or as specified. e. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all comers of intersections per City Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with __ I /__ adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. g. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards, except for single family residential lots. h. Street names shall be approved by the City Planner pdor to submittal for first pian I check. 3. Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in / accordance with the City's street tree program. 4. Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with I 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: ____1__ Foothill Boulevard. G. Public Maintenance Areas 1. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and __1__1 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. 2. Parkway landscaping on the following street(s) shall conform to the results of the respective I__1__ Beautification Master Plan: Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. H. Drainage and Flood Control 1. Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe I / measured from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk. I. Improvement Completion 1. If the required public improvements are not completed pdor to approval of the final parcel map, an improvement certificate shall be place upon the final parcel map, stating that they will be completed upon development fo~. each parcel - see special conditions. J. Utilities 1. Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, __1____ gas, electdc 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. __1____ 3. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the I Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bemardino. A letter of compliance from the CCWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or pdor to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. 4. Approvals have not been secured from all utilities and other interested agencies involved. Approval of the final parcel map will be subject to any requirements that may be received from them. K. General Requirements and Approvals 1. A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, cavedng 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. 2. The tentative map approval is valid for the 36-month period following the approval date. Time extensions may be granted by the Planning Commission, if requested prior to the expiration date. 3. 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 obligation under this condition. 4. Final grading plans for each parcel shall be as required by the Building and Safety Division prior to issuance of grading permits. i 5. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) approved by the City Altomey is required prior to approval of the final parcel map. 6. Pursuant to provisions of California Resources Code Section 21089(b), this application shall I '1 not be operative, vested or final, nor will building permits be issued or a map recorded, until (1) the Notice of Determination (NOD) regarding the associated environmental action is filed and posted with Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Bemardino; and (2) any and all required handling charges, are paid to the County Clerk of San Bemardino. The applicant shall provide the Engineering Department with a stamped 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 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. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH .THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: L. General Fire Protection Conditions 1. Fire hydrants are required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, I / 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. 2. Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided prior to water plan approval. Required ! I 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. 3. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for all hydrants and installed pdor to final inspection. 4. Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District's fire lane standards, as noted: / / -'. All roadways per Ran(~ho Cucamonga Fire Protection Distdct Ordinance 32. I b. Other:.' Reciprocal access aqreements are required if necessary. 5. Emergency secondary access shall be provided in accordance with Fire District standards. I 6. 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. 7. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1997 UBC, I UFC, UPC, UMC, and RCFD Standards 32 and 15 and 1996 NEC. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: M. Security Lighting 1. All parking, common, and storage areas shall have minimum maintained 1-foot candle I__ 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 I__ buildings, with direct lighting to be provided by all'entryways. Lighting shall be consistent around the entire development. 3. Lighting in ex~edor areas shall be in vandal-resistant fixlures. N. Building Numbering 1. Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for __1__1 nighttime visibility. THE CITY OF l~AN CliO CUCAHONGA Staff Report DATE: January 12, 2000 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Rudy Zeledon, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-30 - NORTHTOWN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION - The development of a 5,672 square foot community center facility on a 0.5oacre pamel of land in the Low Residential Distdct (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on the south side of Femn Boulevard, approximately 50 feet west of Hermosa Avenue - APN: 209-085-04. Related File: Variance 98-04. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. BACKGROUND: In concurrence with the applicant, staff requests that this item be continued until the January 26, 2000, Planning Commission meeting to allow time to continue to work with the applicant in resolving project issues. ' RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue the item to the January 26, 2000, meeting. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:RZ~Is ITEM K RAN H O C U C a M O N G A Staff Rel: rt DATE: January 12, 2000 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Lisa Kuschel, Planning Aide SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-35 - POST PLAZA - The development of an office and warehouse building totaling 11,100 square feet in the General Industrial District (Subarea 13) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the east side of Charles Smith Avenue, north of San Marino Way - APN: 229-283-63. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoninq: North - Vacant, General Industrial District (Subarea 13) South - Industrial/office building, General Industrial District (Subarea 13) East 1-15 Freeway West Industrial buildings, General Industrial District (Subarea 13) B. General Plan Desiqnations: Project Site - General Industrial North - General Industrial South - General Industrial East I-15 Freeway West General Industrial C. Site Characteristics: The site backs up to the 1-15 freeway. It is vacant with indigenous vegetation. ITEM L PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 99-35 - POST PLAZA January 12, 2000 Page 2 D. Parkinq Calculations: Type of Square Parking No of Spaces No of Spaces Use Footaqe Ratio Req'd Provided Warehouse 3,900 1/1,000 4 Office 7,200 4/1,000 29 Total 11,100 33 39 ANALYSIS.: A. General: The applicant is proposing construction of an 11,100 square-foot industrial building for warehouse and office use. Offices are a conditionally permitted use within Subarea 13. More than two thirds (7,200 square feet) of the gross floor area is proposed for office use; therefore, a Conditional Use Permit is required. The design of the building is similar in style to the building immediately south of the site. B. Desiqn Review Committee: The Design Review Committee (McNeil, Fong) reviewed the project on November 16, 1999, and recommended approval of the project with conditions as contained in the attached Design Review Action Comments (see Exhibit "G"). The applicant has revised the development plans, which addressed the Committee's recommendations. C. Technical Review Committee: The Technical Review Committee reviewed the project on November 17, 1999 and determined that the project is consistent with all applicable standards and policies. D. Environmental Assessment: Part t of the Initial Study was completed by the applicant and staff completed Part II. The site is in an area of potential Delhi Sands Flower Loving Fly (DSF) habitat. A habitat assessment was prepared (Tierra Madre Consultants, February 18, 1999), which determined that the site's recent rough grading and vegetation clearing has created an environment that is negatively associated with potential DSF habitat. Plants associated with DSF were not commonly found on-site. Also, the site's isolation does not provide a conspicuous' connection between identified potential or known DSF habitats. No DSF were found on-site. The impact to DSF is not considered significant. The City's General Plan indicates that the site is subject to noise levels greater than 70 Ldn. and requires a dbtailed noise analysis. As mitigation, a noise study will be prepared by an acoustical engineer and tt~at their recommendations bb included with the project design for noise reduction. With the mitigation in-place, staff determined that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment and recommends adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. 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. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 99-35 - POST PLAZA January 12, 2000 Page 3 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 99-35 through the adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with conditions and issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:LK:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "B" - Site Plan Exhibit "C" - Grading Plan Exhibit "D" - Landscaping Plan Exhibit "E" - Elevations/Roof Plans Exhibit "F" - Floor Plans Exhibit "G" - DRC Comments dated November 16, 1999 Exhibit "H" - Initial Study Parts I & II/Negative Declaration Resolution of Approval with Conditions Conditional Use Permit 99-35 9225 Charles Smith Avenue APN: 229-283-63 Site Plan.._ · . Project Data ..Vicinity PREFElqRED FRAMING INDUSTRIAL ]3' IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY ~)F SAN STATE OF CALIFORNIA ~ CONSTRUCTi .:,. "~ ~ ~ - ~ o? ~ .."...'., . "~.. ' :.. ~ c~sr~r ~K ~ ... -- :.. .... ~ ~.y.: ~{8.~ -;.....-.'.....-'..'....., .. -- ,'* < ES'I'IMATE~ .f i I.~. '2-~TORY INOUSIRI~ .BUILDING" RAW ~ ~: .... ';" ' F~.~ 99.60 ' ....' RAW ~L ~UU~: " ~."~'. 0":'.'"'.~ I " q [.~..jlm*~J:/ ;' '-, ~ ~ ~ · ~ DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 8:20 p.m. Lisa Kuschel November 16, 1999 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT.AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-35 - POST PLAZA: The development of an office and warehouse building totaling 11,100 square feet in the General Industrial District (Subarea 13) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the east side of Charles Smith Avenue, north of San _Ma..ri~o Way - APN: 229-283-63. Desiqn Parameters: The site is located along 1-15 freeway. It is vacant with no significant vegetation. South of the site is developed with a similar size office and warehouse building. The applicant proposed to use similar style of architecture to the new building. A Conditional Use Permit is needed because more than two thirds of the floor area (7,200 square feet) is planned for office use. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: 1. Create an entry plaza by eliminating parking in front of building to open up an entry space. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues. 2. Use fluted split-face' for coiumns on west elevation (front) instead of block. 3. Instead of a horizontal treatment of the fluted split-face block on the east side of the building, consider vertical bands of fluted split-face block between the windows to enhance the vertical elements of building and to continue the same design on the front of the building. 4. The planters proposed on the north and south sides of the building should have shrubs in addition to ivy. 6. Screen lunch area away from public view. 7. Add 6-inch by 8-inch shiner to textured driveway entry to enhance brick pavement. 8. Remove existing chain-link fence along east side and replace with wrought iron fencing. 9. Undulate mounding along Charles Smith Avenue to form a more natural design. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1, Install landscaping or pay an in-lieu fee for landscaping the freeway frontage. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Committee recommend approval of the project with the above identify design issues as condition of approval subject to City Planner review. DRC COMMENTS CUP 99-35 - POST PLAZA November 16, 1999 Page 2 Desiqn Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Lisa Kuschel The Committee recommended approval of the project with the following conditions: 1.. Create an entry plaza by eliminating~arking in front of the building to open up an entry space. ' 2, Use fluted split-face for columns on west elevation (front) instead of block, 3. Instead of a horizontal treatment of the fluted split-face block on the east side of the building, consider vertical bands of fluted split-face block between the windows to enhance the vertical elements of the building and to continue the same design on the front of the building. 4. The planters proposed on the north and south sides of the building should have shrubs in addition to ivy. 5. Add 6-inch by 8-inch shiner to textured driveway entry to enhance brick pavement. 6. Undulate mounding along Chades Smith Avenue to form a more natural design.  : t ENVIRONMENTAL · . ..... INFORMATION FORM. C,~o,R.~oCu.~ong. (P~'..rt I - Initial Study) Planning DM~ion (go9) 477.2750 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 Californial~nvironmental 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 submitlal; City staff will not be available to perfonw work required to provide missing infomlation. Application Number for the project to which this fon'n pertains: Project Title: Name & Address of developer or project spon$oc ~'~ ~ ~E~-~.~_~ Contact Person & Address: ~ Name & Address of per, on prepa~ng this fo~ (if different f~m above): Information Indicated by astedsk (°) is not required of non-construction CUP's unless otherwise requested by staff. _ ~ '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 pdmary access points which serve the site; and representative views of significant features frqm the site. Include ~ map showing location of each photograph. 4) Assessor'aParcelNumbers(attachadditionalsheetifnecessary): ~.~ ~- ~- ~ 3-- ~)- ~ ~ 7) Descdbe any proposed genera/plan amendment or zone change which would affect the project site (atfach additional sheet if necessary: 8) Include a description of all pen'nits which will be necessary from the City of Rancho Cucamonga and other governmental agencies in o~der lo fully implement the project: INITSTD1.WPD' 4/96 : J-'-- I ? Page 2 of 10 9) Descdbe the physical setting of the site as it exists before the project including infon~nation on topography, soil stability, plants · · and animals, mature trees, trails and roads, drainage courses, and scenic aspects. Descdbe any existing stroctures on site · (including age and condition) and the use of the $trocturos. Attach photographs of significant features described. In addition, site afl sources of information (i.e.. geological and/or hydrologic studies, biotic and archeological surveys, traffic studies): ~ - . ~, / ! -. 10) Descdbe the known cullura/ and/or historical aspects of the site. Site afl sources of information (books, pubfished reports and oral histoty): 11) Descdbe any noise sources and their levels that now affect the site (aircraft. roadway noise, etc.) and how they will affect INITSTOl .WP[} - 4/96 Page 3 or' 10 12) Describe the preposed project in detail. This should provide an adequate description of the site in ten"ns of ultimate use which will result from the prosed project. Indicate if there am proposed phases for development, the extent of development to occur. with each phase, and the anticipated completion of each increment. Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary: _ ... ~ . _ .... ,,.. · ~ <.~,~_~ . ~ ~ - ~ ~ z~ ~ .~.~//~ ~ c~ / 13) Descfibe thesun~unding properties~ inc~uding inf~n~ati~n ~n p~ants and anima~s and any cu~tura~ hist~dca~ ~r 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, [rontage, setback, rear yard, etc.): i~,~. ~., ~. ~ · II 14) ~11 the proposed p~ject change the paff~m, scale or cha~cter of the su~unding general area of the p~ject? ~ .... ~ ~. ~: ~ . ~~. · .. 2_ I ~ Page4ot~O 15) ~ndicate the type ~f sh~rt~terrn and ~~ng-~en~n n~ise t~ be generated~ inc~uding s~uroe and am~unt~ How will these noise levels · · affect adjacentproperties and on-site uses. What m~thods of soundproofing are proposed? '16) Indicate proposed removals and/or replacements of mature or scenic trees:~ I~ o p /~,4-~/ J- 7'0 17) Indicate any bodies o! water (including domestic water sump/les) into which the site drains: 18) Indicate expected amount of water usage. (See Attachment A for usage estimates). For further clarification, please contact the Cucamonga County Water Distdct at 987-259 I. a, Residential (gaYday), Peak use (gal/Day) b. Commeroial/lnd. (gal/day/ac) / ~72 y/,~5~c-. Peak use (gal/min/ac) / ~') ~,~ ~,.~ 19) Indicate proposed method of sewage disposal. Septic Tank, ~, Sewer. If septic tanks are proposed, attach percolation tests, ff discharge to a sanitaq/ sewage system is proposed indicate expected daily sewage generation: (See Attachment A for usage estimates). For further clarification, please contact the Cucamonga County Water Distdct at 987-2591. a. Residential (gal/day) ' b. Commercial/Ind. (gal/day/ac) ,~ ~O-Z~ RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS: 20) Numberofresidenlialunits: Detached (indicate range of Daroel sizes, minimum lot size and rcaximum lot size: INITSTDI.WPD - 4~96 Page 5 of 10 Sale Pdce(s) $ to $ Rent (per month) 22) Specify number of bedrooms by unit type: ~,//~ 23) indicateanticipatedhouseholdsizebyunittype: 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: b. Junior High: c. Senior High COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL PROJECTS 25) D~$cdbetype~fu$e~s)andmaj~rfuncti~n(s)~~c~mmercia~~industda~~rinstituti~na~~ses: 26) Total floor area of commercial, industdal, or institutional uses by type: ~_,~)1 Page 6 of'J0 INITSTO1,WPD-4/96 28) Number of employees: Total: /~,~/0~'~.~ Maxin~um Shift: Time of Maximum Shift: 29) P~videbreakd~wn~fanticipatedj~bc~ssi~cati~ns~inc~udingwageandsa~a~ranges~aswe~asanindicati~n~ftherate of hire for each classification (a~ach additional sheet if necessa~): '31) For commercial and industrial uses only. indicate the source, type and amount of air pollution emissions, (Data should be vedfied through the South Coast Air Quafity Management District. at (818) 572.6283): ALL PROJECTS 32) Have the water' sewer~ ~ and ~d c~ntro~ agencies ser~ing the pro~ect been c~ntacted to determine their abi~ity to provide adequate service to the proposed project? If so. please indicate their response. [NITSTD 1 ,WPO. 4/96 Page 7 of 10 33) ~n the kn~wn hist~ry ~f this property~ has them been any use~ st~rage~ ~r discharge ~f hazard~us and/~r t~xic matertals? Examples of hazardous and/or toxic matertals include, but ara not limited lo PCB's; radioactive substances; pesticides and herbicides; fuels, oils, so/vents, and other flammable liquids and gases, Also note underground storage of any of the above. Please list the matertals and descrtbe their use, storage, and/or discharge on the property, as well as the dates of use, if 34) Will the proposed project involve the temporary or long-term use. storage or discharge of hazardous and/or toxic matertals, including but not limited to those examples listed above? If yes, provide an inventory of all such matertals to be used and proposed method of disposal. The location of such u~es~a:!ong with the storage and shipment araas, shall be shown and labeled on the application plans. : I , certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for ~ evaluation of this project lo the best of my ability, that the facts, statements, and information prasented ara true and correct tot he best of my knowledge and belief. I furthe'r understand that additional in[ormation may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaluation can be made by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. ~_, '~27 Page 8 of 10 INITSTOl .WPD- 4~96 ATTACHMENT A Water Usaqe Average use per day Residential Single Family 600 gal/day AptJCondo 400 gal/day Commercial/Industrial General and Regional Commercial 3000 gal/day/ac Neighborhood Commercial 1500 gal/day/ac Get~- --! Industrial 1500 gal/day/ac Ind~_~ ~,'~al Park 3000 gal/day/ac Peak Usage For all uses Average use x 2.0 Sewer Flows Residential Single Family 270 gal/day Apt/Condos 200 gal/day Commercial/industrial General Commercial 2000 gal/daylac Neighborhood Commercial 100-1500 ga~/day/ac General Industrial ;)000 gal/day/ac Heavy Industrial 3000 gal/day/ac Source: Cucamonga County Water District Master Plan, 9/86 ATTACHMENT B Contact the school district for your area for amount and payment of school fees: Elementary School Districts Alta Loma 9350 Base Line Road, Suite F Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 987-0766 Central 10601 Church Street, Suite 112 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 989-8541 Cucamonga 8776 Archibald Avenue Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 987-8942 Etiwanda 5959 East Avenue P.O. Box 248 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739 (909) 899-2451 High School Charley High School 211 West 5th Street Ontario, CA 91762 (909) 988-8511 INITSTD1.WPD- 4/98 : ,L .~,,~ Page 10 of 10 City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: Conditional Use Permit 99-35 2. Related Files: Preliminary Review 98-21 3. * Description of Project:~.The development of an office and warehouse building totaling · 11,100 square feet in the General industrial District (Subarea13) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the east side of Charles Smith Avenue (formerly Rochester Avenue), north of San Marino Way - APN: 229-283-63. 4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: James Post' c/o Preferred Framing Inc. 9225 Charles Smith Avenue Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 5. General Plan Designation: General Industrial 6. Zoning: General Industrial District, Industrial Area Specific Plan, Subarea 13 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: South and west of the site is developed with industrial buildings. North of the site is vacant. The Interstate 15 Freeway exists 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: Lisa Kuschel Planning Aide (909) 477-275p 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: None 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. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 99-35 Parle 2 ( ) Land Use and Planning ( ) Transportation/Circulation ( ) Public Services ( ) Population and Housing (v') Biological Resources ( ) Utilities and Service Systems ( ) Geological Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources ( ) Aesthetics (¢) Water ( ) Hazards ( ) Cultural Resources ( ) Air Quality (~) Noise ( ) Recreation ( ) Mandatoq/Findings of Significance DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: ( ) ' I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. (~') I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project, or agreed to, by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ( ) I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ( ) I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based upon the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ( ) 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 standa, r.ds, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including~P~ or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed proje~j~j/~ Signed' /~'~~ ..~.,~/~'i/ ' ' / · ~- ' N~'ncy For~/~ICP ~)lea~ imnbge rAild;, 1999 Senior 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. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 99-35 Page 3 1, 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? ( ( ) (v') c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ( ) ( ) (v') "d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community? ( ) ( ) (v') 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. WOuld the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure).~ ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ( ) ( ) ( ) b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v~) . c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') d) Seiche hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') f) Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( ) ( ) (~') ( ) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 99-35 Page 4 Significant g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~) h) Expansive soils? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~/) Comments: f) Grading impacts will have a minimal impact on the surrounding area due to the fact that the land to the south and west are developed, and the perimeter streets and infrastructure are existing. The topography of the site will be altered to drain to the public street, where runoff will be conveyed to approved drainage facilities. The site is identified as Tujunga-Delhi soil association which is of relatively loose texture and grading can result in wind erosion. The soil shall be watered during grading activities to minimize soil erosion. The recommendations of the Final Soils Engineering Investigation Report shall be incorporated into the project design with pertinent information noted on the final Grading Plan which shall be reviewed and approved by. the Building Official prior to issuance of grading permits. The resulting impact will not be significant. 4. WATER. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? ) ( ) (v') ( ) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ) ( ) ( ) (v') c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? ) ( ) ( ) (~/) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') e) Changes iq currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v~) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 99-35 Parle 5 ~rn~lcl Potenlially Impact Impact i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~) Comments: a) The development of the proposed project will increase the amount of paved surface ama, which could result in a decrease in absorption rates and increase in the amount of surface water runoff. All runoff will be conveyed to existing and proposed drainage facilities designed to handle the subject water flows. 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ( ) ( ) ( ) · (v') d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Comments: The short and long term air quality impacts were addressed in the previous EIR certified for the Industrial Specific Plan. 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased-vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) ( ) (v') b) Hazards ~.; .~afety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ) ( ) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ) ( ) (v') d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ) ( ) (v') Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 99-35 Parle 6 e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ) ( ) (~/) LTL f) ~onflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative tl'~sportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ) ( ) g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ( ) ( ) (~) 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? ( ) ( ) (v~) ( ) b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees, eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~/) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian', and vernal pool)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') .Comments: a) The site is located in an area identified as a potential habitat for the Dehli Sands Flower- loving Fly (DSF). A site assessment was conducted on February 18, 1999, by Mr. Michael D. Wilcox, a wildlife biologist of Tierra Madre Consultants {'FMC), Inc. TMC confirmed that the site has been rough graded and cleared of vegetation in the recent past. Although evidence of at least four plant species related to the DSF were observed, they were not commonly found on-site. More importantly, because of the lack of unconsolidated Dehli soils, TMC determined that the site's habitat is not suitable for the DSF oviposition and larval development. The study concluded that focused surveys to detect DSF presence were not recommended for this site. 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 99-35 Parle 7 b) Use non-renewable resoumes in a wasteful and inefficient manner? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~/) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v~) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~/) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~/) 10. NOISE. Will the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( (~') b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) (v') ( ( ) Comments: b) The project site is adjacent to Interstate Freeway 15. According to the City's General Plan, the noise level for the site is estimated at greater than 70 I-dn. The General Plan policy is that industrial development is conditionally acceptable provided a detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features are included in the design. Conventional construction, with closed windows and fresh air supply or air conditioning, will normally suffice. Outdoor environment will seem noisy. As mitigation, a noise study shall be prepared by an acoustical engineer and their recommendations included in the project design. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 99-35 Pacje 8 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) Fire protection? ) ( ) ( (~/) b) Police protection? ) ( ) ( (v') c) Schools? ) ( ) ( ) (v') d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v~) e) Other governmental services? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or suppfies or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? ( ) ( ) (v') b) Oommunication systems? ( ) ( ) (v~) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') e) Storm water drainage? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') f) Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') 13, AESTHETICS. Would the proposah a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') c) Create light or glare? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 99-35 Page 9 14~ CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') . b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~/) c) Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~/) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) ( ) (v') b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) ( ) (v') 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 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') Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 99-35 Parle 10. ..... 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.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') 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 Ra. ncho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply): (v') General Plan EIR ... (Certified April 6, 1981) (~/)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) 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 th(~ effects to a point where clearly no significant environmental effects would occur. ---- ~') .~/~_/;¢~~~_ ~ Date: / ~-~{ -.~---~ ? Si gnatu re: Print Name and Title: 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.: Condifional Use Permit 99-35 Public Review Period Closes: January12,2000 Project Name: Project Applicant: James Post, % Preferred Framing~ Inc. Project Location (also see attached map): Located on the east side of Charles Smith Avenue, north of San Marino Way - APN: 229-283-63. Project Description: The development of an office and warehouse building totaling 11,100 square feet in the General Industrial District (Subarea 13) 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 mi~gate 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 am 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. January 12, 2000 Date of Determination Adopted By RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-35, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN OFFICE AND WAREHOUSE BUILDING TOTALING 11,100 SQUARE FEET ON .7 ACRE OF LAND IN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (SUBAREA 13) OF THE INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF CHARLES SMITH AVENUE, NORTH OF SAN MARINO WAY, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 229-283-63. A. Recitals. 1. James Post has flied an application for the issuance of Conditional Use Permit No. 99-35, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subjecl Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 12th day of January 2000, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites pdor to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission dudng the above- referenced public hearing on January 12, 2000, including wdtten and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located on the east side of Charles Smith Avenue, north of San Marino Way (9225 Charles Smith Avenue) with a street frontage of 196 feet and lot depth of 162 feet, which is not presently improved. b. The property to the east is the 1-15 Freeway, the property to the north is vacant and' is zoned General Industrial, the properties to the south and west are developed with industrial buildings and zoned General Industrial. c. The design of the project together with the conditions of approval meet the development standards and the design guidelines of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. The design of the site has provided sufficient parking space to serve the project. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission dudng the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 99-35- JAMES POST January 12,2000 Page 2 a. The preposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code and the Industrial Area Specific Plan, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. b. The preposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to preperties or improvem.ents in the vicinity. c. The preposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code and the Industrial Area Specific Plan. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the preposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, together with all wdtten and oral reports included for the envirenmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Monitoring Program attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference, based upon the findings as follows: a. That the Mitig~_~d Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quz,,i~-:/ ACt of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines premulgated thereunder;, that said Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Mitigated Negative Declaration with regard to the apc!ication. b. Although the Mitigated Negative Declaration identifies certain significant environmental effects that will result if the project is approved, all significant effects have been reduced to an acceptable level by imposition of mitigation measures on the project which are listed below as conditions of approval. c. Pursuant to the previsions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the preposed project will have potential for an adveree impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon the substantial evidence contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission during the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations: 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby appreves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. En.qineerin.q Division 1) Public right-of-way improvements adjacent to and fronting the project site shall be protected-in-place and replaced as required. Previde parkway curb side drain, parkway trees, traffic striping and signage, R26 "No Parking" signs, and reconstruct the existing drive appreach per City Standard Drawings and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 99-35 - JAMES POST January 12, 2000 Page 3 a) Security shall be posted and an agreement executed, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Attomey, guaranteeing completion of the required improvements, prior to issuance of building permits. b) Street Improvement Plan No. 972 shall be revised by a registered Civil Engineer for the required off-site public improvements. processing and plan check fees will be required. c) Prior to any work being performed in the street right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit obtained frore the office of the City Engineer. 2) The citywide Transportatio~n_~Developreent Fee, covering the City adopted estimated costs to mitigate the traffic impacts caused by the new developments, shall be paid upon issuance of buildings permits. 3) The property owner shall be required to sign and file with the City Engineer a Consent and Waiver Form to join the appropriate Landscape and Lighting Maintenance Districts, prior to final map approval. 4) Sidewalks shall cross drive approaches at zero curb face. Provide additional public right-of-way as needed. Driveway accent paving shall be located outside the public right-of-way. Environmental Mitiqation Measures Noise 1) A Noise Study prepared by an acoustical engineer to reduce exterior and interior noise shall be subreitted for City Planner review and approval. The recommendations in the study shall be incorporated in the project design, prior to issuance of building permits. 6. The Secretary to this Coremission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2000. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CiTY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman Aq-['EST: Brad Bullet, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 99-35 -JAMES POST January 12,2000 Page 4 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 January 2000, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT; COMMISSIONERS: City of Rancho Cucamonga MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Project File No.: Conditional Use Permit 99-35 This Mitigation Monitoring Program WIMP) has been prepared for use in implementing the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the above-listed project. This program has been prepared in compliance with State law to ensure that adopted mitigation measures are implemented (Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code). Pro§ram Components - This MMP contains the following elements: 1. Conditions of approval that act as impact mitigation measuresare recorded with the action and the procedure necessary to ensure compliance. The mitigation measure conditions of approval are contained in the adopted Resolution of Approval for the project. 2. A procedure of compliance and verification has been outlined for each action necessary. This procedure designates who will take action, what action will be taken and when, and to whom and when compliance will be reported. 3. The MMP has been designed to provide focused, yet flexible guidelines. As monitoring progresses, changes to compliance procedures may be necessary based upon recommendations by those responsible for the program. Program Management - The MMP will be in place through all phases of the project. The project planner, assigned by the City Planher, shall coordinate enforcement of the MMP. The project planner oversees the MMP and reviews the Reporting Forms to ensure theyare filled out correctly and proper action is taken on each mitigation. Each City department shall ensure compliance of the conditions (mitigation) that relate to that department. Procedures - The following steps will be followed by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 1. A fee covering all costs and expenses, including any consultants' fees, incurred by the City in performing monitoring or reporting programs shall be charged to the applicant. 2. An MMP Reporting Form will be prepared for each potentially significant impact and its corresponding mitigation measure identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Checklist, attached hereto. This procedure designates who will take action, what action will be taken and when, and to whom and when compliance will be reported. All monitoring and reporting documentationwill be kept in the project file with the department having the original authority for processing the project. Reports will be available from the City upon request at the following address: City of Rancho Cucamonga - Lead Agency Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Mitigation Monitoring Program CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-35 Page 2 3. Appropriate specialists will be retained if technical expertise beyond the City staff's is needed, as determined by the project planner or responsible City department, to monitor specific mitigation activities and provide appropriate written approvals to the project planner. 4. The project planner or responsible City department will approve, by signature and date, the completion of each action item thatwas identified on the MMP Reporting Form. After each measure is verified for compliance, no further action is required for the specific phase of development. 5. All MMP Reporting Forms for an impact issue requiring no further monitoring will be signed off as completed by the project planner or responsible City department at the bottom of the MMP Reporting Form. 6. Unanticipated circumstances may arise requiring the refinement or addition of mitigation measures. The project planner is responsible for approving any such refinements or additions. An MMP Reporting Form will be completed by the project planner or responsible City department and a copy provided to the appropriate design, construction, or operational personnel. 7. The project planner or responsible City department has the authority to stop the work of construction contractors if compliance with any aspects of theMMP is not occurring after written notification has been issued. The project planner or responsible City department also has the authority to hold certificates of occupancies if compliance with a mitigation measure attached hereto is not occurring. The project planner or responsible City department has the authority to hold issuance of a business license until all mitigation measures are implemented. 8. Any conditions (mitigation) that require monitoring after project completion shall be the responsibility of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Development Department. The Department shall require the applicant to post any necessary funds (or other forms of guarantee) with the City. These funds shall be used by the City to retain consultants and/or pay for City staff time to monitor and report on the mitigation measure for the requiredped0d of time. 9. In those instances requiring long-term project monitoring, the applicant shall provide the City' with a plan for monitoring the mitigation activities at the project site and reporting the monitoring results to the City. Said plan shall identify the reporter as an individual qualified to know whether the particular mitigation measure has been implemented, The monitoring/reporting plan shall conform, to the City's MMP and shall be approved by the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of building permits. MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST (INITIAL STUDY PART III) Project File No.: Conditional Use Permit 99-35 Applicant: Preferred Framing Inc. Initial Study Prepared by: Lisa Kuschel, Planning Aide Date: December 21, 1999 Applicant must submit study for interior noise levels CP B B CID 3, 4 Key to Checklist Abbreviations Responsible Person.:: ~'~:i. ~:; ...... .. , ,,r;. ;~" Monitoring Frequency w,-.1~:. .~:. ': i Method ofVedflcatJo~ ~ .i- ~'.~ . ,... ' .~ . ~ Sa,,~.uv,,~.: ~.F~ ,~' .~ ~.~ , ~. · CDD - Community Development Director A - With Each New Devetopment A - On-site Inspection 1 - Withhold Recordation of Final Map CP - City Planner or designee B - Prior To Construction B - Other Agency Permit I Approval 2 - Withhold Grading oF Building Permit CE - City Engineer or designee C - Throughout Construction C - Plan Check 3 - Withhold Ce~ificate of Occupancy BO - Building Official or designee D - On Completion D - Separate Submittal (Reports / Studies / Plans) 4 - Stop Work Order PO - Police Captain or designee E - Operating 5 - Retain Deposit or Bonds FC - Fire Chief or designee 6 - Revoke CUP COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT #: Conditional Use Permit 99-35 SUBJECT: 1,100 Square foot building (Industrial) APPLICANT: James Post LOCATION: East side of Charles Smith Avenue, north of San Marino Way ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A, General Requirements Completion Date 1. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative,, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. 2. 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 1. 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 1. The site shall be d~veloped and maintained in acc6rdance with the approved plans which include site plans, amhitectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, Development Code regulations, and the Industrial Area Specific Plan. 2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. SC -12199 ~ ~ 1 Project No. CUP 99-35 Completion Date 3. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Division to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. 4. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom let subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 7. A detailed on-site lighting plan, including a photometric diagram, shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and Police Department (477-2800) prior to the issuance of building permits. Such plan shall indicate style, illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10.All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination. D. Building Design 1. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or __/__ __ projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Details shall be included in building plans. 2. For commercial and industrial projects, paint roll-up doors and service doom to match main /__ __ building colors. E. 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 __1____ 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. SC -12199 2 Project No. CUP 99-35 Completion Date 4. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, I I entrances, and exits shall be striped per City standards. 5. 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 stal~s for use by the handicapped. 6. Motorcycle parking area shall be provided for commercial and office facilities with 25 or more I I parking stalls. Developments with over 100 parking stalls shall provide motorcycle parking at the rate of one percent. The area for motorcycle parking shall be a minimum of 56 square feet. 7. Bicycle storage spaces shall be provided in all commercial, office, industrial, and multifamily / I 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 sha~l 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. 8. Carpool and vanpool designated off-street parking close to the building shall be provided for / I commercial, office, and industrial facilities at the rate of 10 percent of the total parking area. If covered, the ve~ical clearance shall be no less than 9 feet. F. Landscaping 1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home I I 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. 2. A minimum of 20% of trees planted within industrial projects, and a minimum of 30% within I I commercial and office projects, shall be specimen size trees - 24-inch box or larger. 3. Within parking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-gallon tree for every three I parking stalls, sufficient to shade 50% of the parking area at solar noon on August 21. 4. Trees shall be planted in areas of 3ublic view adjacent to and along structures at a rate of one I tree per 30 linear feet of building. 5. All private slopes of 5 feet or more ~n 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. 6. 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 var7 slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. 7. For multi-family residential and non-residential development, property owners are responsible for the continual maintenance of all landscaped areas on-site, as well as contiguous planted areas within the public right-of-way. All landscaped areas shall be kept free from weeds and debris and maintained in healthy and thriving condition, and shall receive regular pruning, sc-12/99 3~.'L) ~ Project No, CUP 99-35 Completion Date fertilizing, mowing, and trimming. Any damaged, dead, diseased, or decaying plant material shall be replaced within 30 days from the date of damage. 8. 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. 9.Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on the perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer. 10.All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division. 11.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. 12. On projects which abut the 1-15 Freeway, the developer shall provide landscaping within the freeway right-of-way along the boundary of this project or pay an in-lieu of construction cash deposit. The landscape and irrigation plans shall be prepared in conformance with Caltrans and City Standards through the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and City Engineer. Landscape and irrigation shall be installed prior to the release of occupancy of the project. If final approvals and/or installation is not complete at that time, the City will accept a cash deposit for future landscaping of the Caltrans right-of-way. G. Signs 1. 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. H. Environmental 1. Mitigation measures are required for the project. The applicant is responsible for the cost of __1__1 implementing said measures, including monitoring and reporting. Applicant shall be required to post cash, letter of credit, or other forms of guarantee acceptable to the City Planner in the amount of $719.00, prior to the issuance of building permits, guaranteeing satisfactory performance and completion of all mitigation measures. These funds may be used by the City to retain consultants and/or pay for City staff time to monitor and report on the mitigation measures.. Failure to complete all actions required by the approved environmental documents shall be considered grounds for forfeit. in those instances requiring long term monitoring (i.e.) beyond final certificate of occupancy), the applicant shall provide a written monitoring and reporting program to the City Planner prior J:o issuance of building permits. Said program shall identif~ the reporter as an individual qualified to know whether the particular mitigation measure has been implemented. I. Other Agencies 1. The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and / I__ location of mail boxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for mail boxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mail boxes and the design of the overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. SC -12199 4 project No. CUP 99-35 Completion Date APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-27'10, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: J." General Requirements 1. Submit four complete sets of plans including the following: a. Site/Plot Plan; b. Foundation Plan; c. Floor Plan; d. Ceiling and Roof Framing Plan; e. Electrical Plans (2 sets, detached) including the size of the main switch, number and size of service entrance conductors, panel schedules, and single line diagrams; f. Plumbing and Sewer Plans, including isometrics, underground diagrams, water and waste diagram, sewer or septic system location, fixture units, gas piping, and heating and air conditioning; and g. Planning Division Project Number (i.e., TT #, CUP #, DR #, etc.) clearly identified on the outside of alt plans. 2. Submit two sets of structural calculations, energy conservation calculations, and a soils report. Architect's/Engineer's stamp and "wet" signature ara required prior to plan check submittal. 3. Separate permits are required for fencing and/or walls. 4. Contractors must show proof of State and City licenses and Workers' Compensation coverage to the City prior to permit issuance. 5. Business shall not open for operation prior to posting the Certificate of Occupancy issued by the Building and Safety Division. K. Site Development 1. Plans shall be submitted for plan check and approved prior to construction. All plans shall be marked with the project file number (i.e., 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 permit application. Please contact the Building and Safety Division for availability of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. 2, 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 no limited to: Transportation Development Fees, Drainage Fee, School Fees, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, Applicant shall provide a copy of the school fees receipt to the Building and Safe~ r.,ivision prior to permit issuance. 3. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation and prior to issuance of building permits. 4. Construct trash enciosure(s) per City Standard (available at the Planning Division's public counter). L. New Structures 1. Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for the property line clearances considering use, area, and fire-resistiveness. 2. Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for required occupancy separation(s). SC-12/99 5~' J'-I ~ Project No. CUP 99-35 Completion Date 3. Roofing material shall be installed per the manufacturer's "high wind" instructions. Grading 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. 3. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. 4. A separate grading plan check submittal is required for all new construction projects and for existing buildings where improvements being proposed will generate 50 cubic yards or more of combined cut and fill. The Grading Plan shall be prepared, stamped, and signed by a California Registered Civil Engineer. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: N. General Fire Protection Conditions 1. Fire flow requirement shall be: 3,000 gallons per minute, Per '97 UFC Appendix III-A, 5, (b) (Increase). A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire departmen~ 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 fire department personnel after construction and prior to occupancy. 2. Fire hydrants are required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed, and operable prior to deliver~ of any combustible building materials on site (i.e., lumber, roofing materials, etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire department personnel. 3. 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 ouflet. Substandard hydrants shall be upgraded to meet this standard. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specifications on approved brands and model numbers. 4. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for all hydrants and installed prior to final inspection. 5. An automatic fire extinguishing system(s) will be required as noted below: Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15. Other:1997 UBC. Note: Special sprinkler densities are required for such hazardous operations as woodworkin¢ plastics manufacturing, spray painting, flammable liquids storage, high piled stock, etc. Contact the Fire Safety Division to determine if the sprinkler system is adequate for proposed operations. 6. Sprinkler system monitoring shall be installed and operational immediately upon completion of sprinkler system. SC -12199 6 Project No. CUP 99-35 Completion Date 7. A fire alarm system(s) shall be required as noted below: Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15. 8. Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District's fire lane standards, as noted: All roadways per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 32. 9. Fire department access shall be amended to facilitate emergency apparatus. 10. 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. 11. Gated/restricted entry(s) require installation of a Knox rapid entry key system. Contact the I Fire Safety Division for specific details and ordering information. 12.A tenant use letter shall be submitted prior to final building plan approval. Contact the Fire Safety Division for the proper form letter. 13. Fire District fee(s), plus a $1 per "plan page" microfilm fee will be due to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District as follows: $677 for New Commercial and Industrial Development (per new building).** **Note: Separate plan check fees for Tenant Improvement work, fire protection systems (sprinklers, hood systems, alarms, etc.) and/or any consultant reviews will be assessed upon submittal of plans. O. Special Permits 1. Special permits may be required, depending on intended use, as noted below: a. High piled combu?-,e'~ stock. NOTE: SEPARATE PLAN CHECK FEES FOR TENANT IMPROVEMENTS, FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS (SPRINKLERS, HOOD SYSTEMS, ALARMS, ETC.), AND/OR ANY CONSULTANT REVIEWS WILL BE ASSESSED UPON SUBMITFAL OF PLANS. NOTE: A SEPARATE GRADING PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL IS REQUIRED FOR ALL NEW CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS AND FOR EXISTING BUILDINGS WHERE IMPROVEMENTS BEING PROPOSED WILL GENERATE 50 CUBIC YARDS OR MORE OF COMBINED CUT AND FILL. THE GRADING PLAN SHALL BE PREPARED, STAMPED AND SIGNED BY A CALIFORNIA REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: P. Security Lighting 1. All parking, common, and storage areas shall have minimum maintained 1-foot candle power. These areas should be lighted from sunset to sunrise and on photo sensored cell. 2. All buildings shall have minimal security lighting to eliminate dark areas around the buildings, with direct lighting to be provided by all entryways. Lighting shall be consistent around the entire development. 3. Lighting in exterior areas shall be in vandal-resistant fixtures. SC -12/99 7 Project NO. CUP 99-35 Completion Date Security Hardware 1. One-inch single cylinder dead bolts shall be installed on all entrance doors. If windows are I within 40 inches of any locking device, tempered glass or a double cylinder dead bolt shall be used. 2. All garage or rolling doors shall have slide bolts or some type of secondary locking devices. I R. Building Numbering 1. Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for / nighttime visibility. SC -12~99 8 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: January 12, 2000 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Warren Morelion, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 14405 - LEE - A request for an extension of a previously approved tentative tract map including design review for the development of 20 single-family lots on 4.39 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of San Bernardino Road, east of Vineyard Avenue -APN: 208-091-08. Related File: Variance 91-11. TIME EXTENSION FOR VARIANCE 91-11 - LEE - A request for an extension of a previously approved variance to reduce the required rear lot depth from 90 to 65 feet for one lot within a proposed 20 lot subdivision in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of San Bernardino Road, east of Vineyard Avenue - APN: 208-091-08. Related File: Tentative Tract 14405. BACKGROUND: Tentative Tract 14405 and Variance 91-11 were approved by the Planning Commission on December 9, 1992. Since that time, the State has granted three years of automatic time extensions, and the Planning Commission has granted two one-year time extensions. This has extended the expiration of the subject Tentative Tract and Variance approval to December 9, 1999. Prior to expiration, the applicant filed the subject extension request. The City's regulations for time extensions were amended in January 1999. ANALYSIS: A. Subdivision Map: The City's Subdivision Ordinance (RCMC 16.16.070) provides the Planning Commission may grant time extensions in 12-month increments for up to 5 years (a maximum of 8 years from the original approval). The 3 years of time extensions automatically granted by the State are in addition to the time extensions which may be granted by the City; therefore, the maximum life of this project would be up to 11 years from the original date of approval (final expiration on December 9, 2003). Staff has analyzed the proposed tim~ extension and compared the proposal with current development criteria outlined in the Development Code. Based on this review, Tentative Tract 14405 meets the development standards for the Low-Medium Residential District. Staff recommends granting a 12-month time extension to December 9, 2000. B. Development/Desiqn Review and Variance: 'l:he original approval for the project also included design review for construction of 20 residential units and a variance to reduce the required rear lot depth for one lot within the proposed subdivision. The time extension of the ITEMS M &.N, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 'I-I' 14405 & VAR 91-11 - LEE January 12, 2000 Page 2 design reviews and variances is regulate*, the City's Development Code. The Development Code was amended by Ordinance i,~o. 596 to grant a 5-year approval period with no possible time extensions. The 3 years of time extensions automatically granted by the State are in addition to the time extensions which may be grar~ted by the City. Therefore, the maximum approval period, including State extensions, would be 8 years from the odginal approval. The final expiration of the design review and variance could be December 9, 2000. Staff recommends granting a time extension to December 9, 2000. No futher time extensions will be possible. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Part I of the Initial Study has been prepared by the applicant. Staff has completed Part II of the Environmental Checklist and found that conditions in the area have not changed appreciably since the tract received tentative approval December 9, 1992. Therefore, there si",,, uld be no significant adverse environmental impacts on the site relative to the proposed tract or "~,-r;e extension. If the Commission concurs with staff's findings, issuance of a Negative Declaration would be in order. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the project site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission grant a one-year time extension for the subdivision map and design review for Tentative Tract 14405 and Variance 91-11 through adoption of the attached Resolutions and issuance of a Negative Declaration. Respectfully submitted, City Planner BB:Wtv%ma Attachments: Exhibit"A" Letter from Applicant Exhibit "B" Site Utilization Map Exhibit "C" Site Plan Exhibit "D" Elevations Exhibit "E" Variance Letter and Map Exhibit "F" Initial Study Part I and II Resolution of Approval - Tentative Tract Time Extension Resolution of Approval - Design Revi.ew Time Extension Resolution of Approval - Variance Time Extension T H E C IT Y 0 F RANCHO C UCA MONGA C,;4.t ~,.~ ¢,.,Co I 1' .... ~d /,,, SITE PLAN ~NCH0 C~C~0NGA RIGHT'" ~"-'~~ r~ /~:. REAR lA - lB PLAN 1 ~N~HO ~_U~ONG~ " : .... .. ~ACT .. J~ " ,~ ..' , .z~l~: ,.",~. .,. ..~.~..~, ' .~, i_ll ~ Il_ , _ RIGHT LEFT ,_ PLAN 2 ' ~NCHO CUC~0NGA ~.~c~ ~ RIGHT' LEFT ~ ' ~-- .~, ~'.~--~-~. ..~ .. ~. ~ I ~"J~' .............. ~J .~ ~ ~- ~' · ~ ,' . .. :. . .~ ~. .. ~- ~ ~ · ~.,.~....~. PLAN 3 - SUBDIVISION WATER RESOURCES SURVEYING HYDRAULICS PIPELINES WALTER W. HU, Ph.D. OR' '"AGE CONSULTANT CIVIL ENGINEER ~ 11655 Countryside Drive ~ Fontana, California 92335 (714) 685-5762 October 7, 1991 Mr. Steve Hayes Project Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 RE~ Variance application of Lot 7 of Tract No. 14405 Dear Steve: Tract No. 14405 is a development project of twenty single family housing lots from a parcel of vacant land. It locates at the north side of San Bernardino Road, opposite to the Thomas Winery Commercial Project. The land is in a sharp triangular shape with a fairly uniform slope from NW to SE. An offset cul-de-sac is :hence necessary for designing the north corner of the triangle. The design will create a triangular Lot 7 which is not standard. I hereby apply for the City's approval of variance of said Lot 7. Please note that the average lot size of this tract is 6706 sq.ft. larger than the minimum net average of 6000 sq.ft, for LM zone. The size of Lot 7 is 8072 sq.ft., larger than the minimum net 5000 sq.ft. The Tentative Map is being submitted for your review. Sincerely, · ~lter W. Hu RCE 29954  ENVIRONMENTAL ~ ~ ......... INFORMATION FORM ' · .~...~o~u.m~g... ,, ..... ~ ... . · ..(Part I -.Initial Study) Planning Oiw~i~n (909) 477.2750 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 pursuarit 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 app!icafion be provided in full. · :i:':. :~.!i :;:i:..: ·: ..:: .. -.:.':i. :..: '' .'..:' INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS VtflLL NOT BE PROCESSED. Please note that it is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that the application is complete at the lime of submittal; City staff will not be available to perform work ~quired lo provide missing information. Application Number for the project to which this form petfains: Projeclr~Ila: 'FF-' ~ Name & Addres$ ot project owner(s]: ~ ~ ~: Name & Address of devetoper or project sponsoc ~/~x"7~ Contact Person & Address: (tt ~--~ [- (~ ~ ~ l~ ~ v ~ Telephone Number. ~ Z ~ - Z t ~- - ~ ~ ~ L~ Name & Address of pe~on preparing this form (if different from above): Telephone Number ~ '2 ~ ~' Z Z ~ ~' 0 ~ ~ 0 -' * Page 1 of 10 INITSTDI.~D - 4~6 . "~."~ 'lnfomlation indicated tjX'asterisk (') is nol required ofnon-constmction CUP's unless othen~ise requested by sta~ ' · ?) P~vide a furl scale (8-1~ x 11) copy of the USGS Quad~nt Sheet(s) which includes the project site, and indicate the ' site boundaries. 2) Pmvide a set of color photogmphs which show representative views in~ the site from the no~h, south, east and west; views ~ and (~m the site from the pdma~ access points which se~e the site; and representative views of significant features (~m the site. Include a map sho~ng location of each photograph. 3) Pmject Location(descdbe): ~ ~(~ ~ ~/~ ~ ~ ~ 4) Assessor*s Pa~.el Nurobers (attach additional sheet if necessary): '6) Net Site Area (total site size roinus area of public streets & pr°posed dedicati°ns): ~ ~ ~ /~ ¢ u' ). 7) Descdbe any proposed genera/plan amendment or zone change which would affect the project site (atfach additional sheet if necessary: 8) Include a description of all pen~its which will be necessary flora the City of Rancho Cucarnonga and other governmental agencies in order to fully iropleroent the project: .'-~ ' · ' ' Page2o110 INITSTD1.WPD-4/96 ' ' ' "" ' · _ 9) Describe the physical setting of the site as it exists before the project including infom~aUon on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, mature trees, trails and roads, dminage coupes, and scenic aspects. Descdbe any existing stmctums on site ~- . · (including age and ~dition) and the use of the simctums. ,AEa~ phot~mphs of significant features descdbed. In addition, site afl souses of info~ation (i.e., geol~ical an~or hydml~ic studies, biotic and a~heological su~eys, t~ffic studies): 10) Descdbe the lmown cultu~'al ancYor histodcal aspects of the site. Site all sources ot infom~ation (book$, published mports and oral history): -" -' Page 3 of 10 INITSTD1 .WPD - 4/96 12) Descdbe the proposed project in detail. This should provide an adequate description of the site in temps of ulb'rnate use which w~71 result from the prosed project. Indicate if there are proposed phases for development, the extent of development to occur .... with each phase, and the anticipated completion of each increment. Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary: .. i'~ ~-5(< D~''~'' 6C~ ~ L,~'~ v,~-~ " 13) DescdbelhesutroundingprroPetties~inc~udinginf~rrnati~n~np~antsandaniroa~sandanycu~tura~~hist~dca~~~rscenicaspects~ indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one.faroily, apartroent houses, shops, departroent stores, etc.) and scale of developrnent (height, frontage, setback, rear ya~, etc.): 14) Wi~~ the prop~sed project change the pat~em~ sca~e ~r cha~acter ~f the surrounding genere~ area ~f the pr~ject? INITSTD1 .VVPD - 4/9~ ~ '= Page 4 of 10 Indicate lhe type of short-term and long-term noise to be generated, including source and amount. How will these noise levels affecl adjacent prcpe~fies and on-site uses. What melhods of sound prcofing am proposed? ......... I~,~',C" ' '~:,".'~'-L F~ , <" ~ F tZ~ ' ' ~ ' ..... ' .... °16) Indicate proposed romovals ancYor replacements of mature or scenic trees: }~( ~ ~ ~',~ [ Of -~t' Ct,/ 17) Indicate any bo~ies of water (including domestic water supplies) into which the site drains: 18) Indicate ex ected amount of water usage (See Attachment A for usage estimates). ~For further cl~d§calion, please contact P ' the Cucamonga County Water Oisldct at 987-2591. a. Residential (gaVday) I'~ ~')~) Peak use (gaYDay). b. Commen:ial/Tnd. (gal~day/ac). Peak use (gal~rain/ac) 19) Indicate proposed method of sewage disposal. Septic Tank ~// Sewer. If septic tanks ace proposed, attach percolation lesls, ff discharge to a sanitao~ sewage system is proposed indicate expected daily sewage generalion: (See Attachment A forusage estimates). Forfurthercladficatiqn, please contact the Cucamonga County Water Disldct al 987.2591. a. Residentia/ (gal/day) ~"L~ ~ ~ b. Commercia~nd. (gal~day/ac) RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS: 20) Number of residential unils: ~ Detach~d (indicate range of parcel sizes, minimum lol size and maxirnum lot size: INITSTDI.WPD - 4/96 Page 5 of 10 Attached (indicate whether units are rental or for aale units): 21) Anticipated range of sale pdces and/or mnts: SaleP#ce(s) $ I~'~1 0~ tp $. ~0~1~ Rent (per month) $ to $. 22) Specifynumberofbedrcomsbyunit.type: ~,1 ( ~ '~ ~ ~_~ ~'~-~' ~ ~fl/[ 23) Indicateanticipatedhouseholdsizebyunittype: .~-~.~ ~.. ~ ~1 ('~ ~-- '~o 7_ C~'~l~ , 24) Indicate the expected number of school c:~ Eton who will be residing within the project: Contact the apprcpdate School Districts as shown in Attachment B: a. Elementary: b. Junior High: { ~ c. Senior High ~ ~ COMMERCIAL, IND{].~TRIAL AND IN.~TIT~ITIONAL PROJECTS 25) Descdbetype~fuse(s)andmaj~rfunc~i~n(s)~fc~mmercia~~indus~da~~rins~i~u~i~na~uses: 26) Total floor area of commercial, indust/fal, or institutional uses by type: INITSTD1.VVPD - 4/96 Page 6 ot 10 27) ' Indicate hourc of operation: 28) Nurnber of employees: Total: · Maximum Shift: Time of Maximum Shift: 29) Pmvide braakd~wn ~f anti¢ipated ~b classificati~ns~ inc~uding wage and salat~ ranges~ as well a$ an indicati~n ~f the rate of him for each classification (attach additional sheet if necessary): 30) Estirnation of the number of workerc lo be hired that cun'enfiy mside in the City: '31) For commercial and industrial uses only. indicate the soun:e, type and amount of air pollution emissions. (Data should be vedfied through the South Coast Air Quality Management District, at (818) 572.6283): ALL PROJECTS 32) Have the waIer~ sewer~ ~[e~ and ~~~d c~ntro~ agencies serving the project been c~ntacted t~ de~enmine their abi~ity l~ provide adequate service to the proposed project? If so, please indicate their msponse. 10 INITSTD1.VVPD o 4/96 ra~e · -. 33) In the known history of this properly, has there been an~ 'or'age. or discharge of hazardous and/or toxic mate~fals? Examples of hazardous and/or toxic materials include, bus. ~ 'trailed to PCB's; radioactive substances; pesticides and .~ ..... ,'. herbicides; fu.els, ~ils, ,solvents, and other flammable liquids a~ : s. - Also note underground stocage.of any of the above. Please list the materials and describe their use, storege, an~ o :barge on the properly, as well as the dates of use, if known. ' 34) t4~ the prop~sed project inv~ve the temp~rery ~r ~ng-tenn use~ s~rage ~r discharge ~f hazard~us and/~r t~xic · ' materials, including but not limiled lo 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. I hereby cedih/that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and infonnation required for adequate evaluation of this project to the best of my ability, that the facts, statements, and infonmation presented am true and correct tot he best of my knowledge and belief. I fudher underatand that additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaluation can be made by the City/c~an_cho Cucamonga. INiTSTD1.VVPD - 4/96' Page 8 of 10 * -' ATTACHM'ENT A Average use per day Residential 600 gal/day Single Family Apt/Condo 400 gal/day Commercial/Industrial General and Regional Commercial 3000 gal/day/ac 1500 gal/day/ac Neighborhood Commercial General Industrial 1500 gat/day/ac Industrial Park 3000 gal/day/ac Peak Usage For all uses Average use x 2.0 Sewer Flows Residential Single Family 270 gal/day Apt/Condos 200 gal/day Commercial/Industrial 2000 gal/day/ac General Commercial 100-1500 gal/day/ac Neighborhood Commercial General Industrial 2000 gal/day/ac Heavy Industrial 3000 gal/day/ac Source: Cucamonga Count'/Water District Master Plan, 9/86 .'-~ Page 9 of 10 INITSTD1.WPD - 4/96 ........ ATTACHMENT · Contact the school district for your ~rea for amount and payment of school fees: -. Elemeniary School Districts Alta Loma 9350 Base Line Road, Suite F Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 987-0766 Central 10601 Church Street, Suite 112 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 989-8541 Cucamonga 8776 Archibald Avenue Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 987-8942 Etiwanda 5959 East Avenue P.O. Box 248 Ranc,~o Cucamonga, CA 91739 (909) 899-2451 High School Chaffey High School 211 West 5th Street Ontario, C/', 91762 (909) 988-~,511 INITSTD1.WPD - 4/96 Page ':0 of 10 City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: Time Extension for Tentative Tract 14405 2. Related Files: Variance 91-11 3. Description of Project: A request for an extension of a previously approved tentative tract map including design review for the development of 20 single-family lots on 4.39 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of San Bernardino Road, east of Vineyard Avenue - APN: 208-091-08 4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Jeff Lee 2135 Huntington Drive, Suite 202 San Marino, CA 91108 5. General Plan Designation: Low-Medium Residential 6. Zoning: Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Single-family homes in the Low-Residential District to the north and east, vacant land in the Office Park District to the west, and the Thomas Winery Plaza in the Special Commercial District of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan to the south. 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: Warren Morelion Assistant Planner (909)477-2750 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract 14405 - Lee 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 ( ) Transportation/Circulation ' ( ) Public Services ( ) Population and Housing ( ) Biological Resources ( ) Utilities and Service Systems (X) Geological Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources ( ) Aesthetics ( ) Water ( ) Hazards ( ) Cultural Resources ( ) Air Quality ( ) Noise ( ) Recreation ( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance 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 wii~ .3e prepared. Signed: ~ ~ ........ "~ Warren Morelion Assistant Planner December 15, 1999 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environr? ,.al Quality Act Guidelines, an explanation is requir,=d for all "Potentially Significant Impact," "Po ,-.~tially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact" answers, including a discussion of ways to mitigate the significant effects identified. 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract 14405 - Lee Page 3 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. [4/Ofild the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) · b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Seismic groBnd failure, including liquefaction? ( ) ( ) ( (X) d) Seiche hazards? ( ) ( ) ( (X) e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) ( (X) f) Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( ( ) (X) 9) Subsidence of the land? ( ( ) (X) h) Expansive soils? ( ( ) (X) i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: General Plan Figure V-4 Geotechnical Hazards indicates that the Red Hill Fault Zone runs through the project site. A Geologic Investigation was performed to determine whether any actual fault lines are present. The report, prepared by Leighton and Associates dated June 7, 1990, concluded that there are no traces of the Red Hill Fault trending through the site. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract 14405 - Lee Page 4 4. WATER. [4fill the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) ( ) (X) c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? ( ) ( ) (X) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? ( ) ) (X) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ( ) ( ) ) (X) f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) -h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) supplies? 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Create objectionable odors? ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract 14405 - Lee Page 5 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ) (X) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ) (X) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ( ) (×) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) ( ) (X) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) ) ( ) (X) f~ Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) bicycle racks)? g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? ( ) ( ) ) (X) b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees, eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? ( ) ) (X) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? ( ) ) (X) d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? ( ) ( ) (X) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract 14405 - Lee Page 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the : proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to tho.region and the residents of the State? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pes,ic~.~es, chem cals, or radiation)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 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 flammable brush, grass, or trees? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 10. NOISE. Willtheproposalresultin: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ( ) ( ) (X) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract 14405 - Lee Page 7 '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? ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Police protection? ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Schools? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Other governmental services? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 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? ( ) ( ) (X) b) Communication systems? ( ) ( ) (X) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ( ) ( ) (X) d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Storm water drainage? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) f) Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposah a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ) ( ) ) (X) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ) ( ) ) (X) c) Create light or glare? ( ) ( ) ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract 14405 - Lee Page 8 14, CULTURAL RESOURCES, Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) ( (X) b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) ( (X) c) Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) ( (X) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( ) ( (X) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( ) ( (X) t 5. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) ( ) ) (X) ~ b) Affect existing racrea[ional opportunities? ( ) ( ) ) (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 important examples cf the major periods of California history or prehi~tory? ( ) ( ) ( (X) b) Short term: Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time. Long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract 14405 - Lee Page 9 c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 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) Negative Declaration for Tentative Tract 14405, certified December 10, 1992. of Rancho Cucamonga City 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.: Time Extension for Tentative Tract 14405 Public Review Period Closes: January 12, 2000 Project Name: Project Applicant: Jeff Lee Project Location (also see attached map): Located on the north side of San Bernardino Road, east of Vineyard Avenue - APN: 208-091-08. Related File: Tentative Tract 14405. Project Description: A request for an extension of a previously approved variance to reduce the required rear lot depth fTom 90 to 65 feet for one lot within a proposed 20 lot subdivision in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre). 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. D 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 am included in the attached Initial Study. The project file and all related documents are available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamor, qa 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. January 12, 2000 Date of Determination Adopted By RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14405 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 20 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS ON 4.39 ACRES OF LAND IN THE LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF SAN BERNARDINO ROAD, EAST OF VINEYARD AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 208-091-08. A, Recitals. _ 1. Jeff Lee has filed an application for the extension of the approval of Tentative Tract Map 14405, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Tentative Tract Map time extension request is referred to as "the application." 2. On December 9, 1992, this Commission adopted its Resolution 92-147, thereby approving, subject to specific conditions and time limits, Tentative Tract 14405. 3. On the 12th day of January 2000, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on January 12, 2000, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The previously approved Tentative Tract Map is in substantial compliance with the City's current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans, codes and policies; and b. The extension of the Tentative Tract Map approval will not cause significant inconsistencies with the current General Plan, specit3c plans, ordinances, plans, codes, and policies; and c. The extension of the Tentative Tract Map approval is not likely to cause public health and safety problems; and d. The extension is within the time limits established by State law and local ordinance. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TI'14405-LEE Janua~ 12,2000 Page 2 3. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows: a. That the Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder;, that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and con_sidered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the application. b. That, based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. c~ Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission during the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5~'c-l-d) of Title 14 of the C :,femia Code of Regulations. 4. ~ed upon the findings ~ .. conc~> -~ ~s set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby grants a time extension for. Application Applicant Expiration Tentative Tract 14405 Jeff Lee December 9, 2000 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby modifies the conditions of approval contained in Resolution 92-147, incorporated herein by this reference, to read as follows: Planninq Division 1) The applicant shall agree to defend, at his sole expense, any action brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or erhployees, 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 the applicant of his obligations under this condition. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TT 14405 - LEE January 12, 2000 Page 3 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2000. pLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Lan~ T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Bullet, 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 January 2000, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 14405 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 20 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS ON 4.39 ACRES OF LAND IN THE LOW- MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF SAN BERNARDINO ROAD, EAST OF VINEYARD AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 208-091-08. A. - Recitals. 1. Jeff Lee has filed an application for the extension of the approval of the Design Review for Tentative Tract Map 14405, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject time extension request is referred to as "the application." 2. On December 9, 1992, this Commission adopted its Resolution 92-148, thereby approving, subject to specific conditions and time limits, the Design Review for Tentative Tract 14405. 3. On the 12th day of January 2000, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public headng on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on January 12, 2000, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The previously approved Design Review is in substantial compliance with the City's current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans, codes and policies; and b. The extension of the Design Review approval will not cause significant inconsistencies with tl~e current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans, codes and policies; and c. The extension of the Design Review approval is not likely to cause public health and safety problems; and d. The extension is within the time limits established by State law and local ordinance. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR FOR TT 14405 - LEE January 27, 1999 Page 2 3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby grants a time extension fo~ Application Applicant Expiration Design Review for Jeff Lee December 9, 2000 Tentative Tract 14405 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby modifies the conditions of approval contained in Resolution 92-148, incorporated herein by this reference, to read as follows: Planninq Division 1) The applicant shall agree to defend, at his sole expense, any action brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees, may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole dis~etion, participate, at its own expense, in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve the applicant of his obligations under this condition. 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2000. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: -- Brad Bullet, Secretary I, Brad Bullet, 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 January 2000, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED VARIANCE 91-11 TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED REAR LOT DEPTH FROM 90 TO 65 FEET FOR ONE LOT WITHIN A PROPOSED 20-LOT SUBDIVISION IN THE LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF SAN BERNARDINO ROAD, EAST OF VINEYARD AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 208-091-08. A. Recitals. 1. Jeff Lee has filed an application for the extension of the approval of Variance 91-11, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Variance time extension request is referred to as "the application." 2. On December 9, 1992, this Commission adopted its Resolution 92-149, thereby approving, subject to specific conditions and time limits, Variance 91-11. 3. On the 12th day of January 2000, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on January 12, 2000, including wdtten and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The previously approved Variance is in substantial compliance with the City's current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans, codes and policies; and b. The extension of the Variance approval will not cause significant inconsistencies with the current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans, codes and policies; and c. The extension of the Variance approval is not likely to cause public health and safety problems; and d. The extension is within the time limits established by State law and local ordinance. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. VAR 91-11 - LEE January 12, 2000 Page 2 3: Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above, this Commission hereby grants a time extension for: Application Applicant Expiration Variance 91-11 Jeff Lee December 9, 2000 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby modifies the conditions of approval contained in Resolution 92-149, incorporated herein by this reference, to read as follows: Plannin.q Division 1) The applicant shall agree to defend, at his sole expense, any action brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. Th~ applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, ,'or 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 the applicant of his obligations under this condition. 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2000. PLANNING COMMISSION'OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Lam/T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Bullet, Secretary I, Brad Bullet, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and r~gulariy introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Ct; .amonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 12th day of January 20e3, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: R A N C H O C U C A M 0 N G a PLAN NINC DEPARTFIENT Staff Report DATE: January 12, 2000 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Tom Grahn, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: VARIANCE 99-07 - AMERICAN STORES PROPERTIES - A request to exceed the maximum height requirement for one wall sign for a proposed supermarket within the Community Commercial District (Subarea 2) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-102-03, 05, 08, 09, 15, 20, 21, and 49. BACKGROUND: On October 8, 1997, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit 97-19 (Exhibit "A") for the development of a 84,355 square foot commercial center that includes a 68,355 square foot supermarket (originally a Luckys/Sav-on, which has since merged with Albertsons). The Uniform Sign Program for this development has been reviewed several times and is currently being revised by the applicant. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: Section 14.20.100 of the Sign Ordinance (Exhibit "C") limits the height of wall signs for business identification, specifically businesses within shopping centers, by the requirement that "signs are not to project above the roof and in no case to be higher than 20 feet from finished grade.' ANALYSIS: A. General: The applicant is proposing the placement of a wall sign on the front elevation of the proposed Albertsons supermarket. The variance request seeks to increase the maximum height of the wall sign above finished grade from 20 to 24 feet. B. Environmental: The variance request is exempt from environmental review as a Class 11 Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15311 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). ITEM 0 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT VAR 99-07 - AMERICAN STORES PROPERTIES January 12,2000 Page 2 FACTS FOR FINDING: In considering any request for a Variance, there are a series of findings that must be substantiated by facts in order to approve the request. Generally, these findings center on the uniqueness or special cimumstances applicable to a particular property. Staff believes that there are special or unique cimumstances with respect to the development of this site that are different from other sites under similar zoning designations. The following facts are provided to support the required findings: A. The proposed increase in sign height will be compatible with the design of the building. The sign will be placed on a tower element on the front elevation; the tower element has - an overall height of 38 feet. The tower provides an area of potential sign placement that is limited by architectural details that include a decorative arch at the bottom and exposed raftertails at the top. This area of potential sign placement ranges from 16 feet to 28 feet above finished grade (Exhibit "B"). The placement of the sign at either extreme of the potential sign area would appear awkward relative to the design of the building. Allowing for an increase in the sign height up to a maximum of 24 feet will be compatible with, and proportional to, the b~i~ding design: B. The Albertsons si: - ~: is set back approximately 385 feet behind the Foothill Boulevard right-of-way. The ,_- . -:ed sign height incr will not have a discernable impact on the building design or its appearance from the [.. C. Locating the sign at or below thC 20-foot height limit will create signs that are disproportionate to, not visually balanced with, the size and design of the tower element. D. A Variance request was approved for the existing shopping center located at the southeast corner of Highland Avenue and Milliken Avenue. Variance 90-07, for Albertsons and Sav- on, permitted 4 wall signs to exceed the 20-foot height limit. The design constraints for that Albertsons sign were similar anc~ permitted a wall sign up to 25 feet 6 inches above finished grade. FINDINGS: As previously mentioned, the Planning Commission must make all of the following findings in order to approve a Variant9 request: A. That strict or literal interpretat; - and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Development Code. B. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. C. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the own~:~ of other prbperties in the same zone. D. That the granting of the Variance wound not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zone. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT VAR 99-07 - AMERICAN STORES PROPERTIES Janua~ 12,2000 Page 3 E. That the granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the project site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make the required findings and approve Variance 99-07 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with findings. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:TG/gs Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Plan Exhibit"B" - Building Elevation Exhibit"C" - Sign Ordinance Section 14.20.100 Exhibit "D" - Applicant Request Letter Resolution of Approval 8Y HEATH SIGN COMPANY. N,I.C. {SEPERATE pER~IT REQUIRED) GENERAL CO TO PRO, DE J-BOX AND SiGN SUPPORT. C ~ SIGN COMPANY. AMD( OF StUD ~ TOP OF STUD bertsons ? F OF Exhibit: Date: CiTY p LAi~,~iS?~) NMONG A TJtJe: '14.20.100 Permitted Signs - Commercial and Office Zones - The following signs may be permitted in the commercial and office zones subject to the provisions listed: CLASS SIGN TYPE MAXIMUM NUMBER MAXIMUM SIGN AREA MAXIMUM HEIGHT REMARKS 1. Business Identification Wail One per building face, a 10% of the building face, not lo Not Io peoJect above the roof a. ^ comblnaUo~ of monument and wall signs may be used; (business rot wilhin maximum o[ It~'ee perbusiness, excee~ 15p square feel. and In nocase be higher b~an however, oaF/ a maximum o! three signs may be used to shopping centers including 20 teet flora finished grade. IdenUty any one business. buib:llngs), b. Wall signs and monument signs shall be architecturally andMonumenl One per street froatage, a 241quare feeL UptoBfeeL deS. lgnedtobo¢ompeUblewilhthedevelof~aenL maximum o! 2 per business. 20 Revised 1/98 June 16, 1999 Mr. Tom Grahn 1990 So. Bundy Or F0urt~ F~0or PLANNING DIVISION t0sAngaes CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA California ~025 3~0.825.2~00 10500 Civic Center Drive F~X825.0~SZ Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 FOOTHILL & VINYARD Architects Inc ,,,,e,~ ,~,~. ~,c,it,~l. ~A~~NCHO CUCAMONGA, CA Archit~ture NADEL ~97-519.00 Planning Dear Tom: On behalf of our client, American Stores Propedies, Inc., we are requesting a variance from the City of Rancho Cu~monga to allow the construction of an "over in height" ( Lucky/Sav-on ) building sign. This request is based on the following reasons: 1. Approximately 95% of the Lucky/Sav-on sign exceeds the 20'-0" height limit by only'l'-8" (over height 21'-8"), see the attached drawing. 2. Approximately 5% of the Lucky/Sav-on sign exceeds the 20'-0" height limit by ~'-0:. 3. By lowering the "Lucky/Sav-on" sign from its current effects the arch directly below said sign and would alter the propodions and scale of other design features on the market. 4. We believe that there may be other similar establishments with "over-in- height" signs currently installed. 5. The current location of said sign does not in any way exceed the market parapet. We are hoping that the Ci[y ~nsiders our request and thank you in advance for your assistance. Ve~ truly yours,  E. RCHITECTS, INC. Jose ~lvarez Asso( late cc: (atherine Kelekolio/ASPI :lie RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 99-07 TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT REQUIREMENT FOR ONE WALL SIGN LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND VINEYARD AVENUE IN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (SUBAREA 2) OF THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 207-102-03, 05, 08, 09, 15, 20, 21, AND 49. A. Recitals. 1. American Stores Properties, Inc., has filed an application for the issuance of Variance No. 99-07 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Vadance request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 12th day of January 2000, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission dudng the above- referenced public hearing on January 12, 2000, including wdtten and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located at the northwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue with a street frontage of 660 feet along Foothill Boulevard and a street frontage of 755 feet along Vineyard Avenue and which is presently vacant; and b. The property to the north of the subject site contains two apartment buildings and several single family homes on the north side of San Bemardino Road, the property to the south consists of vacant property on the south side of Foothill Boulevard, the property to the east is the Thomas Winery Plaza east of Vineyard Avenue, and the property to the west is the Cucamonga Creek Channel; and c. The application contemplates an increase in the overall height of a wall sign from 20 feet to 24 feet; and d. The increase in height for the wall sign will allow for the placement of a sign that is compatible with the building design and will not detract from other characteristics of the development; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. VAR 99-07 -AMERICAN STORES PROPERTIES January 12,2000 Page 2 e. Locating the sign at or below the 20-foot height limit will create signs that are disproportionate to, not visually balanced with, the size and design of the tower element. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulations would result in practical difficuify or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Development Code. b. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same district. c~ That stdct or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properlies in the same district. d. That the granting of the Vadance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. e. That the granting of the Vadance 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 findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below. Planninq Division 1) This approval shall not waive compliance with any other aspects of the Sign Ordinance, Development Code, Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, Or any other applicable ordinances, plans, or regulations. 2) The wall sign for the proposed Albertsons supermarket shall be pen'nitted up to a maximum height of 24 feet above finished grade. All other aspects of tenant signage proposed for the complex shall meet the Sign Ordinance and Uniform Sign Program criteria established for the project 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2000. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. VAR 9~07- AMERICAN STORES PROPERTIES January 12,2000 Page 3 ATTEST:. Brad Bullet, Secretary I, Brad Bullet, 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 January 2000, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: the ¢it~ of !qanaho Cucamon8a Staff Report DATE: January 12, 2000 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Brent Le Count, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-52 - WILLIAMS ARCHITECTS - A request to re-use an existing vacant single family home for a church in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at 9244 19th Street. -APN: 201-341-04. Related file: Vadance 99-10 and Tree Removal Permit 99-45. VARIANCE 99-10 - WILLIAMS ARCHITECTS - A request to reduce the interior sideyard setback from 10 feet to 0 feet for a church in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at 9244 19th Street. - APN: 201-341-04. Related File: Conditional Use Permit 99-52. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Background: The project (including a Variance to reduce interior landscape setback from 10 feet to zero feet) was approved by the Planning Commission on June 12, 1996, and a one-year time extension was granted in 1998 which expired in June 1999. The applicant did not file a second time extension request; therefore, a new Conditional Use Permit and Variance must be processed. The current design and proposed operation is exactly the same as was previously approved. B. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: The property is surrounded on all sides by residential development in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre). C. General Plan Designations: The project site and all surrounding property falls within the Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) land use designation. D. Site Characteristics: The .84 acre site slopes slightly from north to south and is improved with a single story detached home, which is currently vacant. The house was used during the 1980's and early 1990's as a private preschool/school, and briefly also as a church. Access to the site is taken off 19th Street via a single driveway along the east side of the site. ITEMS P & q PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-52, VARIANCE 99-10 January 12, 2000 Page 2 E. Parking Calculations: Number of Number of Type Number Parking Spaces Spaces of Use of seats Ratio Required Provided Church 108 1 per 4 seats 27 30 ANALYSIS: A. Site History: The site was used by the Wise Oak Elementary School for many years beginning prior to Rancho Cucamonga's incorporation. The school had been established under Site Approval (equivalent to a Conditional Use Permit process) by the County of San Bernardino. A church also used the building for a period during the 1980s without a proper Conditional Use Permit. The school constructed a room addition at the rear of the house, contrary to their approved pl~.~ for a patio cover. This triggered the need for a new Conditional Use Permit that was conditionally approved by the Planning Commission on May 22, 1991, including a related variance. The school relocated to another site in the City; hence, the conditions of approval, such as improvements to the site were never implemented. The City did not receive any complaints from neighbors about the school/church during its operation. B. General: The proposed church will hold services on Sunday mornings from 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. and evenings from 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. along with adult bible study and fellowship classes. During the week, the church will be in operation from 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on Saturdays. There would also be weddings, funerals, and receptions on an irregular basis. The church may submit a separate Conditional Use Permit in the future to operate a preschool/day care facility. C. Project Construction Phasing: The project construction is intended to be phased to synchronize imp':': ments with growth of the congregation and availability of construction funds (Exhibit "A.:. ~. All on-site and off-site improvements would be completed with Phase I prior to occupancy, including grading, paving, landscaping, repainting the house, new monument sign, and replacement of doors and windows. Architectural enhancements would be constructed in Phases II and III during the first and second year of operation. D. Variance: There is insufficient room between the existing structure and the east property line to accommodate the required 10-foot wide interior side landscape setback and a 26-foot wide driveway needed to access the Code required parking spaces at the rear of the site. The landscape setback is proposed to be reduced from 10 feet down to between 0 and 3 feet along approximately 230 feet (70 percent) of the east property line. Most of the diminished landscape setback area would be behind a 6-foot high decorative wall. A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-52, VARIANCE 99-10 January 12, 2000 Page 3 26-foot long portion of interior side landscape setback along the west property line would be reduced to 7 feet as well. This is necessary to provide an area for backing out of the end parking space. The variance being requested is.identical to that which was approved by the Planning Commission in 1996. Similar reduced landscape setbacks exist in the neighborhood. Multi-family projects have been approved on 19th Street just east of the subject properbj with 5-foot wide landscape setbacks between the driveways and the side property lines. One of these projects, the Alta Loma Woods condominiums, has been built with no adverse affects regarding the 5-foot landscape setback. ' Staff believes the following facts concerning the subject property support the Variance request: 1. The combination of the narrow lot and the location and setback of the existing structure create a unique design challenge. 2. The existing structure location at the front of the property necessitates a rear parking lot served by a driveway down the side yard. 3. If the property were developed With only a residence, there would be no requirement for landscaping along this side yard. E. Desitin Review Committee: The Design Review Committee (McNiel, Stewart, Fong) reviewed the project on November 30, 1999, and recommended conditional approval. See the attached Design Review Action Agenda for further details. F. Technical Review Committee: The project was reviewed by the Technical and Grading Review Committees which determined that, together with the recommended conditions of approval, the project is in conformance with applicable standards and ordinances. G. Tree Removal: Associated with this project is Tree Removal Permit which calls for the removal of 14 existing Italian Cypress trees. The removal of these trees is necessary to install parking and pedestrian pathway improvements. The project design includes replacement planting and appropriate conditions have been attached. H. Environmental Review: The Initial Study Part I was completed by the applicant and staff has completed Part I1. Staff found that the project would not have a significant impact on the environment. If the Planning Commission concurs, then issuance of a Negative Declaration wo[Jld be in order. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property has been posted, and notices were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the project site. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 99-52 & VA 99-10 - WILLIAMS ARCHITECTS January 14, 2000 Page 4 - RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 99-52, Varian.ce 90-10, and Tree Removal Permit 99-45 through adoption of the attached Resolutions of Approval as well as a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:BLC:Is Attachments: Exhibit "A" Applicant's Letter Exhibit "B" Design Review Committee Action dated November 30, 1999 Exhibit"C" - Location Map Exhibit "D" Site Plan Exhibit "E" Floor Plan Exhibit "F" Elevations Exhibit"G" - Landscape Plan Exhibit"H" - Grading Plan Exhibit "1" Initial Study Pads I and II Exhibit"J" - Site Photographs Resolution of Approval for Conditional Use Permit 99-52 with Conditions Resolution of Approval of Variance 99-10 OWILLIAMS ARCHITECTS, INC. Architect Max E. Williams, AIFI, AICP Architecture & Urban Planning March 7, 1996 Mr. Dan Coleman Principal Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 RE: Conditional Use Permit 94-13 - 9244 19th Street, Graystone Church and Preschool, Rancho Cucamonga, CA, Architect's Project No. 96002 Mr. Dan Coleman: Reverand H.R. Burnett is proposing to operate a community based church at the above-referenced location in an existing one-story structure. The church will hold services on Sunday mornings and evenings along with adult bible study or fellowship classes. In addition there would be related activities which may occur on an irregular basis such as weddings, funerals, receptions and similar functions. These may occur during the week and in the evenings. The anticipated hours of operation Sunday Activities: 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. Monday - Friday 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. Saturday Activities: 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. The church intends to establish a preschool/day care in the future. In anticipation of that use, the site, building and parking are designed to accommodate the projected number of staff and children. The hours of operation are not yet established but will probably be from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. ~A separate use application will be submitted when that function is desired. Sincerely, Architect/President MEW/kvg letters\col-cond.use 276 North Second Avenue · Upland, California 91786 · (909) 981-2845 o FAX (909) 9854836 WlLLIAMS A CHITECTS, INC. Architect Max E. Williams, AI~, .-iCP Architecture & Urban Planning ATTACHMENT TO VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR GRAYSTONE CHURCH AND PRESCHOOL ARCHITECT PROJECT NO. 96002 CONDITION USE PERMIT 94-13 - 9244 19TH STREET MARCH 8, 1996 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project consists of site improvements ~,nd remodel of an existing structure to accommodate its use as a church and preschool/day care facility, The existing driveway is to be widened to city standards and the site is to be graded, landscaped and paved as per the submitted drawings. The structu're is an existing one-story wood frame building with stucco exterior finish and d~wall interior finish and asphalt shingle roofing. Minimal changes will be made to the building to provide for the proposed use. Remodeling will include: two new entries and three new exits. Some existing windows and doors will ,:- ~med in and finished to match existing conditions. The building will be painted when remodelin~ ;replete. VARIANCE JUSTIFICATION A variance is requested for the required side yard landscape area along the east property line for approximately 230' of length. A 3' and 5' wide landscape planter are provided along a portion (_+ 155') of the variance area as shown on the submitted plans. The variance is necessary due to the narrow width of the property and the proximity of the structure to the east property line end the need for maximizing the drive aisle width for two-way traffic at this location. The variance is necessary to allow the owner to use the property in compliance with the zoning. The strict application of the development code would deprive the .property owner privileges ~'use) enjoyed by other properties in this district. The special circumstances which exist on site cre ~te a hardship. The-granting of the variance would not be detrimental to adjacent properties or the zoning district and neighborhood. . attach.mnt\gray, chr. app 276 North Second Avenue · Upland, California 91786 · (909) 981-2845 · FAX (909) 985-4836 WILLIAHS ARCHITECTS TEL No.909-AS5-4836 Nay 21,96 14:5C No.O05 P.02 Architect Max E. Williom$, AIA, AICP Architecture & IJrt~on Planning May 21, 1996 Mr. Brant Le Count, AICP Planning Associate City o_f Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 RE: Graystone Church, 9244 19th Street, Rancho Cucemonga, CA, Project No. 96002, C.U.P. 94- 13 & Variance 96-03 Dear Brent: Please accept this letter as further clarification of the proposed phasing for Graystone Church. Phase I improvements would occur prior to occupancy and would include the following: all on-site and off-site improvements including grading, paving, landscaping and all conditions of approval. Modifications to existing structure will include replacement of doors and window.'~ as shown on proposed plans, new monument sign, and painting exterior of building. Phase II improvements would occur during the first year of operations end would include the following: re-roofing entire structure, cutting back roof overhangs and applying new fascia boards as shown on proposed elevations, new entry structures, and new awnings ,3t south-f~,cing windows. Phase III improvements would occur during the second year of operations and would include construction of the new tower.element. Sincerely, MS ARCHITECTS, INC, Rene' Glynn Project Manager -- MRG/kvg letters\lec-gry.imp DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Brent Le Count November 30, 1999 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-52- WILLIAMS ARCHITECTS - A request to re-use an existing vacant single family home for a church and school in the Low Residential District (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre), located at 9244 19th Street - APN: 201-341-04. Related file: Conditional Use Permit 94-13 and Variance 96-03 (both expired), Variance 99-10 (current). Background: The project (including a Variance to reduce interior landscape setback from 10 feet to zero feet) was approved by the Planning Commission on June 12, 1996, and a one-year time extension was granted in 1998 to extend the expiration to June 1999. The applicant did not file a second time extension request so a new Conditional Use Permit and Variance must be processed. The current design is exactly the same as was previously approved. Design Parameters: The applicant intends to remodel an existing vacant single family home (former Wise Oak School) and provide on-site parking improvement to accommodate a church (100 seat chapel) and preschool/day care facility (classrooms for up to 23 children). Improvements include architectural enhancement of the exterior of the home to convey or more church-like appearance, provision of 30 parking spaces (27 required), and landscaping. Construction is intended to be phased with all grading, landscaping, paving, repainting of the home, new monument sign and replacement of doors and windows being completed prior to occupancy and architectural enhancements (tower and entry features) delayed to the first and second years of operation. This met with Planning Commission approval previously and allows the applicant to synchronize improvements with growth of the congregation and availability of funds. The applicant is requesting a Variance from the required 10-foot landscape setback along the east side of the property because of the narrowness of the lot. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion: I. Provide sidewalk connection from public sidewalk up to south building entrance. Use decorative pavement to match driveway entrance. May require elimination of one parking space. Relocate monument sign accordingly. 2. Provide planter between parking lot and playground retaining wall. 3. Change all proposed chain link fencing and gates to decorative metal, such as wrought iron. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee recommend approval of the project with conditions. Attachment: Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: B~ent Le Count The Committee recommended approval subject to staff's comments. ~& ...........- - -- ----' -. -----: '~ -7~ , ~' '~'~ ~' -~ .~, '~,.~ DRAWING INDEX . ~ ~ .~:F..,.,,~..,. ~ .~,1:. SITE pLAN LEGEND ~ DETAILED SITE PLAN .~,., ,% ~' MAP -- I I ..... ~ Ii= ~1 H I~"1 I~'] ~'~ ' , , _.~-~ · . ~ EXISTING COND?IONS / PROPOSED REMODEL FL~OR PLAN ~:,a-.,.. LEGEND ~AST ELEVATION ~o ~ CA- 5 PROPOSED - EAST & WEST EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS ~c~=,.~ ~ ..... i'¢'~k-'' ' ~ e ....... b-~ '.' '..-,: :_7 .-'- ".o ~-¢> ~ I'll~ CONCEPT LANDSCAPE PLAN ~: ,'- ~ (9~ PLANTING LEGEND A F · "' RECEIVED 'R~,E._?~l;yq~ O'" ENVIRONMENTAL - " INFORMATION FORM ~"o"~o~o~"-~...,.go~. ..... w'u-'~'~Y'~J~"~'~:' (Part I - Initial Study) (~09) 477-2750 '"" D/v/sion I The purpose of this form is 'to inform the City'~)f the basic c0mP~)n~nts of the pi;oposed project so that the city.'may 'revieWthe Project pumuant t6~City:-P01ici~':0rdinan'ces,'and guidelines; the California Environmental Quality Act; ~,'d'the city's: Rules and ProCedures' to Imple .m. ent CEQA. It is important that the information requested in this application be provided ~n._full. '":::" INCOMPLETE APP~,ICA TIONS W1~,J, NO T ~E PROCESSED. Please note that it is the responsibility of the applicanl to ensure that the application is complete at the time Of submittal; City staff wilt not be available to pen/c'~ work required to provide missing infon'nation. Application Number for the project t.o. which this ~o_t~. ..pedain$: Name&Addressofdeveloperorprojectsponsoc ~ON~ contact Per, on & Address: ~ ~ ~L I iN,~ C~ ~_~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Name & Address of pe~on prepa~ng this fo~ (if different from above):. Telepho e Numbec - 4/96 ' ' Page 1 r~ indicated by astedsk (') is'not requimd'oTnon-constmction CUP's unless otherwise requested by staff. '1) Provide a full scale (8'1/2 x11)c°py cf the USGS Quadra~t Sheet(s) which includes the pmject site' and indicate the site boundaries. 2) Provide a set of color photographs which show representative views into the site from the norfh, south, east and west views into and from the site from the pdmaq/ access points which serve the site; and representative views of significant features (r~m the site· Include a map showing location of each photograph. 4) Assessor's Parcel Numbers (attach additional sheet Net Site Area (total site size minus area of public streets & proposed dedications): 7) Descdbe any proposed general plan amendment or zone change which would affect the project site (attach additional sheet if necessa/y: "'" 8) Include a 'description of all permits which will be necessa~/ from the City of Rancho Cucamonga and other governmental agencies in order to fully imple_ment the proje.ct: Page -4~6 9) Descdbe the physical setting of the site as it exists before the project including information on topography, soil stabiliiy, plants. and animals, mature trees, trails and roads, drainage courses, and scenic aspects. Descdbe any existing structures on site (including age and condilion) and the use of the stmcturos. Attach photographs of significant features desofbed. In addition, site all sources of information (L e., geological end/or hydrologic studies, biotic and archeological sucveys, traffic studies): 10) Descdbe the known cultural and/or hisiodcal aspects of the site. Site all soon:es of information (books, published reports and oral histoq/): NC) JdlXlONb,] ~__uL..'T1.Jla-..,ekb AND JCl--. I'qu/~,TDI~-~CAb 11) ~escrfbe any n~ise s~uroes and their ~eve~s that n9w a~ect the si~e (aircra~t~ roadway ooise~ etc.) and h~w they wflt a~ect proposed uses: Lor_,~L,..~/~l,.h CL.~' ~ C.- lB ~ ~Nl,,"r' i',JOt ~ P~O~S6D 0c~6 I~ t'O~C--Ltd--~U~., /',JO .4/96 Page 3 12) Descdbetheproposedprojectindetail. Thisshouldproovideanadequatedescfiptior;.ofthesiteinten~sofultiroateusewhich v~ll result frroro the prosed projec~ Indicate if there are pn~posed phases for developmen~ the extent of developroent to. occur with each phase, and the anticipated coropletion of each increment. Attach additional sheet(s) if necessaq~: 13) Descdbethesu~mundingpro~perties~indudinginforroa~~n~np~antsandaniroa~sbndanycu~tura~~hist~dca~~~rscenicaspects~ Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one-faro#y. apar~nent houses, shops, departroent slot'es, etc.) and scale of developroent (height, frontage, setback, rear yard, etc.): Rk/O W~'~T C..~' ~'I'zo¢~-'1~-'1'~, ~hJGUE. FAWIIL.Y ~IC, EAFTIAb 14) Wi~ the pr~p~sed pr~j~t cha~nge the pattem~ s~a~e ~- character ~f the~sur~unding genera~ area ~f the pr~ject? Paae 4 15) Indicate the type of short-term and long-term noise to be generated, including source and amounL How v~ll these noise levels affect adjacent pmperties and on-sile uses. Wl~at methods of sound pmofing am proposed? 'Fo '16) Indicate proposed rornovals and/or replacements of reature or scenic trees: ~ 17) Indicate any bodies of water (including domesti~ water supplies) into which the site 18) Indicate expected amount of water usage. 'See Attachment A'for usage estimates). For further oiadfication, please contact the Cucamonga County Water Distdct at 987-2591. a. Residential (gal~day) Peak use (gaYDay) , CommerciaYlnd. (gal~day~ac) I, ~.D ~ Pe~k Use ~ 19) Indicate proposed method of sewage disposal. __ Septic Ta~k '~ Sewer. ff septic tanks am proposed, affach percolation tests, ff discharge to a sanitaq/ sewage system is proposed indicate expected daily sewage generation: (See Attachment A for usage estimates). For further cla#fication, please contact the Cucamonga County Water Distdct at 987-2591. a. Residential (gal~day) b, Comme~ciaYlnd. (gal~day/ac). ~0 O' RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS; 20)' Numberofresidentialunits: Detached (indicate range of paroel sizes, minimum I~t size and maxir~um lot size: -4/96 Page 5 r4(~pched (indicate whether units em rental or for sale units): 21) Anticipated range of aale p~fces and/or mnts: Sale Pdce(s) $ to $ Rent (per month) S to $ 22) Specify n. umber of bedrooms by. u. nit type: ...... 23) indicateanticipatedhouseholdsizebyunittype: 24) Indicate the expected number of school children who will be residing within the project: Contact the approprfate School Districts as shown in Attachment B: a. Elementary: t . b. Junior High: c,. Senior High COMMER~iAL~ INDUSTRIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL PROJECTS 25) Desc~fbe type of use(s) and majorfunction(s) of commercial, industdal prinstitu?onal uses: 26) Total floor area of commercial, indust~fal, or institutiona~ uses by type: Page 6 - 4/96 26) Number of employees: Total: "~}, ~.~ , Maximum Shift: ~ [5~ , Time of Maximum Shill' r~ ~ . ~ , 29) Providebreakd~wn~[anticipatedj~bc~as$i~cations~inc~udingwageandsa~aryrange$~aswe~~a$anindicatj~n~ftherate of hire for each classification (attach additional sheet if necessary): 30) Estimation of the number of worke~ to be hired that cun'entty reside.in the City: '31) For commemial and indusldal uses only. indicate the source, type and amount of air pollution emissions. (Data should be ;' vedfied through the South Coast Air Quality Management Distn'c~ et (616) 572-6283): ALL PROJECTS 32) Have the water, sewer, tim, and flood control agencJes serving the pmjecf been contacted to deteffnine their ability to provide adequate service to the proposed project? If $o, please indicate their response. · · ~ -4196 Paae 7 33) ~n ~he kn~wn hist~ry ~f this preper~y~ has thera been any use~ st~rage~ ~r discharge ~f hazard~us and/~r ~xic m~ a. ~e~a~s? Examples of hazardous and/or toxic materfals include, but are not limited to PCB's; radioactive substances; pestlczdes and herbicides; fuels, oils, solvents, and other flammable liquids and gases. Also note underground storage of any of the above. Please list the materials and desc#be their use, storage, and/or discharge on the pmpen'y, as well as the dales of use, if known. 34) W7~ the prep~sed project inv~ ~he temp~/a~`~r ~ng~term use~ st~rage ~r discharge ~f hazard~us and/~rt~xic materials, including but not limited to those examples listed above ? If yes. provide an inventory of all such materials to be used and proposed method of disposal. The location of such uses, along with the storage and shipment areas, shall be shown and labeled on the application plans. hereby certiD, that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for ~ evaluation of this project to the best of my ability, that the facts, statements, and information presented am t~e and correct tot he best of my knowledge and belief. I further unde~tand Ihal additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaluation can be made by the ~'ty of Rancho Cucamonga. Page 8 City of Rancho Cucamonga' ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: Conditional Use Permit 99-52 2. Related Files: Variance 99-10 3. Description of Project: A request to re-use an existing vacant single family home for a church in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at 9244 19th Street. - AP~201-341.04 4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Williams Architects 276 North Second Avenue Upland, Ca 91786 5. General Plan Designation: Low Residential 6. Zoning: Low Residential (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre) 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The site is surrounded by single family homes. 8. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 9. Contact Pers6n and Phone Number: Brent Le Count (909) 477-2750 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: None Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 99-52 - Williams Archictects 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 (X) Transportation/Circulation ( ) Public Services ( ) Population and Housing (X) Biological Resources ( ) Utilities and Service Systems ( ) Geological Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources (X) Aesthetics (X) Water ( ) Hazards ( ) Cultural Resources ( ) Air Quality (X) Noise ( ) Recreation ( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance 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. B nt, AICP Associate Planner December 20, 1999 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. potentially 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( ) ( ) ( (x) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ( ) ( ) ( (x) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 99-52 - Williams Archictects Page d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ( ) (). ( ) (x) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people tq potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) d) Seiche hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) ( ) ) (x) f) Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( ) ( ) (x) g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) ( ) (x) h) Expansive soils? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) City of Rancho Cucamonga Initial Study for Page4 CUP 99-52 - W~lliams Archi.,_._.___~ctects 4, WATER, Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) ( ) ( (x) c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g,, temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? ( ) ( ) ( (x) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Comments: a) The absorption rate will be altered due to the hard surfaces proposed. The flows will be conveyed to facilities designed to handle the demand. The impact is not considered significant. 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) ( ) ( (x) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) ( ) ( (x) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 99-52 - Williams Archictects Page c) Alter air movement, moisture, ~,r~'nperature, or ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) cause any change in climate? d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) 6. - TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Wouldthe proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic cong,~. ,tion? ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ( ( ) ( ) (x) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ( ) ( ) (x) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a) The project will increase traffic trips due to the church activity. However, the traffic will be generated at off times relative to typical peak periods. Furthermore, the increase will be nominal. The impact is not considered significant. 7. BIOLOGICAL'RESOURCES. Would the p~oposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 99-52 - Williams Archictects Page 6 b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees, ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? ( (x) d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? ( ) (x) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) (x) Comments: b) The project cal~s for removal of 14 cypress trees. The removal will be mitigated through planting of new trees within the project landscaping. The impact is not considered significant. 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Use non-ret~ewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 99-52 - Williams Archictects Page 7 c) The creation of any health hazard or potential ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) hea th hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) 10. NOISE. Wi//theproposa/resu/tin.. a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) b) Exposure of peol~le to severe noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a) The project will increase noise levels due to the church use and the outdoor play area. The noise, however, is not expected to be different from noise typically generated in residential areas. No outdoor sermons or amplified music is anticipated. Any increase in noise will be attenuated by construction of the 6 foot high masonry walls proposed to surround the site. The impact is not considered significant. 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the fo/lowing areas: a) Fire protection? ( ( ) ( ) (x) b) Police protection? ( ( ) ( ) (x) c) Schools? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) d) Maintenance of public facilities, includ ng roads? ( ) ( ) ( (x) e) Other governmental services? ( ) ( ) ( (x) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 99-52 - Williams Archictects 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? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Communication systems? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) e) Storm water drainage? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) f) Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) "13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposak a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) Create light or glare? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: c) The project will increase light in the area to accommodate the parking lot. Standard plan check procedure includes requiring applicants to submit a photometric diagram to demonstrate that the project will not cast glare onto surrounding property or streets. The solid masonry perimeter wall will block any light generated from the project from reaching adjacent property. The impact is not considered significant. 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 99-52 - VVilliams Archictects Page c) Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) 15. RECREATION Would the proposah a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreat onal facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) ( ) ( (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 ~mportant examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Short term: Does the project have the potential to achieve shod-term, to the disadvantage of Iong-te.rm, environmental goals? (A shod-term impact on the environment is one wt~ich occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of tittle. Long-term impacts will endure well into the ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) future.) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 99-52 - Williams Archictects Page 10 c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) ( ) ( ( ) (x) d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) 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) City of Rancho Cucamonga NEG/ .TIVE 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.: Conditional Use Permit 99-52 Public Review Period Closes: Januan/12, 2000 Project Name: Project Applicant: Williams Architects Project Location (also see attached map): Located at 9244 19th Street- APN: 201-341-04. Project Description: A request to re-use an existing vacant single family home for a church and school in the Low Residential District (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre). Related file: Variance 99-10 and Tree Removal Permit 99-45. 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 Negal~ve Declaraf~on was released for public review would avoid the effects or mi~gate 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 am included in the attached Initial Study. The project file and all mi=ted 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. Janua;y 12, 2000 Date of Determination Adopted By RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-52 FOR A CHURCH LOCATED ON .80 ACRE OF LAND AT 9244 19TH STREET IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 201-341-04. A. Recitals. 1. Max Williams has filed an application for the issuance of Conditional Use Permit No. 99-52, 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 January 12, 2000, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public headng on the application and concluded said headng on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites pdor to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set fodh in the Recitals, Pad A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on June 12, 2000, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located at 9244 19th Street with a street frontage of 110 feet and lot depth of 331.72 feet and is presently improved with a single story home; and b. The property is surrounded on all sides by residential development; and c. A similar use occupied the site for a number of years without generating complaints from adjacent property owners; and d. Planned parking for the site is adequate to meet Code requirements; and e. The site will be landscaped to provide an enhanced street scene; and f. Six-foot high masonry walls will be constructed around the perimeter of the site which will block noise and glare which might be generated by the project relative to adjacent properly. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 99-52 -WILLIAMS ARCHITECTS Januan/12,2000 Page 2 b. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. c. The proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration incorporated herein by this reference, based upon the findings as follows: a. That the Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder;, that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the application. b. That, based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon the substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission during the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and even/condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Plannin,q Division 1) Approval is granted for a church use only. Any expansion of use, such as a school, preschool, building addition, or change in the hours of operation, shall require approval by the Planning Commission for a modification to this Conditional Use Permit. 2) Approval shall expire, unless extended by the City Planner, if building permits are not issued or the approved use has not commenced within five years of this date. 3) Approval of this request shall not waive cempliance with any sections of the Development Code, State Fire Marshal's regulations, Uniform Building Code, or any other City Ordinances. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 99-52 - WILLIAMS ARCHITECTS January 12, 2000 Page 3 4) If operation of the facility causes adverse effects upon adjacent properties, the Conditional Use Permit shall be brought before the Planning Commission for consideration and possible termination of the use, 5) The facility shall be operated in conformance with the performance standards as defined in the Development Code including, but not limited to, noise levels. 6) Provide sidewalk connection from public sidewalk up to south building entrance. Use decorative pavement across drive aisle to match driveway entrance. Relocate monument sign accordingly. 7) Provide planter between parking lot and playground retaining Wall. 8) Change all proposed chain link fencing and gates to decorative metal, such as wrought iron. 9) The hours of operation for the church, except office functions, shall be limited to weekday evenings after 6:00 p.m. and weekends. 10) Tree Removal Permit No. 99-45, for the removal of Italian Cypress trees, is hereby approved subject to replacement planting on a one-for- one basis. The existing Palm tree located in the front yard shall be preserved through relocation within the project landscape. Replacement trees shall be noted on the landscape plans for review and approval by the City Planner. 11) Submit a sample of the decorative matedal to be used in the driveway paving for City Planner review and approval, pdor to the issuance of building permits. 12) Provide vine pockets along property line walls and specify that vines will be trained to grow up the sides of the walls. 13) Provide mature/spedrnen size trees (24-inch to 36-inch box) within front yard area and specify trunk size. 14) Provide berm and landscaping within front landscape setback area to buffer views of parking as much as possible. 15) Raise front parking area as necessary to avoid sloped parking lot and provide further separation between parking and street. 16) Provide deciduous tree species along the west and south sides of the building to provide shade in the summer and sun exposure in winter. 17) Provide 2-inch by 6-inch trim around all windows or equivalent to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 18) Provide decorative treatment for property line walls such as slump stone or stucco with brick cap. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 99-52 -WILLIAMS ARCHITECTS January 12,2000 Page 4 19) Provide pilasters at the ends of property line walls. 20) The entire exterior of the house shall be to-painted prior to occupancy. 21) Provide dimensional (thick butt) asphalt shingles for new roofing. 22) The free-standing front entry feature shall be redesigned to be better integrated with the building to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 23) Approval of this Conditional Use Permit is granted subject to aporova of related Variance 99-10. 24) All on-site and off-site improvements shall be completed ~ 'hase I prior to occupancy, including grading, paving, landscapin[ :paint ng the house, new monument sign, and replacement of coors and windows. Architectural enhancements shall be constructed in Phases II and Ill during the first ancl second year of operation. ~ivision 1) Dedication (easement) of 11 feet shall be made for right-of-way along 19th Street, across the project frontage, for a total of 44 feet as measured from street centeriine. Easement Deed shall be accepted by the City Engineer and recorded by the County Recorder's Office, prior to the issuance of building permits 2) Public improvements shall be constructed across the frontage of the property along 19th Street, including, but not necessarily limited to, curb and gutter, drive approach, sidewalk, street lights, street trees, and asphalt paving, and shall join the existing curb and gutter to the east and transition to the existing asphalt berm to the west, pursuant to City standards, policies, ordinances, etc., to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 3) A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated cost of operating all street lights during the first six mon!hs of operation, prior to the issuance of building permits 4) An in-lieu fee as contribution to the future underorounding of the existing overhead utilities (telecommunications and ~; :ctrical) on the project side of 19th Street shall be paid to the City, pd, !3 the issuance of building permits. The fee shall be the City's adopted unit amount times the length of the project frontage (110 feet). 5) The existing street light loc, e: ~- on the wooden utility pole shall be removed and a standard strew, ht constructed, pursuant to City and Southern California Edison :. '..;lards, policies, etc., paid for and coordinated by the Developer, ~o ihe satisfaction of the City Engineer. This condition is related to Condition No. 2 above. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 99-52 -WILLIAMS ARCHITECTS January 12,2000 Page 5 6) P.26 "No Parking Anytime" signs shall be installed on the street light standards or posted along the project frontage in accordance with City standards. This condition is related to Condition No. 2 above. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2000. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman A3-rEST: Brad Bullet, Secretary I, Brad Bullet, 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 Januar~ 2000, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT #: Conditional Use Permit 99-52 SUBJECT: New Church APPLICANT: Williams' Architects LOCATION: 9244 19th Street ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT, APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (gr,. 5; 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A, General Requirements Completion Date 1. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, i / 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 employegs 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. 1. A copy of the signed Resolution of Approval or City Planner's letter of approval, and all / I 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 1. Conditional Use Permit and Variance approval shall expire if building permits are not issued / ' I or approved use has not commenced within 5 years from the date of approval. No extensions are allowed. C. Site Development 1. The site shall be d~veloped and maintained in acc~)rdance 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 and Development Code regulations. project No. CUP 99-52 Completion Date 2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner, 3. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Division to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. 4. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, a~l other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 7. A detailed on-site lighting plan, including a photometric diagram, shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and Police Department (477-2800) prior to the issuance of building permits. Such plan shall indicate style, illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties. 8. 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. 9. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be I 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. 10. All building numbers and.individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, __ including proper illumination. 11. Six-foot decorative block walls shall be constructed along the project perimeter. If a double __ wall condition would result, the developer shall make a good faith effort to work with the adjoining property owners to provide a single wall. Developer shall notify, by mail, all contiguous property owner at least 30 days prior to the removal of any existing walls/fences along the project's perimeter. D. Building Design 1. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Details shall be included in building plans. E. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans) 1. All parking spaces shall be 9 feet wide by 18 feet long. When a side of any parking space I I abuts a building, wall, support column, or other obstruction, the space shall be a minimum of 11 feet wide. Project No. CUP 99-52 Completion Date 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 I provided !~roughout the development to connect dwellings/units/buildings with open spaces/pla_z?s/recreational uses. 4. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, I I entrances, and exits shall be striped per City standards. 5. Plans for any security gates shall be submitted for the City Planner, City Engineer, and I I Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. For residential development, private gated entrances shall provide adequate turn- around space in front of the gate and a separate visitor lane with call box to avoid cars stacking into the public right-of-way. 6. .Handicap accessible stalls shall be provided for commercial and office facilities with 25 or I I more parking stalls. Designate two percent or one stall, whichever is greater, of the total number of stalls for use by the handicapped. .::,.: F. Landscaping 1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home I I 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. 2. Within parking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-gallon tree for every three I parking stalls, sufficient to shade 50% of the parking area at solar noon on August 21. 3. 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. __ 4. 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. 5. For multi-family residential and non-residential development, property owners are responsible for the continual maintenance of all landscaped areas on-site, as well as contiguous planted areas within the public right-of-way. All landscaped areas shall be kept free from weeds and debris and maintained in healthy and thriving condition, and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing, and trimming. Any damaged, dead, diseased, or decaying p'~ nt material shall be replaced within 30 days from the date of damage. 6. The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be I included in th~ 'equired landscape plans and shall be subject to City Planner review and approval and ..~ardinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the Engineering Division. 7. Special landscape features such as mounding, alluvial rock, specimen size trees, meandering I sidewalks (with horizontal change), and intensified.landscaping, is required along the 19~" Street Frontage. 8. Landscaping and irrigation systems require0 to be installed within the public right-of-way on I the perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer. 9. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, I the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division. SC -12/99 (~ ,~r..(~ ·~' 3 Project No. CUP 99-52 Completion Date 10, 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. '{1. 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, G. Signs 1, The signs indicated on the submitted plans are conceptual on{y 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: H, General Requirements 1. Submit four complete sets of plans including the following: a. Site/Plot Plan; b. Foundation Plan; c. Floor Plan; d. Ceiling and Roof Framing Plan; e. Electrical Plans (2 sets, detached) including the size of the main switch, number and size of service entrance conductors, panel schedules, and single line diagrams; f. Plumbing and Sewer Plans, including isometrics, underground diagrams, water and waste diagram, sewer or septic system location, fixture units, gas piping, and heating and air conditioning; and g. Planning Division Project Number (i.e., 'Ir #, CUP #, DR #, etc.) clearly identified on the outside of all plans. 2. Submit two sets of structural calculations, energy conservation calculations, and a soils report. Architect's/Engineer's stamp and "wet" signature are required prior to plan check submittal, 3. Separate permits are required for fencing and/or walls. 4. Contractors must show proof of State and City licenses and Workers' Compensation coverage to the City prior to permit issuance. 5. Business shall not open for operation prior to posting the Certificate of Occupancy issued by / the Building and Safety Division. I. Site Development 1. Plans shall be submitted for plan check and approved prior to construction. All plans shall be __1____ 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 Cede, National Electric Code, Title 24 Accessibility requirements, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of permit application. Please contact the Building and Safety Division for availability of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. 2. 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 4 Project No. CUP 99-52 Completion Date established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: Transportation Development Fee, Drainage Fee, School Fees, Permit and Plan Checking Fees. Applicant shall provide a copy of the school fees receipt to the Building and Safety Division prior to permit issuance. 3. Construction activity shall not occur between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. Monday I I through Saturday, with no construction on Sunday or holidays. 4. Construct trash enclosure(s) per City Standard (available at the Planning Division's public counter). / I J. New Structures 1. Roofing material shall be installed per the manufacturer's "high wind" instructions. I / 2. Upon tenant improvement plan check submittal, additional requirements may be needed. I I K. Site Development 1. Upon tenant improvement plan check submittal, additional requirements may be required. I I L. Grading 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City I / Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. 2. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. I I APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: M. Dedication and Vehicular Access 1. Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets (measured from street centerline): 44 total feet on 19~ Street i N. Street Improvements 1. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: I 2. Improvement Plans and Construction: a. Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and inte~'section safety I 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. sc_,,,,, 5 Project No.. CUP 99.52 Completion Oate b. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a __1__ __ construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any other permits required. c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, __ I__ __ and intemonnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or __1__ __ 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)Puli 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. e. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City __1 I Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with __1__1 adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. g. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards, except for single family residential lots. h. Street names shall be approved by the City Planner prior to submittal for first plan I /__ check. 3. A permit shall be obtained from Caltrans for any work within the following right-of-way: __19t~ I I Street. O. Public Maintenance Areas 1. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting Districts shall be flied 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. P. Utilities 1. Provide separate utility services to each pamel including sanitary sewerage system, water, I 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. I 3. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the __/____ Cbcamonga County Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from th~ CCWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. Project No. CUP 99-$2 Completion Date 4. A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated operating costs for / all new street lights for the first six months of operation, prior to final map approval or prior to building permit issuance if no map is involved. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTR.._ 'CTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Qo General Fire Protection Conditions 1. Fire flow requirement shall be: 2000 gallons per minute, Per '97 UFC Appendix III-A, 3, (b) I (Increase). 2. A fire alarm system(s) shall be required as noted below: X Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15. ~e ~ I -X California Code Regulations Title 24. / 3. 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. 4. Gated/restricted entry(s) require installation of a Knox rapid entry key system. Contact the I I Fire Safety Division for specific details and ordering information. 5. A tenant use letter shall be submitted prior to final building plan approval. Contact the Fire I ~ I Safety Division for the proper form letter. 6. Fire District fee(s), plus a $1 per "plan page" microfilm fee will be due to the Rancho I I Cucamonga Fire Protection District as ~llows: X $132 for Conditional Use Permit **Note: Separate plan check fees for Tenant Improvement work, fire protection systems (sprinklers, hood systems, alarms, etc.) and/or any consultant reviews will be assessed upon submittal of plans. 7. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in ~=,ccordance with 1997 UBC, I UFC, UPC, UMC, and RCFD Standards 32 and 15 and 1996 NE5 APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: R. Security Lighting 1. All parking, common, and storage areas shall have minimum maintained 1-foot candle power. I 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 - ' ,nd the buildings I with direct lighting to be provided by all entryways. Lighting shall be c: .tent around the ~ .f~re development. 3. L~gnting in exter or areas sha be in vandal-resistant fixtures. I S. Security Hardware 1. A secondary locking device shall be inst~lled on all sliding glass doors. I 2. One-inch sinc~le cylinder dead bolts ' :.;! be installed on all entrance doors. If windows are I within 40 in¢,tes of any locking device, tempered glass or a double cylinder dead bolt shall be used. 7 Project NO. CUP 99-52 Complebon Date 3, All garage or rolling doors shall have slide bolts or some type of secondary locking devices. Security Fencing 1. All businesses or residential communities with security fencing and gates will provide the police with a keypad access and a unique code. The initial code is to be submitted to the Police Crime Prevention Unit along with plans. If this code is changed due to a change in personnel or for any other reason, the new code must be supplied to the Police via the 24- hour dispatch center at (909) 941-1488 or by contacting the Crime Prevention Unit at (909) 477-2800 extension 2474 or 2475. U. Windows 1. All sliding glass windows shall have secondary locking devices and should not be able to be lifted from frame or track in any manner. 2. Security glazing is recommended on store front windows to resist window smashes and impede entry to burglars. SC -12199 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 99-10 TO REDUCE THE INTERIOR SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM 10 FEET TO 0 FEET FOR A CHURCH LOCATED AT 9244 19TH STREET IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 201-341-04. A. Recitals. - 1. Williams Amhitects have filed an application for the issuance of Variance No. 99-10 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subje~ Variance request is referred to as "the application." 2. On January 12, 2000, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, deterrnined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on January 12, 2000, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property consisting of .80 acre of land located at 9244 19th Street with a street frontage of 110 feet and lot depth of 331.72 feet and is presently improved with a single story home. The property was previously used by an elementary school and church; and b. The property is surrounded on all sides by residential development; and c. All uses proposed in the application conform to the General Plan and Development Code, and the proposed uses are permitted in the Low Residential District subject to the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. The applicant, in conjunction with the subject application, has filed for the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit; and d. The ~pplication applies to property ~ontaining an existing residence with a building setback of 10 feet on the west side yard and 26.5 feet on the east side yard; and e. The allowance of a reduction of the side yard landscape setback, contrary to the requirements of Table 17.10.040.B. of the Development Code, shall not grant a special privilege since the setback, as proposed, will be consistent and compatible with side yard landscape setbacks which exist or are approved on surrounding properties; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. VAR 99-10 - WILLIAMS ARCHITECTS January 12, 2000 Page 2 f. The allowance of a reduction in the side yard landscape setback, contrary to the requirements of Table 17.10.040.B. of the Development Code, shall not grant a special privilege since the development of the subject site requires utilization of the existing building served by parking at the rear of the site which is accessible only via a two-way driveway along the east side yard; and g. The allowance of a redu~ion of the side yard landscape setback, contrary to the requirements of Table 17.10.040. B. of the Development Code, shall not grant a special privilege since all sun'ounding propedies are ~ot required to maintain 10 feet of landscaping along the side yard. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public headng and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. That stdct or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulations would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Development Code. b. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same district. c. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. d. That the granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. e. That the granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or imi:r~vements in the vicinity. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below: 1) All conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 00-08 approving Conditional Use Permit 99-52 shall apply. 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2000. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. VAR 99-10 -WILLIAMS ARCHITECTS January 12,2000 Page 3 · ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Bred Bullet, 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 January 2000, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: United States Deparh ,ent of thc Interior Fish and Wildlife Scrvicc Ecological Sc-trices Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 2"/30 Loke, r Avenue West C~lsbad, Califol~ia 92008 JAN 1 2 ZOOO Brant Lc Count Associ,ate plaunc~ CiP/o~ Rancho Cucaroon§a 10500 Civic Center ]:)rlve P.O. Box Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729 Re: Developmcot p, ovicw 99-54, in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bemardino County, California : Dear Ir. Lc Count: ter provides our comments on the proposed development of about 14 acres of land This: south of Si×th Sbrcct between Richmond Place and Buffalo Avenu. c.i~. thecC~i~o~eRanch° locatcc m§a. San Bcmardlnn County. We are concerned about the potential tmpa rs Cucam . . .. ,L: o_-~ nowcr.loving fly (Rha£hiomidas terminatus abdominalis, fcdcral ¥ c~oangerea ~Jem~ o,,u,.~ ,, - ...... '~ --o:ect vicirfim "DSF", that is known to occur wtmm ~ ' '--: .... work "with others e thc followln~ comments in keeping with our agency s rm~[uu ~,~ Weprc ,'id '-~ '- - "dlifc and -lants and thcir habitats for thc continuing to corn .ave, protect, and cohancc nsn. whom,, v . bcnefi~ of the American people. Moreover, we provide comments on public no,aces issued for a " We also Fedora' permit or license affccting thc Nation's waters parsuant to the Clean Watcr Act. · Man ered Species Act of 1973, as amcndcd (Act). Section ? of the Act requires admlnl ,tcr thc. E g . ..,_ .... ~.. ~ t g Fish and Wildlife Service (Scrvlcc), should it bc Fedora agencte$ to consult wire ua, tn,. ,.~ deform ned that thclr actions may affect fcdcrally listed species. Sccfion 9 of the Act prohibits the "tX e" (c.g., harm, harassmcnt, pursuit, injury, kill) of federally listed wildlife. "Harm" is t~r...ed to includ~ habitat modification or degradation where it kills or injures wildlife by further ..~,.~ · · - ' ' ~' - ~-rcedin-- fceding, or shcltcring. Take impairi lg essential behavioral patterns mcmum~; ~ incldcr tal to otherwise lawful activities can bc authorized under sections 7 ~edcral consult tfion~) and l0 (habitat conservation plans) of thv Act. Based habitat-based evaluagon for the property conducted by Scott Caaneron of hn, pac ia_ · ~--.~.. S Fish and Wildlife Scrvicc on January l l, 2000, thcs~tc Sgie, nc ; anO i'e.,c~veu oy u~, U.. contah mconsoliclated, sandy soils and a few plant species associated with DSF occupied rites, includi ig telegraph weed (Heterotfieca grandiflora) and ragweed (Ambrosia pMlostachya). On Januax 11, 2000, wc 0anducted a visit f~om the side of the road and clc~crmined that th~ gtc does contair approprlatc soils that could suppozt the DSF. As indicated in the report. DSF arc capablc of occt laying sub-optimal habitats and definitive conclusions relative to the prcscn¢~ or absence cannot ¢ ascertained absent conducting a focused surveys for DSF. Brcnt Count Base~], information that we have been provided, DSF has been detected on sites w/~h~n the O~.ta.ric, Recovcl~' U~it Within similar habitat. We conclude that thc site has thc potential to suppor the DSF and the proposed development of the site may resuk in take of'DSF. Accorc ingly, we recommend that protocol survcys for the DSF be conducted by a pennittcd biolog~ ~t, or that appropriate authorization pursuant to the Act be obtained prior to any develo merit of the site. In addition, a habitat assessment should be conducted by a qu,lified biologj t to determine if the site contain.q endangered San Bcmardino kangaroo rat (Dipodomys inertia ffparvu~; "SBK.R.") sign or burrows. If so, the s~te should be trapped by a permitted biolog~ to determine the status of the SBKR. on the project sit& Sites fl contain these unconsolidated soils in the arca am significant because they may play a critical role in the r ov 'y of the DSF in tUs recov y r cov plan for the .DS[ idenfifi xl the establishment of a recovery unit in the Ontario area, whcrcm a secure habitat base will no rl to be conserved and restored to achieve population stability and recovery of the specics Further habitat loss in this recovery unit by this project and others will increase the likelihc od of extinction of the DSF in the Ontario Recovcry Unit. We arc also concerned about thfi:poicnfi~j'impacts of the proposed pmjcct to the sensitive burrow ng owl (.4t~en¢ canicularia), and Other scnsitive species that occur in thc general area, and r~ tots that use the ~rea as foraging h~biU3t. Due to urban and industrial development, DSF, SBKR md burrowing owls have de, lined'throughout this area of San Bcma~lino County. Issues latcd to significant biological ~:csourcas on the 3roposcd project site., such as .... ..... develc ncnt and loss of Delhi sands that either support or have thc potential to support the SBKR ,urrowing owl, and u~e of the site by foraging raptors, should be adcquately addressed under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). We ap~ ~eiatc the ~pportunity to provide comments on the proposed project and are available to work w th the City and project proponent to avoid, mln;m/.ze, and mitigate impacts to federally listed z cd s~nsitive species. We request that final approval of the proposed projcct be def~cd until th: issues raised in this letter been resolved. Ifyou have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Mary Beth Woulfe of this office at (760) 431-9440. Sincerely, · ' Assistant Field Supervisor 1-6-00-? ?TA-172 cc: 2DFG, Chino ~-Iills, CA (Attn: Curt Taucher/Robin Maloncy-Ramous) the city of · Staff Report DATE: January 12, 2000 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buffer, City Planner BY: Brent Le Count, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-54 - CABOT- The development of three industrial buildings totaling 217,210 square fcct on 13.7 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 11) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the south side of Sixth Street between Richmond Place and Buffalo Avenue - APN: 229-263-56 through 61, Related File: Tree Removal Permit 99-46 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Industrial Buildings; Subarea 11 (Generallndustrial) industrial Area Specific Plan South - Vacant Land; Subarea 11 (General Industrial) and 12 (Industrial Park) Industrial Area Specific Plan East - Industrial Buildings; Subarea 13 (General Industrial) Industrial Area Specific Plan West Industrial Buildings; Subarea 11 (General Industrial) Industrial Area Specific Plan B. General Plan Designations: Project Site - General Industrial North General Industrial South - General Industrial and Industrial Park East General Industrial West General Industria~ C. Site Characteristics: The site is surrounded to the north, east, and west by existing industrial development and to the south by vacant land. There is a stand of Eucalyptus trees in the northeast corner of the site. The trees are not recommended for preservation because the regional LERP infestation will likely limit long term viability of the trees. ITEM R PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 99-54-CABOT Janua~ 14,2000 Page 2 D. Parking Calculations: Number of Number of Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces of Use Footage Ratio Required Provided Building 1 Office 18,000 1/250 72 72 Warehouse 69,760 1/1000 (1st 20,000) 37 61 1/2000 (2nd 20,000) 1/4000 (above 40,000) 3,uilding 2 ,Office ' 15,000 1/2~~, 60 60 Warehouse 59,730 1/1000 (ls, 20,000) 35 45 1/2000 (2nd 20,000) 1/4000 (above 40,000) Building 3 Office 11,000 1/250 44 44 Warehouse 43,720 1/1000 (1st 20,000) 31 88 1/2000 (2nd 20,000) 1/4000 (above 40,000) Total 217,210 279 370 ANALYSIS: A. General: The three buildings are proposed to be used for warehouse/distribution. The truck trailer loading area is designed as an enclave surrounded by the three buildings so that it is screened as much as possible from the three street frontages. Truck access will be off Richmond Place and Buffalo Avenue with vehicle access off Sixth Street. Sixth Street is classified as a Special Boulevard with enhanced streetscape treatment required(i.e., 45-foot average landscape setback, rolling berms, and meandering sidewalk). The project is designed with a large, 120-foot deep landscape area at the northeast corner of the site. Building wall surfaces facing the streets are articulated with horizontal change of plane, color variation, and use of sandblasted concrete with glass accents. B. Design Review Committee: The Committee (McNiel, Stewart, Fong) reviewed the project on November 16, 1999, and recommend approval. See the attached Design Review Action Agenda for further details. C. Technical Review Committee: The Technical and Grading Review Committees have reviewed the project and recommend approval subject to conditions outlined in the attached Resolution of Approval. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 99-54 - CABOT January 14, 2000 Page 3 D. Tree Removal Permit: There is a stand of Eucalyptus trees in the northeast corner of the site which conflict with the proposed development. The trees are not recommended for preservation because the regional LERP infestation will likely limit long term viability of the trees. The trees will be replaced with on-site landscaping. The applicant has applied for a Tree Removal Permit for removal of the trees. E. Environmental Assessment Part I of the Initial Study was completed by the applicant and staff completed Part II (the environmental checklist). In completing the checklist, staff found that the site is identified as potential habitat for the Federally listed Delhi Sands Flower Loving Fly. A biological survey was completed and found that the site does not contain suitable DSF ' habitat due to past soil disturbances and the site's being virtually surrounded by existing development. There are no other rare, threatened, or endangered species known to occupy the area. Staff also identified potential air quality impacts due tO grading and construction but these can be mitigated to a level of less than significant through the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. Development of the project is therefore not expected to have a significant impact on the environment. If Lhe Planning Commission concurs, then issuance of a Mitigated.Negative Declaration would'be in order. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review 99-54 and Tree Removal Permit 99-46 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval and iS,~'a~ce of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Respectfully submitted, -' Brad Buller 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' - Elevations Exhibit "F" - Design Review-Action November 16, 1999 Exhibit ~G" - Initial Study parts I and II Resolution of Approval with Conditions proJoct Information vicinity map / ~ ~ DReO000 j ~UBAREA ~ I; Cabo; Commerce Center ~ ~ ~ -- .... ~ Riverside Commercial Investors, Inc. Composite 200' 300' & 600' site utilization plan ~ ~ hill plnckert architects, Inc. ~-~ tsbulatlons site plen keynotes pro/cci Informsllon ~lt~ legend ~ C~bot Commerce Cenler ~ ~ ~lver*lde Commercial Inve~tor~, Inc, ~m .~ ~ ckert archltecte, Inc, N CABOT COMMERCE cI~rrER o C~bot Commerce Cenler ~ Riverside Commercial Investors, Inc. ~ hgl pInckert erchltect~, Inc. m ElevMIon~, Building ' I · 6 th Street u Cabot Comm*rce Center ~ Riverside Commercial Inve,tor~, Inc. u Elevatlon~, Butldln9 - 2 · Richmond Pl~ce ~ ~1~ Inck~ ~rchttect~, \ ~ T~T T T T T T T~-TTT "- .......... m Cabot Commerce Center u~ Riverside Commercial Invelfors~ ~ Elewtlon., Building - 3 o Buff.lo Ave. hill plnckert ~rchllect~, Inc. C~bof Commerce Center Rlverelde CommercMI Inveetors~ Inc.__ _ u Secflons hill pinckert archltec~e, Inc. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Brent Le Count November 16, 1999 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-54 - CABOT - A request to construct three industrial buildings (Building 1 - 87,760 square feet, Building 2- 74,730 square feet, Building 3- 54,720 square feet) totaling 217,210 square feet on 13.73 acres of land in Subarea 11 (General Industrial) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan located on the south side of Sixth Street between Richmond Place and Buffalo Avenue - APN: 229-263-56 through 61. Design Parameters: The three buildings are proposed to be used for warehouse/distribution. The truck trailer loading area is designed as an enclave surrounded by the three buildings so that it is screened as much as possible from the three street frontages. Truck access will be off Richmond Place and Buffalo Avenue with vehicle access off Sixth Street. Sixth Street is classified as a Special Boulevard with enhanced street scape treatment required.(i.e., 45-foot average landscape setback, rolling berms, and meandering sidewalk). The project is designed with a large, 120 foot deep landscape area at the northeast corner of the site. The perimeter of the site is proposed to be lined with vehicle parking with minimal landscape setbacks. Other buildings in the area either have deeper landscape setbacks along the street or have landscaping extend all the way up to the building walls from the street. Building wall surfaces facing the streets are articulated with horizontal change of plane, color variation, and use of sandblasted concrete with glass accents. The site is surrounded to the north, east, and west by existing industrial development and to the south by vacant land. There is a stand of Eucalyptus trees in the northeast corner of the site. The trees are not recommended for preservation because the regional LERP infestation will likely limit long term viability of the trees. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: 1. The buildings have very long (up to 500 feet) elevations with horizontal variation but no vertical variation. Should change in vertical plane, such as raising height of office areas, be provided to enhance visual interest? 2. Either provide deeper landscape setback areas on street frontages or increase density of tree and shrub planting to screen parking and loading areas from streets as much as possible. 3. Provide meandering berms within all landscape setback areas and alig~ drifts of shrubs with berm summits to achieve higher overall screening height. ,;ondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the. Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. Provide specimen tree planting, decorative rock scape, berms, and shrub planting within the large landscape area at the northeast corner of the site and along the remainder of the Sixth Street frontage.. 2. Provide an active recreation feature for use by employees within the large landscaped area at the northeast corner of the site. The outdoor employee eating area for Building 1 could also be incorporated into the recreation feature design. Employee use areas shall have adequate tree planting to provide shade. nRC COMMENTS DR 99-54 - CABOT November 16, 1999 Page 2 3. Provide denser tree planing in front of loading area.screen walls to enhance the screening affect. 4. Continue the sandblasted concrete from the south W-~to the east wall at the southeast corner of Building 1. Change of materials and colors shall c~ccur at intedor comers only as opposed to exterior corners. 5. Provide sandblasted concrete panels on northwest and southwest corners of Building B consistent with corner treatment on B,~idings A and B. 6. Building color and material changes sha(I occur at an interior corner or other logical point ' rather than on exterior corner to avoid a wall-papered affect. -- 7. Screen walls should incorporate sandblasted concretff and reveal patterns similar to the - building walls. 8. Provide straight sidewalk along Buffalo Avenue because it is not a Special Boulevard. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. Employee outdoor eating areas shall have seating, tables, and shade. 2. All roof and ground-mounted equipment shall be fully screened from surrounding streets and property. Note that views from the north are up slope from the site, which may require raised parapets. 3. Provide a minimum of 1 tre' per 30 linear feet of building wall exposed to public view, one tree per 30 linear feet of size p~-,'~meter, and one tree per 3 parking spaces. Recommendation: Staff.recommends approval subject to the above comments being acidressed prior to Planning Commission. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Brent Le Count Th&'~;emmittee recommends approval of the project with the changes recommended by staff and the following additional corrections: 1. Provide glazing, sandblasted concrete, and wall insets at southeast and southwest corners of Building A. It is acceptable to reduce the wall inset depth from 3 feet to 1-foot for the insets on the south wall only. II. Provide enhanced wall treatment along the south elevations of Buildings A and B consistent with the front elevations. DRC COMMENTS DR 99-54 - CABOT November 16, 1999 Page 3 III. Provide at least 2 feet of elevation difference for vertical changes of plane. Provide returns at vertical change points to convey a sense of depth. IV. Screen walls shall be high enough to adequately screen truck loading and parking areas behind. Gates shall be opaque to fully screen views.' V. It is acceptable to keep the existing curvilinear sidewalk along street frontages so long as the existing sidewalk is in good condition. The applicant agreed to all of staff's comments as well asthe additional direction provided by the Design Review Committee.  ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM c,~o,...choc~c.mo.,..,...,.,o~.. (Part I - Initial Study) (909) 477.2750 I 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 APPLICA TIONS WILL NO T BE PROCESSED. Please note that it is the rosponsibility 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 Io provide missing infonmation. APP"ca"on ,o,he ,o Name & Address of project owneds): ~ ~ ~ ~]~H~e I Name & Address of pecan p~padng this [o~ (if difforenl lmm above): Telephono Number: Information indicated by astedsk (') is not required of non-construction CUP's unless otherwise requested by staff. · I) 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) Pn~vido a set of color photographs which show ropmsentalive views into the site from the notlh, south, east and west; views inl9 end fnpm the site from the pdmaty access points which serve the site; and mpresentalive views of significant features fn~m the site. Include a map showing location of each photograph. '["~ 3] ProjeclLocation descdbe): ~,~ct.-.[F~ ~J~fi'~ ~C~J¢C~ tOp 4] Assessor's Parcel Numbers (attach additional sheet if necessaq,): '5] GrossSiteAraa(ac/sq. ft.): -'~b~ I,/(4~-Ou~''~ ~ I~,~""'[ '6) Net Silo Area ({otal site size minus area of public strcots & proposed dedications): / ''~ · '7~ ~ ~ . 7) Descdbe any proposed general plan amendment or zone change which would affect tho pn~ject site (attach additional sheet if nocessaq': 8) Include a description of all permits which will bo nocessaq/ from tho City of Rancho Cucamonga and other governmental agencies in order to fully implement tho project: INITSTD1.WPO - 4/96 ~J'7 Page 2 g) Descdbe the physical setting of the site as it exists before lhe project including infom~alion on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, malura trees, trails and toads, drainage courses, and scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on site (including age and condition) and the use of the stnJctures. 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): / / 10) Desc#bo the known cultural and/or historical aspecls el the site, Site all sources of information (books, published reporls and oral history): 11) Dosc6be any noise sources_ and their levels that pt2w al[oct tho ~ito (aircraft, roadway noise, otc.) and how they will affect proposed .. INITSTD1 .VVPD - 4196 ~//'~ Page 3 12) 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 prosed project. Indicate if there are proposed phases for development, the extent of development to occur . with each phase, and the anticipated c. ompletion of each increment. Attach additional sheet(s) if nacessaq/: 13) Do$cdbo Ihe surrounding propedies, including infotrr, ation on plants end animals and any cullurol, historical, or scenic aspects. Indicate tho typo of land use (residential. commercial, etc.), inlan$ity of land uso (one-family, aparlmont houses, shops. department stores, etc.) end scala of development (height, frentago, setback, rear yard. otc.): 14) Will tho proposed project change the pat/era, scala or character al the surrounding general area of the project ? /Jo 15) Indicate the type o£ short.tenm and long-term noise to be generated, including source and amount. How will these noise levels affect adjacent prapetties and on-site use& What methods of sound pmofing are proposed? 17) Indicate any bodies of water (including domestic water supplies) into which the site drains; 18) Indicate expected amount of water usage. (Sea Attachment A for usage estimates). For furlher clarification, please contact tho Cucamonga County Water Distdcl at 987.2591. a. Residential (gal/day) Peak uso (gal/Day) b. Commercial/Ind. (gal/day/ac) ! ~ ¢)0 Peak uso (gal/rain/ac) 19) Indicate proposed method of sewage disposal. Septic Tank ~ Sewer. If septic tanks are proposed, attach percolation tests. If discharge Ia a sanitary sewage system is proposed indicate expected daily sewage generation: (See Attachment A for usage estimates). Forfurther cladfication, please contact Ihe Cucamonga County Water DistdcI al 987.2591. a. Residential (gal/day) b. Commercial, find. (gal/day/ac) ~ (~(D ~ RE$IDENTIAL PROJE~T$: ~ / [~ 20) Number of residential units: Detached (indicate range of parcel sizes, minimum Iai size and max~m~,~(Iot size.* / / INITSTD1 .WPD- 4/96 /~0 Page 5 Attached (indicate whether units are rental or for sale units): 21) Anlicipatod rango of sale pdces andlor mnts: Sale Pdce[s] $ to $. Rent (per month) $ to 22) Specify number of bedmoms by unit type: 23) Indicate anticipated household unit lype: 24) Indicate tho ~ ,r of school children who will bo residing within tho project: Contact tho appropriate School Distdcls as b. Senior High 25) Descdbe type of use(s) and major function(s) of commercial, industrial or institutional uses: '~._~ ~l~,c~.. ~t~ / E ~ ~) Tola.~oora~oa ofcomme.:iat, indust~al, orinstit.lionaIusoshxtxpo: ~ /?, ~5' c( _~ ~c ~.~ INtTSTD1.WPD- 4/96 ~.,.,~ Page 6 Maximum Shift: Time of Maximum Shift: 29) Provide broakd~wn ~f anticipated j~b c~assi~ca~i~ns~ inc~uding wage and sa~ary ranges~ as we~~ a$ an indicati~n of the ~ate of hire for each classification (attach additional sheet if nacessaG,): 30) Estimation of the number of workers to be hired that currently reside in the City: '31) For commercial and industrial uses only. indicate tho source, type and amount of air pollution emissions· Data should be vedfied lhreugh Iho South C~ast Air Quality Management District. at (818) 572.6283): ALL PROJE~T,~ 32) Have the water, sewer, fire. and flood control agencies serWng the project been contacted to detom~#~e their ability to provide adequate service to tile proposed project? If so, please indicate their response. 33) In the known hisloty of this property, has there been any use. storage, or dischan:Je of hazardous and/or toxic maledals? Examples of hazardous and/or toxic materials include, but are not limited to PCB's; radioactive substances; pesticides and hedoicides; fuels, oils. solvents, and other flammable liquids and gases. Also note undercjround storage of any of the above. Please list the materials and descdb~ their use. storage, and/or dischan:Je on the property, as well as the dates of use, if known. 34) Will t~e proposed project involve tho temporary or long.term use. storage or discharge of hazardous and/or toxic materials, including but not limited lo Ihose 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 bo shown and labeled on the applicalion plans. I hereby codify that tho statements furnished above and in tho attached exhibits prasent tho data and information required for adequate ovalualion of this project to lbo best of my abilily, that tho facts, statements, and information presented am Imo and co.ct tot ho best of my knowledge and boiler. I fudher unde~tand that additional information may bo mquimd to bo submitled by the City of Roncho Cucemonga. City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: Development Review 99-54 2. Related Files: Preliminary Review 99-09 3. Description of Project: A request to construct three industrial buildings (Building 1 - 87,760 square faet, Building 2 - 74,730 square feet, Building 3 - 54,720 square feet) totaling 217,210 ~quare feet on 13.7 acres of land in Subarea 11 (General Industrial) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the south side of Sixth Street between Richmond Place and Buffalo Avenue -APN: 229-263-56 through 61 4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Cabot International 3685 Main Street, Suite 220 Riverside, CA 92501 5. General Plan Designation: General Industrial 6. Zoning: Subarea 11 (General Industrial) Industrial Area Specific Plan 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The site is surrounded to the north, east, and west by existing industrial buildings and to the south by vacant land. The site slopes from north to south at approximately 2 to 3 percent. The site will remain visible from 4th Street to the south so long as properties to the south remain vacant. 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 99-54 - Cabot 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 (x) Transportation/Circulation ( ) Public Services ( ) Population and Housing (x) Biological Resources ( ) Utilities and Service Systems (x) Geological Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources (x) Aesthetics (x) Water ( ) Hazards ( ) Cultural Resources (x) Air Quality (x) Noise ( ) Recreation ( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: (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. Brent E'e Count, AICP Associate Planner December 15, 1999 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. 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the prOPosal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 99-54 - Cabot Page .3 c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 2. POPULATIO ~ .~ND HOU:JING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulz;~ively exceed official regional or local population projections? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped-area or ex~:nsion of major infrastructure)? ( ( ) ( ) (X) c) Displace existing housing, esper / aff3rdable housing? ( ( ) ( ) (X) 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ( ) ( ) (X) b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) ( ) (X) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) ( ) (X) d) Seiche hazards? ( ) ( ) (X) e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) f) Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading,, or fill? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) h) Expansige soils? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 99-54 - Cabot Page 4 Comments: f, g) The site contains the Tujunga Delhi soil association. The General Plan states, "The Tujun_~a-~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 ade~'~e¥~; support the weight of the structure." A soils analysis will be required as a conditjo, oi~f approval prior to issuance of grading or building permits. 4. W~-R;- Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? ) (X) ( ) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ) ( ) (X) c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? ) ( ) (X) d) Changes in the_amount of surface water in any water body?.~; - ) () () (X) e) Changes in. currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: a) The amount of surface runoff will be increased from construction of impervious surfaces. The flows will be conveyed to existing drainage facilities designed to handle the flows. The impact is not considered significant. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 99-54 - Cabot Page 5 6. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) (X) ( ) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) (X) ( ) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ( ) ( ) (X) d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: a, b) Air quality impacts may occur during the site preparation, including grading and equipment exhaust as it is used on-site. Major sources of emissions during this phase include exhaust 9~nissions from construction vehicles and equipment and fugitive dust generated _ :: a result of construction vehicles and equipment traveling over exposed surfaces, as well as soil disturbances by grading\filling. Nox and PM 10 levels may be exceeded on a daily basis during construction; however, with implementation of mitigation measures, as listed below, impacts will be reduced to less-than-significant levels. Peak grading and construction emissions may exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management Distdct thresholds for the cdteria pollutant of Nox (2.5 tons per quarter) and PM10 (150 pour3ds per day). Emissions of other criteria pollutants would be below the standards. This is a potentially significant impact, but would be reduced ~ a less-than significant level with implementation of mitigation measures as ted below. i. The construction contractor shall select the construction equipment used on-site based on Iow emission factors and high energy efficiency. The construction contractor shall ensure that construction grading plans include a statement that all construction equipment will be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. 2. The construction contractor shall utilize electric or diesel-powered equipment in-,igu of gasoline-powered engines where feasible. 3. The construction contractor shall ensure that construction grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. During smog season (May through October), the overall length of the construction period should be extended, thereby decreasing the size of the area prepared each day, to minimize vehicles and equipment operating at the same time. 4. The construction contractor shall support and encourage ride sharing and transit incentives for the construction crew. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 99-54 - Cabot Page 6 5. Dust generated by the development activities shall be retained on-site and kept to a minimum by following the dust control measures listed below. i. During clearing, grading, earth moving, excavation, or transportation of cut or fill materials, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to prevent dust from leaving the site and to create a crust after each day's activities cease. ii. During construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to keep all areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent dust from leaving the site. At a minimum, this would include wetting down such areas in the later morning and after work is completed for the day, and whenever wind exceeds 15miles per hour. iii. After clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation is completed, the entire area of disturbed soil shall be treated immediately by pickup of the soil until the area is paved or otherwise developed so that dust generation will not occur. iv. Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation. v. Trucks transporting soil, sand, cut or fill materials and/or construction debris to or from the site shall be tarped from the point of origin. 6. The construction contractor shall utilize, as much as possible, pre-coated natural colored building materials, water-based or Iow-VOC coating, and coating transfer or spray equipment with high transfer efficiency, such as high volume Iow pressure (HVLP) spray method, or manual coatings application such as paint brush,.hand roller, trowel, spatula, dauber, rag, or sponge. 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) (X) ( ) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ( ) ( ) (X) c) inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 99-54 - Cabot Page 7 d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: a) The pi'oject will increase traffic because the site is currently vacant. The project is consistent with allowed land use intensities and the surrounding street system has . been designed to handle allowed land uses. Traffic impacts were addressed in the EIR prepare.d for the Industrial Area Specific Plan. The imp~.*.t is not considered significant..~ 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to:. a) ' Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees, eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? ( ) ( ) (). (X) d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Wildlife dispersal or m gration corridors? ( ) ( ) :' ) (X) Comments: a) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service identifies the project area as potential habitat for the Delhi Sands Flower Loving Fly (DSF). As a result, a habitat assessment and biological survey was prepared (Impact Sciences, April 28, 1999) to determine potential impacts to the DSF habitat. Results of the habitat assessment indicate that the subject site does not support DSF habitat due to disturbances to the site through past agricultural practices, discing of the site, and the lack of open, sandy soil areas on site. In addition, the site does not function as a habitat corridor since it is Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 99-54 - Cabot Page 8 surrounded by existing development. No other unique, rare, or endangered animal species are known to be located on the project site. The impact is not considered significant. b) The site contains several multi-trunk eucalyptus trees at the northeast comer. The trees do not appear to be of high quality nor are they part of a larger stand of trees. They are proposed to be removed to accommodate the proposed development. The impact is not considered significant because the project design includes the planting of dozens of trees. 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposah a) Conflict with adopted, energy conservation plans? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 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 flammable brush, grass, or trees? · ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 99-54 - Cabot Page 9 10. NOISE. Will the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) ( ) ) (X) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) ( ) ) (X) tl. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the fo/lowing areas: a) Fire protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Schools? ( ( ) ( ) (X) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ( ) ( ) (X) e) Other governmental services? ( ( ) ( ) (X) 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? ( ) ( ) (X) b) Communication systems? ( ) ( ) (X) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ( ) ( ) (X) d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ( ) (X) e) Storm water drainage? ( ) ( ) (X) f) Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) (X) g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 99-54 - Cabot Page 10 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Create light or glare? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) ' Disturb paleontological resources? () () () (X) b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) ( ) (). (X) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Potential to degrade: Does the proiect 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 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 99-54 - Cabot Page 11 population to drop belo~_self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate,a~plant or animal .. community, reduce the'number or restrict the range'of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Short term: Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time. Long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that are indivic],..: . ,imited, but cumulatively considerate:.' ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 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 analy.~ed 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 ao~q.,ately 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) Industrial Area Specific Plan EIR (Certified September 19, 1981) D~0-21-1999 t2:47 P~ 909 7841524 P,02 Imtiat Study for Cily of Rancho Cucamonga DR 99-54 - Cabot Page APPLICANT CERTIFICATION I certify that I am the applicant for the project described in this initial Study. I ackncwledge thai have read this Initial Study and the proposed mitigat,on measures. F~ther, I have revised the praiect glans ur proposals and/or hereby agree to the proposed mltigatYbn measures to avoid tile effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant environmental effects wouJci OCCU[. L' Name and Tilie: £35'- City of Rancho Cucamonga NEGATIVE DECLARATION The following Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review In accordance with the California Environmental Quallty Act Section 21091 and 21092 of the Public Resources Code. Project File No.: Development Review 99-54 Public Review Period Closes: January 12, 2000 Project Name: Project Applicant: Cabotlntema§onal Project Location (also see attached map): Located on the south side of Sixth Street between Richmond Place and Buffalo Avenue - APN: 229-263-56 through 61. Project Description: The development of three industrial totaling 217,210 square feet on 13.73 acres of land in General Industrial District (Subarea 11) 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 substanfial 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. January 12. 2000 Date of Determination Adopted By RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 99-54, THE DEVELOPMENT OF THREE INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS (BUILDING 1 - 87,760 SQUARE FEET, BUILDING 2 - 74,730 SQUARE FEET, BUILDING 3 - 54,720 SQUARE FEET) TOTALING 217,210 SQUARE FEET ON 13.7 ACRES OF LAND IN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (SUBAREA 11) OF THE INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF SIXTH STREET BETWEEN RICHMOND PLACE AND BUFFALO AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 229-263-56 through 61 A, - Recitals. 1. Cabot International has filed an application for the approval of Development Review No. 99-54, 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 January 2000, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a meeting on the application and concluded said meeting on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced meeting on January 12, 2000, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located on the south side of Sixth Street between Richmond Place and Buffalo Avenue, with a street frontage of 600 feet on Sixth Street, 920 Richmond Place, and 1,110 feet on Buffalo Avenue and lot depth of 950 feet and is presently and b. The property to the north of the subject site is developed with industrial buildings, the property to the south consists of vacant land designated for future industrial uses, the property to the east is developed with industrial buildings, and the property to the west is developed with industrial buildings; an_d c. The design of the project locates truck loading areas towards the center of the site, well screened from public view; and d. The project includes substantial landscaping along street frontages to provide an enhanced street scene; and e. The buildings exhibit high quality architectural design which will enhance the aesthetics of the local built environment; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 9~54 - CABOT INTERNATIONAL Janua~ 12,2000 Page 2 f. The project site has been identified by the United States Department of Fish and Wildlife as potential Delhi Sand Flower. Loving Fly habitat but a biological survey indicates that the site does not support adequate DSF habitat and no DSF or any other rare, threatened, or endangered species were found; and g. Air quality impacts related to construction activities can be satisfactorily mitigated to a level of less than significant through adoption of mitigation measures based upon recommendations of the South Coast,~,ir Quality Management District which are incorporated herein; and h. The surrounding street system can adequately accommodate the increased traffic generated by the project; and i. The project provides for an integrated design as the three buildings are tied together visually. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced meeting and upon the specific '~.~ldings 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 purl;,~:~.~s of the district in which the site is located; and c. That the proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable previsions of the D~velopment Code; and d. Th~,t ~he proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the puDlic 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the ~ r3plication, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will '.ave a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Mitigated Negative Declaration and i~. r 'odng Program attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference, based upon the ,~, ,.~mgs as follows: a. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality ACt of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder, that said Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, fudher, this Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Mitigated Negative Declaration with regard to the application. b. Although the Mitigated Negative Declaration identifies certain significant environmental effects that will result if the project is approved, all significant effects have been reduced to an acceptable level by imposition of mitigation measures on the project which are listed below as conditions of approval. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 99-54 - CABOT INTERNATIONAL January 12,2000 Page 3 c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the Califomia Code of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: in considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon the substantial evidence contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission during the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Planninq Division: 1) Increase density of tree and shrub planting to screen parking and loading areas from streets as much as possible. 2) Provide meandering berms within all landscape setback areas and align drifts of shrubs with berm summits to achieve maximum overall screening height. 3) Provide specimen tree planting, decorative rock scape, ben-ns, and shrub planting within the large landscape area at the northeast comer of the site and along the remainder of the Sixth Street frontage. 4) Provide an active recreation feature for use by employees within the large landscaped area at the northeast comer of the site. The outdoor employee eating area for Building 1 could also be incorporated into the recreation feature design. Employee use areas shall have adequate tree planting to provide shade. ~ 5) Provide a more dense tree planting i~i-fm-nt of loading area screen walls. to enhance the screening effect. 6) Provide sandblasted concrete panels on northwest and southwest comers of Building B consistent with comer treatment on Buildings A and B. 7) Building color and material changes shall occur at an interior comer or other logical point rather than on exterior comer to avoid a wall-papered affect. 8) Screen walls shall incorporate sandblasted concrete and reveal patterns similar to the building walls. 9) Employee outdoor eating areas shall have seating, tables, and shade. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 99-54 - CABOT INTERNATIONAL Janua~ 12,2000 Page 4 10) All roof and ground-mounted equipment shall be fully screened from surrounding streets and property. Note that views from the north are up slope from the site, which may require raised parapets. 11) Provide glazing, sandblasted concrete, and wall insets at southeast and southwest comers of Building A. It is acceptable to reduce the wall inset depth from 3 feet to 1 foot for the insets on the south wall only. 12) Provide enhanced wall treatment along the south elevations of Buildings A and B consistent with the front elevations. 13) On elevations, provide at least 2 feet of elevation difference for vertical changes of plane. Provide returns at vertical change points to convey a sense of depth. 14) Screen walls shall be high enough to adequately screen truck loading and parking areas behind. Gates shall be opaque to fully screen views. 15) It is acceptable to keep the existing curvilinear sidewalk along street frontages so long as the existing sidewalk is in good condition. 16) Tree Removal Permit 99-46 is hereby approved subject to replacement of trees through on-site landscaping. En,qineedn,q Division: 1) All vehicular access rights to Buffalo Avenue and Sixth Street fronting the project site have been dedicated to the City of Rancho Cucamonga except at street intersections and approved ddveway locations as shown on Parcel Map No. 11671, PMB 143/41-46. Project driveways that do not align with said approved ddveway locations will require that. non-vehicular access rights shall be dedicated for previously approved unused ddveway locations and non-vehicular access rights shall be vacated for new approved ddveway locations. 2) All project approved driveways shall conform to City Ddveway Policy and to city of Rancho Cucamonga Standard plan No. 101-C, The minimum width shall be 35 feet and per the following: a) The Sixth Street driveway shall be at least 150 feet from the - Buffalo Avenue BCR. b) Align the northerly ddveway on Buffalo Avenue with San Madno Street centedine. c) Align the northerly ddveway on Richmond Place with the existing driveway on the opposite side of Richmond Place. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 99-54 - CABOT INTERNATIONAL Janua~ 12,2000 Page 5 3) A Lot Line Adjustment (Certificate of Compliance) shall be processed for approval of the merger of the six parcels to an appropriate reduced number of parcels as may be required. The Certificate of Compliance for the lot mergers shall be recorded with the County Recorder's Office prior to the issuance of a building permit. 4) Street Improvement Plan No 1337 shall be revised by a registered civil engineer and submitted for approval by the City Engineer. Prior to any work being performed in the public rights-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's office. Prior to the issuance of a construction permit, secudty shall be posted and an improvement agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public improvements. 5) The developer on the opposite side of Sixth Street installed the median island landscaping on Sixth Street. The developer for this project (DR 99-54) shall reimburse that developer for the cost of one-half the width of landscaping in the median fronting this project site and as may be required if a Street Reimbursement Agreement is on file with the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 6) Sidewalks shall cross drive approaches at the zero curb face. Provide additional public right-of-way as needed. Driveway accent paving shall be located outside the public right-of-way. Environmental Miti.qation Measures: AIR QUALrrY 1) The construction contractor shall select the construction equipment used on-site based on Iow emission factors and high energy efficiency.. The construction contractor shall ensure that construction grading plans include a statement that all construction equipment will be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. 2) The construction contractor shall utilize electric or diesel-powered equipment in lieu of gasoline-powered engines where feasible. 3) The construction contractor shall ensure that construction grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. During smog season (May through October), the overall length of the construction pedod should be extended, thereby decreasing the size of the area prepared each day, to minimize vehicles and equipment operating at the same time. 4) The construction contractor shall support and encourage dde shadng and transit incentives for the construction crew. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 99-54 - CABOT INTERNATIONAL January 12,2000 Page 6 5) Dust generated by the development activities shall be retained on-site and kept to a minimum by following the dust control measures listed below. a) During clearing, grading, earth moving, excavation, or transportation of cut or fill materials, water tracks or sprinkler systems shall be used to prevent dust from leaving the site and to create a crust after each day's activities cease. b) During construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to keep all areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent dust from leaving the site. At a minimum, this would include wetting down such areas in the later morning and after work is completed for the day, and whenever wind exceeds 15 miles per hour. c) After clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation is completed, the entire area of disturbed soil shall be treated immediately by pick up of ,he soil until the area is paved or otherwise developed so that dust generation will not occur. d) Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation. e) Trucks transporting soil, sand, cut or fill materials and/or construction debris to or from the site shall be tarped from the point of origin. 6) The construction contractor shall utilize, as much as possible, pre- coated natural colored building materials, water-based or Iow-VOC coating, and coating transfer or spray equipment with high transfer efficiency, such as high volume Iow pressure (HVLP) spray method, or manual coatings application such as paint brush, hand roller, trowel, spatula, dauber, rag, or sponge. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2000. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATIEST: Brad Buller, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 99°54 - CABOT INTERNATIONAL January 12, 2000 Page 7 I, Brad Bullet, 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 January 2000, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: .~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:  City of Rancho Cucamonga MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Project File No.: DR 99-54 This Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) has been prepared for use in implementing the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the above-listed project. This program has been prepared in compliance with State law to ensure that adopted mitigation measures are implemented (Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code). Program Components - This MMP contains the following elements: 1. · Conditions of approval that act as impact mitigation measures are recorded with the action and the procedure necessary to ensure compliance. The mitigation measure conditions of approval are contained in the adopted Resolution of Approval for the project. 2. A procedu're of compliance and verification has been outlined for each action necessary. This procedure designates who will take action, what action will be taken and when, and to whom and when compliance will be reported. 3. The MMP has been designed to provide focused, yet flexible guidelines. As monitoring progresses, changes to compliance procedures may be necessary based upon recommendations by those responsible for the program. Program Management - The MMP will be in place through all phases of the project. The project planner, assigned by the City Planner, shall coordinate enforcement of the MMP. The project planner oversees the MMP and reviews the Reporting Forms to ensure they are filled out correctly and proper action is taken on each ;nitigation. Each City department shall ensure compliance of the conditions (mitigation) that rei'. ~ to that department. Procedures - The following steps will be followed by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 1. A f~.~ covering all costs and expenses, including any consultants' fees, incurred by the City in performing monitoring or reporting programs shall be charged to the applicant. 2. An MMP Reporting Form will be prepared for each potentially significant impact and its corresponding mitigation measure identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Checklist, attached hereto. This procedure designates who will take action, what action will be taken and when, and to whom artd. when compliance will .be reported. All monitoring and reporting documentation will be kept in the project file with the department having the original authority for processing the project. Reports will be available from the City upon request at the following address: City of Rancho Cucamonga - Lead Agency Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Mitigation Monitoring Program DR99-54 , Page 2 Appropriate specialists will be retained if technical expertise beyond the City staffs is needed, as determined by the project planner or responsible City department, to monitor specific mitigation activities and provide appropriate written approvals to the project planner. 4. The project planner or responsible City department will approve, by signature and date, the completion of each action item that was identified on the MMP Reporting Form. After each measure is verified for compliance, no further action is required for the specific phase of development. 5. All MMP Reporting Forms for an impact issue requiring no further monitoring will be signed off as completed by the project planner or responsible City department at the bottom of the MMP Reporting Form. 6. Unanticipated circumstances may arise requiring the refinement or addition of mitigation measures. The project planner is responsible for approving any such refinements or additions. An MMP Reporting Form will be completed by the project planner or responsible City department and a copy provided to the appropriate design, construction, or operational personnel. 7. The project planner or responsible City department has the authority to stop the work of construction contractors if compliance with any aspects of the MMP is not occurring after written notification has been issued. The project planner or responsible City department also has the authority to hold certificates of occupancies if compliance with a mitigation measure attached hereto is not occurring. The project planner or responsible City department has the authority to hold issuance of a business license until all mitigation measures are implemented. 8. Any conditions (mitigation) that require monitoring after project completion shall be the responsibility of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Development Department. The Department shall require the applicant to post any necessary funds (or other forms of guarantee) with the City. These funds shall be used by the City to retain consultants and/or pay for City staff time to monitor and report on the mitigation measure for the required period of time. 9. In those instances requiring long-term project monitoring, the applicant shall provide the City with a plan for monitoring the mitigation activities at the project site and reporting the monitoring results to the City. Said plan shall identify the reporter as an individual qualified to know whether the particular, mitigation measure has been implemented. The monitoring/reporting plan shall conform to the City's MMP and shall be approved by the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of building permits. MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST (INITIAL STUDY PART III) Project File No.: Development Review 99-54 Applicant: Cabot International Initial Study Prepared by: Brent Le Count Date: December 15, 1999 Selection of Iow-emission construction equipment CP/BO Ia/c IPlan check / Utilization of electric or diesel-powered equipment ifilI Ii 0 i · Ongoing where feasible Grading Plans state equipment shut off when not in O C lan check use. Extend construction period during smog season (May-October) Ride sharing & transit incentives encouraged for CP/BO C I Ongoing construction crew / Dust control measures to be utilized CP/BO C I Ongoing ~'Key to Checklist Abbreviations Res ponslble, Person %; !~ ,~:*;~ ~ :i:~:~,. Monitoring Frequency ~,;? ~,~.d;. ~; ~; ~ , Me~ofVe~fl~flon~:/~r.~,:,~,.:,.~.,~,~:~,;~ CDD - Community Development DimOut A - ~[h Each New Development A - On-site Inspe~ion 1 - ~thhold Re~rdation of Final Map CP - City Planner or designee B - Prior To Constru~ion B - Other Agen~ Pe~it / Approval 2 - ~thhold Grading or Building Pe~it CE - City Engineer or designee C - Throughout Constm~ion C - Plan Che~ 3 - ~thhold Ce~ifi~te of O~upan~ BO - Building Official or designee D - On Completion D - Separate Submi~al (RepoAs / Studies I Plans) 4 - Stop Wo~ Order PO * Poli~ Captain or designee E - Operating 5 - Retain Deposit or Bonds FC - Fire Chief or designee 6 - Revoke CUP COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT #: DR 99-54 SUBJECT: 3 New Industrial Buildings APPLICANT: Cabot LOCATION: SEC Buffalo and Sixth Street ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Completion Date General Requirements 1. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, / its agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. 2. A copy of the signed Resolution of Approval or City Planner's letter of approval, and all I 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 1. Development/Design Review approval shall expire if building permits are not issued or I approved use has not commenced within 5 years from the date of approval. No extensions are allowed. C. Site Development 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, Development Code regulations and the Industrial Area Specific Plan. 2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. S C -12/99 3. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code I / 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. 4. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be I I submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 8. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable Ci~; Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the time of building ;;, . -~it issuance. 7. A detailed on-sitelighting plan, including ~ ~hotometric diagram, shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and Police; .'~rtment (477-2800) prior to the issuance of building permits. Such plan shall indicate s~ illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties. 8. Trash receptacle(s) are required and shall meet City standards. The final design, locations, I and the number of trash receptacles shall be subject to City P~anner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 9. 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 masonr~ walls, helming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. For single family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults. · 10. All building numbers and ihdividual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination. 11. All parkways, open a~;eas, 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. a. Noise Level - All commercial activities shall not create any noise that would exceed an exterior noise level of 60 dB during the hours of 10 p.m. until 7 a.m. and 65 dB during the hours of 7 a.m. until 10 p.m. b. Loading and Unloading - No person shall cause the loading, unloading, opening, closing, or other handling of boxes, crates, containers, building materials, garbage cans, or other similar objects between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. unless otherwise specified herein, in a manner which would cause a noise disturbance to a residential area. D, Building Design 1. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be amhitecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Details shall be included in building plans. SC -12/99 Project No, DR 99-54 Completion Date 2. For commercial and industrial projects, paint roll-up doors and service doors to match main I 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 I__ __ contain a 12-inch walk adjacent to the parking stall (including curb). 3. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, __1__ __ entrances, and exits shall be striped per City standards. 4. Plans for any security gates shall be submitted for the City Planner, City Engineer, and Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. For residential development, private gated entrances shall provide adequate turn- around space in front of the gate and a separate visitor lane with call box to avoid cars stacking into the public right-of-way. 5. Handicap accessible stalls shall be provided for commemial 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. 6. Motorcycle parking area shall be provided for commercial and office facilities with 25 or more I parking stalls. Developments with over 100 parking stalls shall provide motorcycle parking at the rate of one percent. The area for motorcycle parking shall be a minimum of 56 square feet. 7. Carpool and vanpool designated off-street parking close to the building shall be provided for __1 commercial, office, and industrial facilities at the rate of 10 percent of the total parking area. If covered, the vertical clearance shall be no less than 9 feet. F. Trip Reduction 1. Shower facility accessible to both men and women shall be provided for persons walking or bicycling to work for each project which meets the following thresholds: Commercial 250,000 square feet Industrial 325,000 square feet Office 125,000 square feet Hotels and Motels 250 rooms G. Landscaping 1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for 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. 2. 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. SC -12/99 Project No, DR 99-54 Completion Date 3. A minimum of 20% of trees planted within industrial projects shall be specimen size trees - I 24-inch box or, larger. 4. Within parkin~.~ts, trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-gallon tree for every three / parking stalls, ~bfficient to shade 50% of the parking area at solar noon on August 21. 5. Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent to and along structures at a rate of one I tree per 30 linear feet of building. 6. 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. 7. 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 a_pproval and coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the Engineering Division. 8. Special landscape features such as mounding, alluvial rock, specimen size trees, meandering sidewalks (with horizontal change), and intensified landscaping, is required aJong the 6"' Street frontage. 9~-" All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas · . the design shall be coordinatec, th the Engineering Division. 10. 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. 11. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of I Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. H, Signs 1. The signs indicated on the submitted plans are conceptual only and not a part of this approval. Any signs proposed for this development shall comply with the Sign Ordinance and shall require separate application and approval by the Planning Division pdor to installation of any signs. 2. A Uniform Sign Program for this development shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. I. Other Agencies 1. The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and I location of mail boxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for mail boxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mail boxes and the design of the overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLEOWING CONDITIONS: J. General Requirements 1. Submit four complete sets of plans including the following: I a. Site/Plot Plan; b. Foundation Plan; SC -12199 Project NO. DR 99-54 Completion Date c. Floor Plan; d. ; Ceiling and Roof Framing Plan; e. Electrical Plans (2 sets, detached) including the size of the main switch, number and size of service entrance conductors, panel schedules, and single line diagrams; f. Plumbing and Sewer Plans, including isometrics, underground diagrams, water and waste diagram, sewer or septic system location, fixture units, gas piping, and heating and air conditioning; and g. Planning Division Project Number (i.e., 'IT #, CUP #, DR #, etc.) clearly identified on the outside of all plans. 2. Submit two sets of structural calculations, energy conservation calculations, and a soils report. Architect's/Engineer's stamp and "wet" signature are required prior to plan check submittal. 3. S_eparate permits are required for fencing and/or walls. 4.Contractors must show proof of State and City licenses and Workers' Compensation coverage to the City prior to permit issuance. 5.Business shall not open for operation prior to posting the Certificate of Occupancy issued by the Building and Safety Division. K. Site Development 1. Plans shall be submitted for plan check and approved prior to construction. All plans shall be marked with the project file number (i.e., 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 permit application. Please contact the Building and Safety Division for availability of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. 2. 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. Applicant shall provide a copy of the school fees receipt to the Building and Safety Division prior to permit issuance. 3.Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation and prior to issuance of building permits. 4.Construction activity shall not occur between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. Monday through Saturday, with no construction on Sunday or holidays. 5. Construct trash enclosure(s) per City Standard (available at the Planning Division's public counter). L. New Structures 1. Provide draft stops in attic areas, not to exceed 3,000 square feet, in accordance with UBC Table 5-A. ~ . 2. Roofing materials shall be Class "A." 3. Provide smoke and heat venting in accordance with UBC Section 906. 4. Upon tenant improvement plan check submittal, additional requirements may be needed. SC -12/99 Project No. DR 99-~4 Completion Date M. Grading 1. Grading of the subject property sha~i be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City I Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to I perform such work. 3. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of application for grading plan check. 4. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: N. Dedication and Vehicular Access 1. Corner property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards. I 2. Vehicular access rights shall be dedicated to the City for the following streets, except for i approved openings: Buffalo Avenue & 6t~ Street. (See Special Condition #1) 3. Reciprocal access easements shall be provided ensuring access to all parcels by CC&Rs or I by deeds and shall be recorded concurrently with the map or prior to the issuance of building permits, where no map is involved. 4. Easements for public sidewalks and/or street trees placed outside the public right-of-way shall I be dedicated to the City. O. Street Improvements 1. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: I Curb & A.C. Side- Drive Street Street Comrn Median Bike Other Gutter Pvmt walk Appr. Lights Tra~i Street Name Trees Trail Island Sixth Street c X X d Buffalo Avenue X X' X Richmond Place X X X X Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement reconstruction and overlays wi~i be determined during plan check. (c) If so marked, sidewalk shall be curvilinear per Standard 114. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu of construction fee shall be provided for this item median ,landscape reimbursement. 2. Imprevement Plans ~nd Cons~*..-.ion: a. Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety / lights on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street SC -12~99 Project No. DR 99-54 Completion Date improvements, prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. b. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shal~ be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any other permits required. c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR, or any other locations approved by the City Engineer. Notes: (1)Pull boxes sha~l 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 :?,-inch (at intersections) or 2-inch (along streets) galvanized steel with pu~l rope or as specified. e. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with __ I__1__ adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. g. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall I I__ 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 / I check. 3. Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in __1 I accordance with the City's street tree program. 4. Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with __1__1__ 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. P. Public Maintenance Areas 1. 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. 2. Parkway landscaping on the following street(s) shall conform to the results of the respective Beautification Master Plan 6~h Street. Q. Utilities 1. Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas, electric power, telephone, and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility Standards. Easements shall be provided as required. 2. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. SC -12199 Project No. DR 99-54 Completion Date 3. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the I I Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from the CCWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. R. General Requirements and Approvals 1. The separate parcels contained within the project boundaries shall be legally combined into ! I one parcel prior to issuance of building permits. 2. An*easemer~t for a joint use driveway shall be provided prior to final map approval or issuance I I of bbilding permits, whichever occurs first, for all joint use driveways. 3. A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated operating costs for I I 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 invoi,,ed. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477- 2730, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: S. General Fire Protection Conditions 1. Mello Roos Community Facilities District requirements shall apply to this project. The / I developer shall commence, participate in, and consummate or cause to be commenced, participated in, or consummated, a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) for the Rancho Cucamonga Fire 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 t,'te final map occurs. 2. Fire flow requirement shall be: 3,000 ~allons per minute, Per '97 UFC Appendix III-A, 3, (b) I / (Increase). -OR - a. A fire flow shall be co~: ?ted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department / personnel prior to waI: , approval. b. For the purpose of fin~, · aptance, an additional fire flow test of the on-site hydrants __ shall be conducted by th~ :-:ilder/developer and witnessed by fire department personnel after construction and prior to occupancy. 3. Fire hydrants are required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed, and operable 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. 4. Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided prior to water plan approval. Required hydrants, if any, will be determined by the Fire District. Fire District standards require a 6- inch riser with a 4-iqch 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. 5. Prior to the issuance of building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be submitted to the Fire District that an approved temporary water supply for fire protection is available, pending completion of the required fire protection system. SC -12/99 Project No. DR 99-54 Completion Date ~:Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for all hydrants and installed prior to final inspection. 7. An automatic fire extinguishing system(s) will be required as noted below: X Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15. X Other: 1997 UBC . Note: Special sprinkler densities ara raquired for such hazardous operations as woodworking, plastics manufacturing, spray painting, flammable liquids storage, high piled stock, etc. Contact the Fire Safety Division to determine if the sprinkler system is adequate for proposed operations. 8. Sprinkler system monitoring shall be installed and operational immediately upon completion of sprinkler system. 9. A fira alarm system(s) shall be raquired as noted below: X Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15. 10. Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District's fira lane standards, as noted: X All roadways per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 32. 11. Fire department access shall be amended to facilitate emergency apparatus. 12. Emergency secondary access shall be provided in accordance with Fira District standards. 13. Emergency access, a minimum of 26 feet wide, shall be provided, and maintained frae and clear of obstructions at all times during construction, in accordance with Fire District requirements. 14. All traes 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. 15. A buitding directory shall be raquirad, as noted below: I~ighted directory within 20 feet of main entrance(s). 16. 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. 17. Gated/restricted entry(s) require installation of a Knox rapid entry key system. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specific details and ordering information. 18. A tenant use letter shall be submitted prior to final building plan approval. Contact the Fira __1 Safety Division for the proper form letter. 19. Fire District fee(s), plus a $1 per "plan page" microfilm fee will be due to the Rancho / ' Cucamonga Fira Protection District as follows: X $677 for New Commercial and industrial Development (per new building).** **Note: Separate plan check fees for Tenant Improvement work, fire protection systems (sprinklers, hood systems, alarms, etc.) and/or any consultant reviews will be assessed upon submittal of plans. 20. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1997 UBC __1__ __ UFC, UPC, UMC, and RCFD Standards 32 and 15 and 1996 NEC. SC -12~99 9 P~oJect NO. DR 99.54 Completion Date APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: T. Security Lighting 1. All parking, common, and storage areas shall have minimum maintained 1-foot candle power. These areas should be lighted from sunset to sunrise and on photo sensored cell. 2. All buildings shall have minimal 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. U. 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 rolling doors shall have slide bolts or some type of secondary locking devices. I 3. All roof openings giving access to the building shall be secured with either iron bars, metal gates, or alarmed. / /__ V. Security Fencing 1. All businesses or residential communities with security fencing and gates will provide the / police with a keypad access and a unique code. The initial code is to be submitted to the Police Crime Prevention Unit along with plans. If this code is changed due to a change in personnel or for any other reason, the new code must be supplied to the Police via the 24- hour dispatch center at (909) 941-1488 or by contacting the Crime Prevention Unit at (909) 477-2800 extension 2474 or 2475. W. Building Numbering 1. Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime visibility. -- --/-- 2. Developer shall paint roof top numbers on one or more roofs of this development. They shall / be a minimum of three feet in length and two feet in width and of contrasting color to background. The stencils for this purpose are on loan at the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department. SC -12199 DATE: January 12, 2000 TO:-' Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Gall Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIE-W COMMII-I'EE APPOINTMENTS BACKGROUND: The Commission normally reviews Design Review Committee membership approximately every six months. It is now time to review Committee membership. Currently Chairman McNiel and Commissioner Stewart serve on the Committee. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission should determine appropriate membership for the Design Review Committee. Respectfully submitted, City Planner BB:GS:gs ~TEM S R A N C H O C U C a M O N G a Memorandum DATE: December 23, 1999 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FRO~I: Brad Buller, City Planner SUBJECT: MINUTES OF PUBLIC WORKS SUBCOMMFI-rEE MEETING DATED DECEMBER 20, 1999 Attached are minutes from the December 20, 1999, Public Works Subcommittee meeting, including its recommendation. Since~ly, City Planner BB:gs December 20, 1999 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PUBLIC WORKS SUBCOMMITTEE MINUTES A. CALL TO ORDER A special meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga Public Works subcommittee was held on Monday, December 20, 1999, in the Tapia Room of the Civic Center, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. The meeting was called to order at 4:37 p.m. Present were Subcommittee members: Mayor Pro Tem Diane Williams and Council Member Paul Blanc. Also present were: Rick Gomez, Community Development Director, William J. O'Neil, City Engineer, Laura Bonaccorsi, Associate Park Planner, Chuck Buquet, Charles Joseph Associates, Rufus Barkley B. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION B1. MINUTES: October 6, 1999 The Subcommittee approved the minutes of October 6, 1999. B2. CONSIDERATION OF 1-15 FREEWAY LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS The City Engineer gave the presentation referring to the staff report dated December 20, 1999, regarding the City's Planning Commission policy on freeway landscaping for the 1-15 Freeway. The Subcommittee in reviewing the staff report noted the policy as approved by the Planning Commission was an excellent one in light of the time it was adopted in 1987. At this time there were considerable dollars available for landscaping projects as well as maintenance. The passage of Proposition 218 has changed the City's perspective on landscaping projects. The Subcommittee noted any landscape treatment other than that meeting Caltran's standards would require a 20-year maintenance period. The cost of' this maintenance period is exorbitant and would be a definite hindrance in development of property adjacent to the freeway. In addition, the City would not be able to afford the cost of landscape maintenance which would be substantial. In lieu of the realities of today's marketplace, the Subcommittee notes the most important element lacking are regarding this issue is that ora master plan design. The Subcommittee recommends: · Public Works Subcommittee Minutes December 20, 1999 Page 2 · The City Council appropriate, as early as possible, funds to complete a master plan design for the I-15 Corridor in accordance with Caltrans' basic landscape design concepts. · Once the master plan has been p~epared all new development adjacent to the freeway will be conditioned to install the landscaping as approved in the master plan. · ' Development occurring prior to completion of the master plan shall pay a $1.00 a square foot of landscaped area towards the design, overhead and installation of landscape as determined by the master plan. The Sub-Committee notes that the recommended landscaping will meet the basic Caltrans' standards and will provide a scenic corridor along the 1-15 Freeway. The Sub-Committee also noted in the design master plan special treatment should be applied at specific nodes, for example: Foothill Boulevard and I-15. It will be the requirement of development adjacent to these nodes to install an upgraded landscaping and pay for future maintenance costs. In addition, the Sub-Committee instructed staffto be aggressive and work with Caltrans towards obtaining grants that will enhance this corridor. It is hoped partnerships between the City and Caltrans and where possible the development community can provide an aesthetic treatment along the 1-15 Corridor which will surely be better than the conditions as they are today. The SubZCommittee requested the Planning Commission revise their policy in accordance with the Sub-Committees recommendation, and this policy be forwarded to the City Council for full City Council approval. There will be no more issues to come before the Sub-Committee. C. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING D. COMMUNICATION FROM THE PUBLIC None. Public Works Subcommittee Minutes December 20, 1999 Page 3 E. ADJOURNMENT The Public Works Subcommittee meeting adjourned at 5:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, William J. O'Neil City Engineer Approved: THE cITY OF ~ANCI4O CUCAHONGA Staff Report DATE: December 22, 1999 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Laura J. Bonaccorsi, Associate Park Planner SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF 1-15 FREEWAY LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS PURPOSE: The purpose of this report is to identify i~sues and concerns with the current policy requiring freeway landscaping along the 1-15 corridor. .BACKGROUND: GENERAL: in 1987 the Planning Commission passed a resolution (attached) establishing a policy requiring all development adjacent to the 1-15 Freeway to either landscape and irrigate freeway right-of-way adjoining their site, or pay an in-lieu fee. The policy was implemented to ensure that landscaping along the corridor would surpass Caltrans' basic level of landscaping for erosion control only and be consistent with the substantial upscale landscaping required throughout the rest of the City. Ideally, the intent was to establish a freeway landscape perimeter to screen objectionable views, mitigate noise, and in general provide an attractive buffer/edge. SUES The C ty currently does not have a freeway andscape master plan. To avoid IS · ! - ~ · ..... .~-,- ,,~,,-omeal insta lations by development the City is collecting an in- incons sten[ aeslgn~ a.u~u. 1-,.~'-'-. lieu fee of $2.00/sf for the freeway landscaping. The development community has expressed frustration with the resolution requirements and has requested that the fee be eliminated. Tied to the collection of these funds is the City's statutory obligation to expend them in a reasonable time frame (SB 1693). Caltrans will only accept upgraded landscaping for maintenance after the installing party has maintained it for 20 years. The development community views this as an unreasonable burden on top of the cost for the upgraded landscaping. Upgraded landscaping installed by the City with in-lieu fees would also be subject to this requirement. Additionally, the City would also have to take over maintenance of any areas abandoned by development for the remainder of the maintenance period. As they currently exist, the City's Landscape Maintenance Districts (LMDs) would have difficulty absorbing the additional cost for any freeway maintenance. PUBLIC WORKS SUBCOMMI'n'EE STAFF REPORT 1-15 FREEWAY LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS December 22, 1999 Page 2 ANALYSIS: CALTRANS LANDSCAPING: If Caltrans were to landscape the freeway (although no funds are b~dgeted for the near future), they would be compelled to provide landscaping based upon the maximum funding allocated by the state. The amount of $.62/sf, provides for basic landscape installation and one year of maintenance, and $.78/sf provides for three years of maintenance. The state figures would also typically be applied to larger scale projects, (12 acres and over) where an economy of scale could be realized. According to the Caltrans District 8 Landscape Architecture Design Section, the majodty of this cost goes to irrigation, with the planting limited to one gallon or smaller size materials. None of the cost covers Caltrans project design, construction administration or overhead. The development community has argued that they would like to use these figures for their estimates and designs, as Caltrans would immediately accept maintenance of facilities designed within their financial parameters. LANDSCAPING INSTALLED BY PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT: In comparison, the City of Rancho Cucamonga is a community known for its high design standards. Both City and development projects alike are required to provide larger size plant materials and sometimes accent rockwork or art. When applied to the freeway right-of-way, these design elements carry a higher pdce tag and the 20-year maintenance pedod. The landscaping at the Jurupa exit in Ontado is a good example of this. Caltrans has stated that special maintenance elements, such as art, decorative fencing, or palm trees, would not be accepted by Caltrans in the future, and thus permanent maintenance of such amenities would need to be addressed. Only one project, Auto Nation, has installed a Caltrans landscape along 1-15, at the Fourth Street on/off ramp. This area was isolated from the main portion the freeway right-of-way and adjacent to a City gateway monument. The developer was required to install landscaping instead of paying the in-lieu fee THE IN-LIEU FEE: In the absence of any freeway design concept and specific project, the City has been collecting an in-lieu of construction fee for the landscaping. While this relieves developers of the landscape design, installation and subsequent 20 years of maintenance, it burdens both the City and developer with requiring a minimum fee of $2.00/sf.* to provide: 1, Master plan 2. Construction plans, specifications and cost estimates 3. Construction administration *The $2.00 per square foot was considered a Iow to medium estimate for installation alone, based upon input from three major landscape amhitectural firms and City capital project bids. The current fee for freeway landscaping may actually fall short of what will be needed to construct the ultimate design. Since the resolution was passed in 1987, in-lieu fees have been collected from five projects and several others are in varying stages of processing (project/location map attached). PUBLIC WORKS SUBCOMMI'CI'EE STAFF REPORT 1-15 FREEWAY LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS December 22, 1999 Page 3 SUMMARY/RECOMMENDATION: . The City needs to decide if freeway landscaping is still desired. If so, then the City needs to decide if should help facilitate the landscaping, and how much money could be applied towards design, installation, and maintenance. The amount of funding will then determine who is installing the landscaping and maintaining it. The City's options, from least expensive to most expensive, are as follows: A. Work with Caltrans bud.qetin.q to have landscapinq proqrammed for our area Given the ramifications of Proposition 218, the City may wish to rethink absorbing any freeway maintenance if Caltrans would consider budgeting landscaping of the 1-15 corridor. The results would be modest, "basic Caltrans landscaping", uniformly applied on a large scale, with all maintenance performed by Caltrans. Developer in-lieu fees would not be required. A variation of this concept would be to rely on Caltrans and development for the majodty of modest "basic Caltrans landscaping" to be installed, but utilize available grants for the design and construction to enhance specific highly visible area at interchanges. However, ongoing maintenance costs may fall upon the City to cover upgraded improvements. B. Have the developers install landscapinq as projects come in. This would produce patchwork installations of upgraded landscaping, and may require infill installation of landscaping by either the City or Caltrans to be visually cohesive and effective. The development community would incur increased installation/maintenance costs of the upgraded landscaping, along with a long-term maintenance agreement. The City would likely have increased maintenance costs as developments occasionally default. C. Have the City install landscaping. This would continue City collection of fees and absorption of design, construction, administrative costs and 20 years of maintenance. The fees would be driven by a current cost estimate based upon an approved master plan. Construction would have to cover broad areas to be visually effective, and so the project(s) would require substantial capital outlay by the City, since few development projects will have paid fees. Alternative funding sources such as grants would need to be targeted and secured. The use of City funds would likely pre-empt or impact other City projects. Freeway maintenance would have to be provided through LMDs. The legal issues of determining the benefit dedved from the landscaping - local/special benef"r[ vs. regional/general benefit would be a political nightmare. Proposition 218 would tdgger elections if the districts adjacent to the freeway were asked to absorb the substantial extensive landscaping. To distribute the costs City-wide might require a new distdct or elections across the board in all existing districts. The City's legal counsel would have to study the issues and provide additional information, but the end result will be higher taxes, if the City was successful in getting resident approval. The results of City-installed landscaping would be an upgraded freeway landscape, uniformly applied on a large scale. The political and financial ramifications however, make this the most difficult method to accemplish freeway landscaping. PUBLIC WORKS SUBCOMMITTEE STAFF REPORT 1-15 FREEWAY LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS December 22, 1999 Page 4 Should it be determined that City-facilitated landscaping is desired, staff recommends that a consultant be used to develop a freeway beautification master plan, perhaps funded with Beautification Funds. If the City chooses not to pursue landscaping any longer, then the Planning Commission would need to take appropriate action to rescind the resolution and refund the collected fees. Respectfully submitted, c~ William J. O'Neil City Engineer W JO:LB Enclosures RESOLUTION NO. 87-185 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ?. RANCHO CUCAMONGA ESTABLISHING A POLICY REQUIRING : LANDSCAPING OF FREEWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY· ~:~ WHEREAS, tile Planning Con~nJsston finds it desirable to landscape tile · . 1-15 (Devore) Freeway right-of-way because of its significance as a regional :.. transportation corridor through the City of Rancho Cucamonga; and '-' WHEREAS, the Planning Co~nmtssion finds this resolution necessary to give property owners and developers notice of this policy. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of tile City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby declare their policy to be: 1. That all new development adjacent to the 1-15 (Devote) Freeway shall be required to landscape and irrigate the freeway right-of-way adjoining their development site. 2. That the landscaping and irrigation shall be in conformance wi th Caltrans Master Planting Plan ~. through the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 3. That the new development and tile landscaped portion of tile 1-15 Freeway shall be annexed to an existing : Landscape Maintenance District or a new Landscape i Maintenance District shal.l' be formed affecting the same properties. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS I~thDAY OF October , 1987. PLANNING CQ~MISSION OF TIlE CITY OF RANCXO CUCAMONGA "ATTEST:" · /Drad'i)DKleP~-i~e~uty SecP~ ' I,' Brad~Buller! Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of tile 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 Col~m~ission held on the lqth. day of OCTODEE , 1987, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMM[SSIONERS: TOLSTOY, CHITIEA, OLAKESLEY, E)tE~ICK, ~CIIIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NOtiE NUMBER COLLECTED (D DR 88-07 $6,700.69 (~) DR 87-55 $69.654.00 (~) DR 88-32 $12.294.10 (~ CUP 88*37 $12,608.05 ~) DR 97-02 $34,911.52 (~) TR 15911 (~) mR 15912 ~) 'IT 15711 (~) CUP 99-55 (~) CUP 97-42 (~) DR 99-70 ~) CUP 99-35 II ~ PM15012 ~ In conditioning process [3 projects) j') ~, [] Conditioned to provide landscape or pay in-lieu fee (4 projects) ~ tJ [] Fees collected (5 projects) [~ Freewaylandscape installed (1 project)