The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1997/08/13 - Agenda PacketCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA WEDNESDAY AUGUST 13, 1997 Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center Council Chamber 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California I. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call Chairman Barker Commissioner Bethel__ Vice Chairman McNiel Commissioner Macias __ Commissioner Tolstoy __ 7:00 PM II. ANNOUNCEMENTS III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES July 9, 1997 July 9, 1997, Adjourned July 23, 1997 July 23, 1997 Adjourned 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. Ao DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-07 - DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC HOMES LTD. - The design review of detailed site plans and elevations for 61 single family lots on 38.92 acres approved with Vesting Tentative Tract 13851. The project is located in the Very Low Residential Distdct (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), and is located east of the existing Deer Creek community, west of the Deer Creek Channel, and north of Wilson Avenue. APN:. 1074-571-01 through 31 and 1074-581-01 through 31. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS The following items are public headngs in which concerned individuals may voice their opinion of the related project. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman end 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. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 93-13 (MODIFICATION) - E&R RANCHO PACIFIC. INC. - A request to expand an existing storage facility by providing an additional 46,683 square foot building on 1.78 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 5) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the east side of Hermosa Avenue, south of 8th Street -APN: 209-211-10. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Related file: Variance 97-O2. VARIANCE 97-02 - E&R RANCHO PACIFIC, INC. - A request to reduce the required building setback from residential areas from 45 feet to 0 feet for the expansion of an existing storage facility in the General Industrial District (Subarea 5) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the east side of Hermosa Avenue, south of 8th Street -APN: 209-211-10. Related file: Conditional Use Permit 93-13. Do ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 15016 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO. -A subdivision of 3.9 acres of land into two parcels in the Terra Vista Promenade shopping center, located at the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue - APN: 227-151-39. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. VI. PUBLIC COMMENTS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Commission. Items to be discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda. Page 2 VII. COMMISSION BUSINESS E. FOOTHILL BOULEVARD ACTIVITY CENTERS F. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS G. SIGNS/MULTI-FAMILY TASK FORCE UPDATE (Oral Report) H. FOOTHILL BOULEVARD/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TASK FORCE UPDATE (Oral Report) VIII. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11:00 p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission. I, 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 August 7, 1997, at least 72 hours prYor to the meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. VICINITY MAP ~ ~':'2-:':,i':.:.: .......... : ........ 2.:.2.2. - .'.'.'.'..'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'2':-' .........' · · ·,' · ':'2- '2-2'2'2' ':'2'2.2 .....'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.-2' -2- - ':.2 .......2'i ....'.'.'.'.'.'."'.2' '2'."1'2 · .... 2..2 ........ :.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.','.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'2'2.:-2'.':':'2':'2'"2-2 ......: ..........:' · -2'2".'.'.'.'-'-'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'-'-'.'.'.'.'.':':':': ..........:':' -2-2'2".'.'.'.'.'-'.'.'.'" ':': ........:' · · I ",'.'.'.'.'.'-'-' ....... - ..... 2'2 ....'"'"'- '."'-'-','.'-'.'.'.'.'.',',',','-'.' I"'" c,,,,~ r.:.:.:.:.............-...-.-...........-...:,, .,-,,, '~ ....:..:.:.:.:.-.-.-..........I..:.:.-, · I'. ...... l';';-:';';':.:,;,;-;.'.'-',' '" ' ' '.','.'. .....2';':':':'2'2-2'. m'.'.'.'.~ '. · I /-:-:-:..:.l.i ~ ~:,,i, ~~iiiI ~ ~ II l T? o --: ...... CITY HALL CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DERBISH, GUERRA & ASSOCIATES CIVIL ENGINEERS 8331 UTICA AVENUE, SUITE 150 · RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA 91730 (909) 987-4306 · FAX (909) 941.1528 August 4, 1997 City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729 Re: Tract 13851/D97-07 Att: Cindy Norris Associate Planner Dear Cindy: As you are aware the above noted Design Review for the existing recorded Vested Tract Map is coming in front of the Planning Commission for review and action on August 13. We have been working with staff relative to grading and drainage issues pursuant to current City policy, and have successfully resolved all but one (1) remaining element. The existing development has been rough graded, and the majority of public storm drain systems, water facilities and curbs have been installed. The existing approved Rough Grading Plan calls for conditions which, in cases where multiple lot cross lot drainage is proposed, designates installation of a 12" PVC storm drain system, and in cases where single cross lot drainage is proposed, designates earthen graded swales for conveyance of flows. Planning Commission Resolution No. 92-17 adopted in January, 1992 (which was not in effect at the time of recordation of the Vesting Tract Map or issuance of the Rough Grading Permit in early 1990) has since not only discouraged the utilization of multiple lot cross lot drainage conditions, but recommends the use of either concrete/rock lined swales or reinforced concrete p!pe in those cases where they exist. The issue of allowing multiple lot cross lot drainage is one which is no longer practical to modify, since the site has been physically graded and improvements installed which preclude the ability to reasonably modify the situation. The issue at hand is the requirement to install improvements in accordance with Planning Commission Resolution No. 92-17. The requirement to install reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) in lieu of the previously approved graded earthen swale is the condition which seems to be the most overburdening. The reinforced concrete pipe is a "Special Order" item, and is extremely expensive to purchase and install. An Page 1 of 2 City of Rancho Cucamonga Tract 13851/D97-07 August 4, 1997 Page 2 of 2 acceptable alternate pursuant to Resolution 92-17 is a concrete/rock lined swale, which is more economical but unfortunately seems to be susceptible to being covered over and/or blocked by private homeowners similar to earthen swales and has the potential of becoming a liability. We have proposed with this project installation of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe as the alternate in light of the other options identified. Installation of PVC pipe in the proposed condition will yield far superior overall protection then either a graded earthen or concrete/rock lined swale, and will provide significant cost economy when compared to RCP, while still yielding a comparable level of protection. It should be noted that potential deterrents which might preclude its use, including adverse chemical exposure and long term deflection do not or exist in this case, and backfilling with either sand or select native material can readily rectify the rocky soil conditions. In closing, we wish to request the Planning Commission approve the use of polyvinyl chloride pipe in lieu of other less desirable options on this project, and feel the unique circumstances associated with this development warrant the request. Yours very truly, Daniel E. Guerra DERBISH, GUERRA & ASSOCIATES DEG:hb cc: Andrew Wright - Diversified Pacific Homes, Ltd. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: August 13, 1997 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Cindy Nords, AICP, Associate Planner DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-07- DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC HOMES LTD. - The design review of detailed site plans and elevations for 61 single family lots on 38.92 acres approved with Vesting Tentative Tract 13851. The project is located in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), and is located east of the existing Deer Creek community, west of the Deer Creek Channel, and north of Wilson Avenue - APN: 1074-571-01 through 31 and 1074-581-01 through 31. SITE DESCRIPTION: The project site is generally vacant with an average slope of 8.2 percent. The final map was recorded and most of the curb and gutter has been built, streets and trails have been rough graded, and some storm drain improvements have been installed. Front loaded trails were approved for this tract (Variance 88-24) similar in concept to those in the Deer Creek development to the west. An existing slump stone wall was constructed along the south boundary of the project at Wilson Avenue and will remain. ANALYSIS: Background: Vesting Tentative Tract 13851 was approved by the Planning Commission on October 12, 1988. That approval included both the tract and design review for 61 homes. The project was approved prior to adoption of the City's Hillside Development Ordinance. Based on this approval, the project could be built as previously approved; however, the applicant is proposing a revised housing product and a revised grading concept. General: The revised project is subject to the requirements of the Hillside Development Ordinance and as such was designed to minimize the amount of grading within pre-existing street, trail, and property line parameters. Unit designs include three to four 12-inch level changes for each floor plan as well as either a standard 6-inch drop or a 48-inch drop for garage splits and a structural system or raised wood framed floors. On cross-slope lots, garages are plotted on the uphill side in order to allow easier access to living areas. Cantilevered balconies are utilized to eliminate the need for support posts on downhill elevations. Floor plans range in size from 3,112 square feet to 4,163 square feet. There are a total of five floor plans, with three elevations each. A total of 39 units have front-on garages and 22 units have side-entry garages. Three and four-car garages are used on various lots and four-car garages are offered as an option on several lots. All two-story elements have been designed with hip roofs to minimize tall gable end walls. The proposed architectural style is Spanish Colonial or Mediterranean and is compatible with the adjacent Deer Creek community. The PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT DR 97-07 - DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC HOMES LTD. August 13, 1997 Page 2 applicant has worked with area residents and the Deer Creek Homeowners Association during the course of their design work and has held several neighborhood meetings both prior to and after formal submittal to the City. In addition, the applicant is proposing a landscape/wall design concept which provides homeowners with a cost allowance and minimum installation requirements. While the walls will be constructed pdor to occupancy, homeowners will be given six months in which to have their own landscaping installed. If the homeowner decides not to take the allowance or has not complied after six months, Diversified Pacific Homes Ltd. will install standard landscaping. The attached letters from the applicant explain this concept further, see Exhibit "H". Design Review Committee: The Design Review Committee (Bethel, Macias, Coleman) reviewed the project on July 15, 1997, and recommended approval subject to the following: The rear elevation for the side-rear entry garage for elevations 300A and B shall have an additional window treatment added. Grading Committee: The Grading Committee reviewed the project on July 15, 1997, and recommended approval subject to the following: That the under drain provided generally at the rear of the properties backing up to Deer Creek channel be a reinforced concrete pipe rather than PVC. That on Lot 46, the wall located along the front setback be placed at the top of the slope rather than at the bottom as currently shown on the Landscape Plan. Environmental Assessment: A Negative Declaration was previously certified for this project on October 12, 1988. Environmental conditions, with the exception of grading, have not significantly changed on the site since that time. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve Development Review 97-07 through adoption of the attached Resolution. City Planner Attachments: Exhibit "A" Exhibit "B" Exhibit "C" Exhibit "D" Exhibit "E" Exhibit "F" Exhibit "G" Exhibit "H" Exhibit "1" Resolution of Approval Detailed Site Plan Equestdan Oveday Grading Plan Landscape Plan Floor Plan and Elevations Four-Car Garage Option Elevations Building Height Envelopes Landscape and Wall Concept Letters Design Review Committee Minutes dated July 15, 1997 · PHASE-I ,I DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC 10390 Commerce Center Drive, Suite 200 Roncho Cucomongo, Colifomio 91730 (909) 481-1150 I-IigNands at Deer Creek Tract No. 13851 Rancho Cueamonga, Ca. Detailed Site Plan - 1 .j. , , ,'I PHASE-Ill L · . ~ ,. . ·. · , 1,.~,~,~,~... 3 ~' ~ --'"'t--'~l~l-t ....... -----'" ,,. F I ', ~ , ,. ,,~ , ,, ~ j PHASE-Ill ,..~ ---~'~ [~ .. '. ...,. .',.~, ,'//~' , ., / -' ,. . , ~' ~.:~ DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC 10390 Commerce Center Brlve, Suite 200 Roncho Cucomongo, Collfornio 91730 (gOql 481-1150 HigNands at Deer Creek Tract No. 13851 Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. Detailed Site Plan- 2 DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC 10390 Commerce Center DHve, Suite 200 Roncho Cucomongo, Colifornio 91730 (9O9) 481-1150 Highlands at Deer Creek Tract No. 13851 Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. Tabulation 2 I 2 I TOTAL q Detailed Site Plan- 3 1007 DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC t0390 Commerce Center Drive, Suite 20{) Roncho Cucumongo, Colifomlo 9t730 (909) 48t-1150 Highlands at Deer Creek Tract No. 13851 Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. Equestrian Overlay- 1 PIlE1 I PillIll, Ill 4 DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC 10390 Commerce Center Drive, Suite 200 Roncho Cucomon0o, California 91730 (909) 481-t 150 Highlands at Deer Creek TracL No. 13851 Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. EquesLrian Overlay 4 'tl i , I DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC 10390 Commerce Center Drive, Suite 200 Rancho Cucamongo. California 91730 long) 481-11~0 Highlands at Deer Creek Tract No. 13851 Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. Equestrian Overlay- 3 6 t-IiKhlands a Deer Creek Tract No. 13851 Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. Conceptual Grading DETAIL SHEET Plan DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC 10390 Commerce Center Drive, Suite 200 Roncho Cucomongo. Coiiforn~o 917,)0 (909) 461-1150 DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC 10..I,90 Co~nmerce Cente~' DHve. $u;le 200 Rancho Cucomong~, Colilorn~o 91730 (cog) 4et-~50 Conceptual Grading Plan- 1 L_l//.:,..- ....,,-,.,..,,.,, : I: I ,~:;~', High/ands at Deer Creek Tract No. 13851 Rancho Cucsmonga, Ca. DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC 10390 Commerce Center Drive, Suite 200 Roncho Cucomon~o, Calilornio 9t730 (909) 481- I1,~0 ConcepLual Grading Plan-2 ~ll/ .......'-.", ........... Highlands at Deer Creek Tract No. 13851 Rancho Cucomonga, Ca. DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC (909) Conceptual Grading Plan-3 Highlands at Deer Creek Tract No. 13851 Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. l0 DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC 10390 Commerce Cente~ O~riv~, S~l(e ZOO Ri~:ho Cuclm~m~l, CilfO.lll 91730 (909) 481-1150 § 12 Highlands at Deer Creek Tract No. 13851 l~ancho Cucamonga, Ca. Conceptual Landscape Site Plan - 1 ii ~J ~~_~_~__1__7~_--?--} .... ~ ~ F~ ands at Deer Creek Tract No. 13851 Rancho Cuca~onga, Ca. Conceptual Landscape Site Plan - 2 1.... T t \- DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC 10390 Comm~ce Cent.~ ~, Suite ZOO Rancho Cucamonga. Callrolla 91 ?30 (909) 48t-1150 / / Highlands at Deer Creek Tract No. 13851 l~ancho Cucamon§a, Ca. F43R PLANT ANI~I FEATURE LEGEND. SEE CONCEI~UA L LANDSCAPE ~[E rLAN - I, Conceptual Landscape Site Plan - 3 13 HILLSIDE ROAD F2qTRY EL~'AT~ON HIGH MEADOW PLAC]~ ENTRY ELEVATION DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC 10390 Commerce Center O~ve, Suite 200 Rencho Cucomongo, Colifomio 91730 (0~ 4111-11,50 Conceptual Entry Monument Elevations H~gh~a~d~ a~ ~eex C~eek Tract No. 13851 Rancho Cuc~r~ong~, C~. 14 HILLSIDE ROAD ENTRY PLAN WII,..~)N & I IIGII MEAI'JOW ENTRY PLAN DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC 10390 Commerce Center Drive, Suite 200 Rancho Cucomonga, Californio 91730 (~0~) 461-1150 Conceptual Entry l~onument Plan ]gnlargernen(~ H~gh~a~ds at Dee~ Cree~ Tract No. Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. Plant Palette (~ Feature Legend: DIVERGIFIED PACIFIC 10390 Commm'ce C~nter Drive, Suite 200 Rancho Cucame~a. Califo~r~a 91730 (909) 481-1150 Highlands at Deer ~reek Tract No. 13851 Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. ~'Plan 1 O0 First Floor 1770 sq. ft. Second Floor 1513 sq. ft. ~.To[al 32§3 sq. ft. 3 Bdrm-Study-3 Bath Option: 4 Bdrm-3 Bath First Floor Option I MBr Second Floor ,I DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC 10390 Commerce Center Drive, Suite 200 Roncho Cucomongo, Colifomio 91750 (go~) ~-~o Highlands at Deer Creek Tract No. 13851 Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 16 ~Plan 150 First Floor Second Floor Total 1770 sq. fL. 1798 sq. ft. 3568 sq. fL. 4 Bdrm-Study-3 Bath Option: 5 Bd'rm-3 Bath Option I First Floor MBr Second Floor ~'~ B3 B4 DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC 10390 Commerce Center DHve, Suite 200 Rancho Cucamonga, Callfomla 91730 (9nql 481-1150 Highlands at Deer Creek Track No. 13851 Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 100 B DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC 10390 Commerce Center Drive, Suite 200 R(3ncho Cucomong(3, Colifomio 91730 · (909) 100 A 100C Tract No. 13851 ........... Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. Right side elevation Concrete Roofing Tile Pluter Fucit with Cod~ls Aluminum Windows with Whttc Frames Piaster Bullnose T~im Wrought Irm~ Gunrdrail at Balcony Plaster Cotbcl Metal Chimney Cap /// = __ __ -- ~-- GIt~l Block ' 30 -0 B · "uildinl Envel ,- - .......... / .................... ~.'r~. Left side elevation DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC 10390 Commerce Center DHve, Suite 200 Roncho Cucomongo, Colifomio 91730 (909) 481-1150 Highlands at Deer Creek Trac~ No. 13851 Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. IDmlco~y WrouKht Im Oue'dnfil it ~ . .~~ff Plut~ Co~I iRemate b~lcony Left side elevation DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC 10,390 Commerce Center Drive, Suite 200 Rancho Cucamonga. California 91730 (909) 4.81-I 150 High/ands a i Deer Creek Tract No. 13851 l~ancho Cucamonga, Ca. Plan 200 First Floor 3134 sq. ft. Second Floor $§8 sq. ft. Total 3§22 sq. ft. 4 Bdrm-Study-Bonus Rm.-4 1/.2. Bath Options: 5 Bdrm-Study-LoftT4 1/.2 Bath 6 Bdrm-Study-4 1/2 Baths First Floor G DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC 10390 Commerce Center Drive, Suite 200 Rancho Cocomango. California 917.30 (9o~) ~l-llSO Highlan ds a t Deer Tract No. 13/351 Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. Second Floor ~ 0ption_l $ Option_2 Creek .Deer Creek ,~?,:'-.~.t '. l!-.,~-..~l~_:7~ii,-i~_' ,~ ..... 200 A 200 B , DIVERSIFIED PAGIFIC 10390 Commerce Cartier Drive. Suite 200 Rancho Cucamongo. California 9t730 (~09) 48~-~50 TracL No. 13851 Rancho Cucamonga, - W~m~ht Iro~ Oum'dt~il .I B.lcony ' _~.~~ Right side elevation Rear elevation ~ / / Aluminum Windows wilh While I:r~nms /'/ "~: ~~- q ~ ~ ~ P~-C~t Concre~T~m I Left side elevation DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC 10390 Commerce Center Drive, Suite 200 Rancho Cucamonga, California g1730 · 481-1150 Highlands a t~ Deer Creek Trae~ No. 13851 Rancho Cucgmonga, Ca. 22 Plan 250 3 Bdrm-Study-3 1/2 Bath 3112 sq. ft. Option: 4 Bdrm-3 1/2 Bath G Option 1 DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC 10390 Commerce Center Drive, Suite 200 Rancho Cucamongo, California 91730 (~0'~) 4a1-1150 Highlands at Deer Creek Tract No. 13851 Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. ~H~hlao~ds at ~ .... 250 A 250 B DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC 10390 Commerce Center DHve, Suite 200 Roncho Cucomongo. Colifomio 91750 (~)09) 481-11S0 ~l:./, F~I~ !i','~'--!--'--'--'l ==~~ ' - 250C Tract No. 1 Rancho Cueamong:a, Ca. ~"..= : Plan 250A Exterior Elevations Pre-Casl Concrele THIn Concrcle Roofin8 Tile Left side elevation DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC 10.]90 Commerce Center Drive, Suite 200 Roncho Cucomongn, Colifomio 91750 (909) 481-~ 150 Highlands at Deer Creek Tract No. 13851 Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. ~Plan 300 ~First Floor Second Floor Total 0 .Bdrm-.Stu. d.y-Bo.n..s Rm.-4 1/2. Bath ptions: 4 uarm-Study-Loftr4 1/2 Bath 2166 sq. ft. 5 Bdrm-Stud}'-4 1/2 Baths J o o [~-'~r' _ B3 "'I 1 I : DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC 10390 Commerce Center Drive, Suite 200 Roncho Cucomong(3, Col|fomia 91730 First Floor Highlan ds Tract Rancho No. Cucamonga, , ~!a,,-'~ ~ ption Deer Creek 13851 Ca. 3 Optibn' 1~ ! Option May If/, 1~7 ~~Dl~u~ds at D e e~ Creek 300 B DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC 300 A 300 C Trac~ No. 13851 I .................. Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. '--",.,r,~ .-.,:,=,: 27 10390 Commerce Center Drive, Suite 200 Roncho Cucomongn. Colilomio 91730 (909) ~81-U50 /~ Coocr~te Roofing Tile Plan qnn~ / ~----..,~F..,.i.c.~, Exterior ~ ..... f~.~ ;-- Elevations . r~.,~c~ ~terna~ b~cony Right side elevation Concrete Roofing Tile Rear elevation Left side elevation DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC 10390 Commerce Center Drive. Suite 200 Roncho Cucemongo. Coilferule 91730 (90~) 4~-~ ~50 Hif hlan ds at Deer Creek Tract No. 13851 Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 28 100 Front Entry 4-Car Garage Option 2OO 'A' Front Entry 4-Car Garage Option 100 "B' Front Entry 4-Car Garage Option 200 Front Entry 4-Car Garage Option ZOO Side Front Entry Garage DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC 10390 Commerce Center Drive. Suite 200 Rancho Cucamonga, Califomla 91730 (909,) 481-1150 2O0 '!~ Side Reer Enh'y Garage Garage OpLions Highlands at Deer Creek o ,. Tract No. 13851 Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. -'",=~ 2~0 '*' Fro~t Entr~ 4-Car ~ara~e OpUon 300 "A" Side Front Entry Garcia 300 "B' Side Rear Entr7 Gitage 300 Side Front Entry 300 Side Front Entry 4-Car ~arege Option 300 "~" ~ Side Rear Entry 4-Ctr (l~ra~e Option DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC 10390 Commerce Center Drive, Suite 200 Rancho Cucamongo. California 91730 30O 'C' Front Entr? 4-Car Garale OpUon I-ll Highlands at Deer Creek o ,. Tract No. 1:3851 Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. -"'"" Garage Options- 2 ' :" :"~,~T.=:::::~' :' :"',30 ~ gi~'VA?/ON LOT-! ~ ]gI~VATION LOT-I l i t DOWNHILL ~gc~lON LOT-9 / LOT-25 LOT-10 EOT-39 DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC 10,390 Commerce Center Drive, Suite 200 Rancho Cucamonqa. California 91730 (909) 481-1150 ~ IIJ'YATION LOT-40 Highlands at Deer Creek Tract No. 13851 Rancho Cueamonga, Ca. Building Height Envelopes- 1 I] I -' [ t .,'t 'J l J~'.,'. t ~'~, ' I t : I = I 'l LOT-41 S'TRn'r [~IVATION LOT-50 LO?-§~ ~ BLIV&"FION LOT's§4 DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC 10390 Commerce Center Drive, Suite 200 Roncho Cucomongo, Colifomio 917.30 fo,~.) 481-1150 Highlands at Deer Creek Trac~ No. 13851 l~ancho Cucamonga, Ca. Building Height. Envelopes- 2 II 'ARCHITERRA DESIGN GROUP LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE SITE PLANNING June 23,1997 The Highlands at Deer Creek Front Yard Landscape Development Concept Statement Diversified Pacific Homes Ltd. will install front and side yard landscaping with ~utomatic irrigation system adjacent to street. 30% of the trees shown on the concept plan will be installed as 24" box size, the remainder of the trees will be 15 gallon size. 30% of the shrubs will be installed at 15 gallon size, and the remainder of shrubs will be installed at five and one gallon size. Turf areas will be hydroseeded with a dwarf fescue turf mixture. The homeowner's will be given the option of having the developer's con- tractor install the landscape and irrigation system as designed by the devel- opers landscape architect immediately, or having the developer's contractor install an upgraded custom landscaping and irrigation system within a six month time period. If the homeowner chooses the custom design option, they will receive a credit equal to the cost of the production front yard improvements to be applied towards the cost of the upgraded front yard improvements. The design proposed by the homeowner must be an up- grade to the developers package, and must be reviewed and approved by the H.O.A. design review committee, the developers landscape architect, and city agencies if applicable. Starting on the date of occupancy, the homeowner will be given a six month period for installing the upgraded landscape. If the homeowner does not complete the landscaping, within the six month time frame, the original approved front yard landscaping and irrigation will be installed by the developer. To insure the completion of the improvements by the home- owner, Diversified Pacific Homes will post a completion/performance bond payable to the City of Rancho Cucamonga equal to the cost of the developer provided front yard improvements. 10630 Town Center Drive Suite 128 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 'q09) 484-2800 (~09) 484-2802 Fitchard W. Krumwiece AZ L~c. #29115 NV L~c. #446 ARCHITERRA DEZ51~i~B,~ (~t :/OUP LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE SITE PLANNING June 26,1997 The Highlands at Deer Creek Individual Lot Wall & Fence Concept Statement Diversified Pacific Homes Ltd. will provide walls and fences for each indi- vidual lot within the Highlands at Deer Creek development as illustrated on the attached exhibits. The exhibits indicate two typically occurring condi- t-ions within the tract. A typical perimeter lot layout plan. A typical interior/comer lot layout plan. Wall/fence conditions are noted on each by a different symbol with associ- ated text describing the concepts/conditions. Several upgrades will be offered to the homeowners by the developer at the time of home purchase at an additional cost. These upgrades are indicated on the exhibits and relate to sideyard fencing, drainage cutoff walls and access gates. The typical walls and fences, along with any homeowner upgrades will be installed by Diversified Pacific Homes Ltd. prior to the issuance of occu- pancy permits by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 10630 Town Center Drive Suite 128 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 (909) 484-2800 Fax (909) 484-2802 Richard ~V. Krumwiede CA Lic. #~8,~4 AZ Lic, #29115 ~ NV Lic. #448 ~ '~11~ '~'NOT!~ q~ere 3' high drainage cut-off walls are requireu .., cross-lot drainage situations, a 2' hi§h _ , / 5' high slump block wall telurns wood fence will be construcle, d on top of Ihe cut- / between houses 1o be provided _ off walls. At the home buyer s option, a solid 5' / by Developer. ~ high masonry wall will be installed in lieu of the cut-off wall/fence combination at an additional ~o~t. ~ . * / ' '~,, ................ ~ .....~ / Easement 5' high wood inlerior property ~ ~ line fence Io be provided by ~ . , . . Developer. At home buyer's , :. - 6 lugh slump block wall wdh option, an upgrade to a 5' high : ~ . ~ ~ ./ plasler finish to be provided by masonry wall will be offered ~ I I iF ' 1 .'/ Ihe Developer where wall abuls by the developer at an ' ~~, II-~ ~ / I the Equestrian Trail Easement. ~ -- ~ ~ - 6' high slump block pdaslm ....., . .. ~ ,~ [i~_d /. '... --- wall transition conditions ~ ' ~ I ~ I-- ~'; ~ 3 ~ .'." ~ Io be provided by the. , -~ -~ //.. ' ~ 2 // 3 " , . . - ~ i' X.>/~'... ~ wine wooa gate to be provided , ( ~ '.. .' ' ~ ~. Three-rail, City-standard while by Developer. At home buyer's ~ r ~. ~' ' ~ / ~ ~ PVC Equestrian Trail Fence 1o option, an upgrade,lo a 10' wide i~:~ .... ~' "~ :'~ ~ ~ be provided by Developer, on double-swing (2 - 5 gales) gale J~ :~i~ / ~" ~ inside edge of Equeslrial Trail will be offered at an additional '~:'~?~ - ~ ~ Easement cost. I ~ ' TYPICAL INTE~OR/CORNER LOT FENCE & WALL LAYOUT PLAN The Highlands at Deer Creek ~ HUHITE~/UHE SITE '~NOTE: Where 3' high drainage cul-off walls are required in cross-lot drainage silualions, a 2' high wood fence will be construcled on top of Ihe cut- off walls. At the home buyer's option, a solid 5' high masonry wall will be inslalled in lieu of the cut-off wall/fence combination at an additional cost. -~ O O O '5' high wood interior property line fence to be provided by Developer. At home buyer's oplion, an upgrade to a 5' high masonry wall will be offered by the developer at an addilional cost. Three-rail, City-standard white VC Equestrian Trail Fence to e provided by Developer, on side edge of Equestrial Trail Easement. 15' wide Equestrian Trail Easement 6' high slump block wall to be provideel by developer at norlh and east project properly lines/existing 6' high masonry wall at west project property line to remain as-is/existing slump block wall on south property line to be improved by Developer with a plaster finish on exterior side, inlerior side to remain as-is. · Ill TYPICAL PERIMETER LOT FENCE & WALL LAYOUT PLAN Th. Hz hlands at Deer Creek 3' wide wood gale to be provided by Developer. At home boyer's option, an upgrade to a 10' wide double-swing (2 - 5' gates) gate will be offered at an additional cost. 5' high slump block wall returns between houses Io be Provided by Developer. Stepped precision block retaining wall, to be provided by Ihe Developer, per Civil Engineer'sgrading plan. Where visible from street, wall lo be constructed from slump blbck. ARCHITERRA LANDSCAPE A F'"'H ITECTURE S, ' PLANNING DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:00 p.m. Cindy Norris July 15, 1997 DEVEI.OPMENT REVIEW 97-07 - DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC HOMES I.TD. --The design review of detailed site plans and elevations for 61 single family lots on 38.92 act~ approved with VTr 13851. The project is located in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), east of the existing Deer Creek community, west of the Deer Creek Channel, and north of Wilson Avenue. Background: VTT 13851 was originally approved by the Planning Commission on October 12, 1988. By 1990, the lots were recorded and improvements partially completed. Most of the curb and gutter has been built, streets and trails have been rough graded, and some storm drain improvements have been installed. The parcel has an average slope of 8.2% and was originally approved prior to adoption of the City's Hillside Development Ordinance. Front-loaded local trails were approved for this tract, similar in concept to those in the Deer Creek development. Design Parameters: Diversified Pacific is proposing a larger, upgraded housing product including four car garages. The original homes approved ranged in size from 2,675 square feet to 3,232 square feet, whereas, the new homes will range in size from 3,112 square feet to 4,163 square feet. The applicant is proposing a landscape/wall design concept which provides homeowners with a cost allowance and minimum installation requirements. Homeowners will then be given six months in which to have their own landscaping installed, including side yard return walls. If the homeowner opts not to take the allowance or has not complied after six months, Diversified Pacific will install standard landscaping. (The attached letters further explain this concept). fhe project is subject to the requirements of the Hillside Development Ordinance and has generally complied with the intent and regulations. Homes have been plotted in a manner sensitive to the natural contours within pre-existing street, trail, and property line parameters. Unit designs include three to four 12 inch level changes for each floor plan as well as either a standard 6 inch drop or a 48 inch drop for garage splits and a structural system of raised wood framed floors. On cross-slope lots garages are plotted on the uphill side in order to allow easier access to living areas. Cantilevered balconies are utilized to eliminate the need for support posts on downhill elevations. There are a total of five floor plans, with three elevations each.' A total of 39 units have front-on garages and 22 units have side-entry garages. Three and four car garages are used on various lots and four car garages are offered as an option on several more lots. All two-story elements have been designed with hip roofs to minimize tall gable end walls. The proposed.architectural style is Spanish Colonial or Mediterranean and is generally consistent with the adjacent Deer Creek community. The applicant has worked with area residents and the Deer Creek Homeowners Association during the course of their design work and has held several neighborhood meetings both prior to and after formal submittal to the City. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion Minor Issues: 1. Garage style and placement on lot 61. Staff had raised a concern with regard to the use of a four- car side-loaded garage which exposes the rear element of the garage to those entering the tract from Wilson Ave. The applicant has indicated that this lot is intended as a model home and as such will receive an upgraded hardscape and landscape treatment. In addition, the rear facing garage wall will have a window treatment as illustrated on Sheet 29 ( Plan 200B), of the plans pac. kage. DRC COMMENTS DR 97-07 July 15, 1997 Page 2 o Unconventional plotting of lots 8, 17, 46. The homes on these lots, particularly lot 46, have been plotted to minimize lot grading which creates other design challenges. Potential problems may also arise as homeowners install future improvements. To forestall future problems staff recommends the following: Lot 8 should be replotted with the front door and yard facing the cul-de-sac to relate better to the neighborhood. Lot 17 should be replotted with the front door and yard facing the north/south street to relate better to the neighborhood. Lot 46 should be replotted with the front door and yard facing the other street. Altematively, the following measures could be implemented: On all three lots revise and label all final plans to indicate the front, side, and rear setbacks.~ For all three lots, place deed restrictions which shall inform homeowners of actual from, side and rear setback locations and code restrictions. Rear treatment to side-loaded garages. Staff recommended that the applicant provide enhanced architectural treatments to the rear of all side-loaded garages and that,all treatment be continued to the full extent of public view. The applicant has generally provided treatment in the form of a window. Staff recommends that additional treatment be provided to the rear of the side-loaded garage on elevations 300A and B. The side rear entry configuration has the greatest exposure of flat wall (See the attached exhibit). Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of this project subject to revised plans prior to Planning Commission. Attachments: Landscape and Wall & Fence Concept Statements Fence & Wall Layout Plans Plan 300 B Elevation Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Bill Bethel, Rich Macias, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Cindy Norris The Committee discussed the issues raised by staff as well as an issue regarding roof color raised by members of the Deer Creek Homeowners Association in attendance and recommended approval of the project subject to the follow~,'ng: 1. Lot 61 is acceptable based upon the upgraded landscape and hardscape concept plan. The plotting of Lots 8, 17, 46 and 52 was acceptable as presented due to any feasible grading alternatives. That an additional window treatment be provided to the back of the garage for the side rear entry situations for Elevations 300A and B. A ~7/~ RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 97-07 FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 13851, THE DESIGN REVIEW OF DETAILED SITE PLANS AND ELEVATIONS FOR 61 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 38.92 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (LESS THAN 2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), AND IS LOCATED EAST OF THE EXISTING DEER CREEK COMMUNITY WEST OF THE DEER CREEK CHANNEL AND NORTH OF WILSON AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1074-571-01 THROUGH 31 AND 1074-581-01 THROUGH 31. A. Recitals. 1. Diversified Pacific Homes Ltd. has filed an application for the Design Review of Vesting Tentative Tract No. 13851, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Design Review request is referred to as 'the application." 2. On August 13, 1997, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a meeting to consider the application. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced meeting on August 13, 1997, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and b. That the proposed design is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and the Hillside Development Ordinance and the purposes of the distdct in which the site is located; and c. That the proposed design is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code; 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; and e. That based on substantial evidence provided to the Planning Commission, it is hereby found that none of the criteda found in Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines requiring subsequent environmental review exists or are present. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 97-07 - DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC HOMES LTD. August 13, 1997 Page 2 3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission heroby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated heroin by reference: Planning Division 1) The roar elevation for the side-roar entry garage for elevations 300A and B shall have an additional window treatment added. 2) For lots with unconventional plotting; ie., 8,17, 46, and 52, label and revise all final plans to indicate the front, side, and rear yard setbacks. In addition, the applicant shall record a deed restriction, or other similar type of recordation instrument, which shall inform homeowners of actual front, side and rear yard setback locations and code restrictions. 3) Conditions of approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 13851 and Variance 88-24 shall apply. Engineering Division 1) Submit improvement agreement, improvement securities, and monument cash deposit to substitute for the existing agreement, securities, and monument cash deposit from the previous developer. 2) Update the existing approved street Improvement Plan to reflect current City Standards and new location of drive approaches. Processing and plan checking fees will be required. 3) A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated cost of operating all street lights dudng the first six months of operation, prior to building permit issuance. 4) All accent paving shall be located outside the public right-of-way. 5) All conditions of approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 13851 and Design Review per Resolution No. 88-208 shall apply. Building and Safety Division 1) The storm drain provided generally at the roar of the properties along the eastern edge of the tract for the purposes of conveying cross-lot drainage shall either be constructed of reinforced concrete pipe, or shall otherwise be designed in a manner consistent with City requirements and policies. 2) On Lot 46, the wall located along the front setback shall be placed at the top of the slope rather than at the bottom as currently shown on the Landscape Plan. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 97-07 - DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC HOMES LTD. August 13, 1997 Page 3 4. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 1997. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby 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 13th day of August 1997, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT#: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: Development Review 97-07 Single Family Development Review for Tentative Tract 13851 Diversified Pacific Homes, Ltd. North side of Wilson Avenue, west of Deer Creek Flood Control Channel ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT, APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Time Limits ComPletion Date 1. Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, if building permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 24 months from the date of approval. 2. Prior to recordation of the final map or prior to the issuance of building permits when no map is __/ / involved, wdtten certification from the affected water distdct that adequate sewer and water facilities are or will be available to serve the proposed project shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development. Such letter must have been issued by the water district 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. B. Site Development 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include __/ /__ site plans, amhitectural elevations, extedor materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, Development Code regulations, and the Hillside Development Ordinance. 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. SC - 6/g7 10. 11. Project No. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency pdor to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or pdor to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the time of building permit issuance. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. For single family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination. A detailed plan indicating trail widths, maximum slopes, physical conditions, fencing, and weed control, in accordance with City Master Trail drawings, shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to approval and recordation of the Final Tract Map and prior to approval of street improvement and grading plans. Developer shall upgrade and construct all trails, including fencing and drainage devices, in conjunction with street improvements. Local Feeder Trails (i.e., private equestrian easements) shall, at a minimum, be fenced with two-rail, 4-inch lodgepole "peeler" logs to define both sides of the easement; however, developer may upgrade to an alternate fence material. Local Feeder Trail entrances shall also provide access for service vehicles, such as veterinarians or hay deliveries, including a 12-foot minimum ddve approach. Entrance may be gated provided that equestrian access is maintained through step-throughs. Local Feeder Trail grades shall not exceed 0.5% at the downstream end of a trail for a distance of 25 feet behind the public right-of-way line to prohibit trail debris from reaching the street. Drainage devices may be required by the Building Official. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall not prohibit the keeping the equine animals where zoning requirements for the keeping of said animals have been met. Individual lot owners in subdivisions shall have the option of keeping said animals without the necessity of appealing to boards of directors of homeowners' associations for amendments to the CC&R's. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's) and Articles of Incorporation of the Homeowners' Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering Divisions and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Map or prior to the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City Engineer. The Homeowners' Association shall submit to the Planning Division a list of the name and address of their officers on or before January 1 of each and every year and whenever said information changes. DR 97-07 Completion Date / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / SC - 6/97 Co Do Project No. 12. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall be submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and approved prior to the issuance of building permits. 13. The developer shall submit a construction access plan and schedule for the development of all lots for City Planner and City Engineer approval; including, but not limited to, public notice requirements, special street posting, phone listing for community concerns, hours of construction activity, dust control measures, and security fencing. 14. 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 pdor to the removal of any existing walls/fences along the project's perimeter. 15. For single family residential development, a 2-inch galvanized pipe shall be attached to each suppert post for all wood fences, with a minimum of two 1/2-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. Building Design All dwellings shall have the front, side and rear elevations upgraded with architectural treatment, detailing and increased delineation of surface treatment subject to City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. Standard patio cover plans for use by the Homeowner's Association shall be submitted for City Planner and Building Official review and approval pdor to issuance of building permits. 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. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans) The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall restrict the storage of recreational vehicles on this site unless they are the principal source of transportation for the owner and prohibit parking on interior circulation aisles other than in designated visitor parking areas. Landscaping A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or pdor final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. All pdvate slopes of 5 feet or less in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope, but less than 2:1 slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for erosion control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. DR 97-07 Com;)letion Date / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / SC - 6/97 Project No. All pdvate slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, 1-gallon or larger size shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope banks in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one 5-gallon or larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. For single family residential development, all slope planting and irrigations shall be continuously maintained in a healthy and thdving condition by the developer until each individual unit is sold and occupied by the buyer. Prior to releasing occupancy for those units, an inspection shall be conducted by the Planning Division to determine that they are in satisfactory condition. Front yard and comer side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required per the Development Code and/or Hillside Development Ordinance. This requirement shall be in addition to the required street trees and slope planting. The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall'be included in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to City Planner review and approval and coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the Engineering Division. 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. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of Xedscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. F. Other Agencies 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: G. Site Development The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of issuance of relative permits. Please contact the Building and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. DR 97-07 Completion Date / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / SC - 6/97 Project No. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition to existing unit(s), the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: City Beautification Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Transportation Development Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, and School Fees. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation and pdor to issuance of building permits. H. Grading Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. 2. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved pdor to issuance of building permits. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: I. Dedication and Vehicular Access Pdvate drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be provided and shall be delineated or noted on the final map. All existing easements lying within future rights-of-way shall be quit-claimed or delineated on the final map. J. Street Improvements All public improvements (interior streets, drainage facilities, community trails, paseos, landscaped areas, etc.) shown on the plans and/or tentative map shall be constructed to City Standards. Interior street improvements shall include, but are not limited to, curb and gutter, AC pavement, drive approaches, sidewalks, street lights, and street trees. 2. Improvement Plans and Construction: Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of tile City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or pdvate street improvements, prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any other permits required. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and intemonnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. DR 97-07 Completion Date / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / SC - 6/97 5 Lo Project No. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR, or any other locations approved by the City Engineer. Notes: (1) Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200 feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer. (2) Conduit shall be 3-inch (at intersections) or 2-inch (along streets) galvanized steel with pull rope or as specified. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours dudng construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards, except for single family residential lots. h. Street names shall be approved by the City Planner prior to submittal for first plan check. Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in accordance with the City's street tree program. Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with adopted policy. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project intersections, including driveways. Local residential street intersections and commercial or industrial driveways may have lines of sight plotted as required. Public Maintenance Areas A separate set of landscape and irrigation plans per Engineering Public Works Standards shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. The following landscaped parkways, medians, paseos, easements, trails or other areas shall be annexed into the Landscape Maintenance District. Utilities Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas, electric power, telephone, and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility Standards. Easements shall be provided as required. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the Cucamonga County Water Distdct (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. DR 97-07 Completion Date / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / SC - 6/97 6 Project No. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: M. General Fire Protection Conditions 1. Mello Roos Community Facilities Distdct requirements shall apply to this project. 2. Fire flow requirement shall be 1.000 gallons per minute. a. A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department personnel prior to water plan approval. b. For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional fire flow test of the on-site hydrants shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by the 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 pdor 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 pdor to water plan approval. Required hydrants, if any, will be determined by the Fire District. Fire District standards require a 6" dser with a 4" and a 2-1/2" outlet. Substandard hydrants shall be upgraded to meet this standard. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specifications on approved brands and model numbers. 5. Pdor 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 required fire protection system. 6. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for all hydrants and installed prior to final inspection. 7. Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District's fire lane standards, as noted: X All roadways per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection Distdct Ordinance 22. 8. All trees and shrubs planted in any median shall be kept trimmed a minimum of 14'6" from ground up so as not to impede fire apparatus. 9. Gated/restdcted entry(s) require installation of a Knox rapid entry key system. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specific details and ordering information. 10. Plan check fees in the amount orS0 have been paid. An additional $125 shall be paid: X Prior to final plan approval. Note: Separate plan check fees for fire protection systems (sprinklers, hood systems, alarms, etc.) and/or any consultant reviews will be assessed upon submittal of plans. 11. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1994 UBC, UFC, UPC, UMC, NEC, and RCFD Standards 22 and 15. DR 97-07 ComDleUon Date / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / SC - 6/97 7 Projec~ No. 121 With the home located above Hillside Road, it shall comply to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire District's Standards for a high fire hazard zone. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: N, 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. O. Building Numbering 1. Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime visibility. DR 97-07 Completion Date / / / / / / SC - 6/97 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 93-13-E&R RANCHO PACIFIC, INC. August13,1997 Page 3 o 2) The project shall be designed for architectural consistency with the existing project including: stucco finish and color, cornice detailing, door color, etc. 3) In addition to the proposed tree plantings, irrigated vine pockets shall be provided along the west, south, and east elevations at a spacing of 8 feet on center. 4) Graffiti shall be removed within 72 hours. Engineering Division 1) The project is located adjacent to and includes landscaping a portion of a Metropolitan Water District easement and the developer has received written comments form Metropolitan Water District (copy on file in the City Engineer's office: Metropolitan Water District to Mr. Angel, letter dated June 5, 1997). The developer shall obtain written approval from MWD for the Landscape and Grading Plans and required easements prior to the issuance of any building permits. 2) The developer shall process a lot line adjustment to incorporate a portion of the Cucamonga County Water District parcel (APN: 209-231-10) with the existing adjacent project parcel (APN: 209-221-19). The lot line adjustment Certificate of Compliance shall be recorded with the County Recorder prior to the issuance of building permits for this expansion project. 3) 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 issuance of building permits. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. 4) Thc projcct is located in a Flood Zonc "A." Thc ncw structurcs shall bc constructed in conformancc with thc City's Flood Ordinancc or rcmoved from thc Flood Zonc prior to occupancy. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 1997. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: August 13, 1997 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Thomas Grahn, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 93-13 (MODIFICATION) - E&R RANCHO PACIFIC. INC. - A request to expand an existing storage facility by providing an additional 46,683 square foot building on 1.78 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 5) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the east side of Hermosa Avenue, south of 8th Street - APN: 209-211-10. Related File: Variance 97-02. VARIANCE 97-02 - E&R RANCHO PACIFIC. INC. - A request to reduce the required building setback from residential areas from 45 feet to 0 feet for the expansion of an existing storage facility in the General Industrial District (Subarea 5) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the east side of Hermosa Avenue, south of 8th Street- APN: 209-211-10. Related File: Conditional Use Permit 93-13. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Industrial Area Specific Plan, General Industrial District (Subarea 5); Existing storage facility South - Industrial Area Specific Plan, General Industrial Distdct (Subarea 5); Vacant East - Industrial Area Specific Plan, General Industrial District (Subarea 5); Deer Creek Flood Control Channel Industrial Area Specific Plan, General Industrial Distdct (Subarea 5); Single family residences West - General Plan Designations: Project Site - General Industrial North - General Industrial South - General Industrial East - General Industrial West - General Industrial Site Characteristics: The project site is currently vacant and covered with grape vines and brush. The site is bordered on the north by the existing public storage facility, to the east by the Deer Creek Flood Control Channel, to the south by a Metropolitan Water District easement, and on the west by existing single family residences. ITI~ B & C PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 93-13 & VAR 97-02 - E&R RANCHO PACIFIC, INC. August 13, 1997 Page 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ANALYSIS: General: This application proposed the expansion of an existing public storage facility that was initially approved by the Planning Commission on November 23, 1993. That application provided for the development of a 61,500 square foot storage facility on 3 acres of land. A related application, Variance 93-06, allowed for a reduction in the building setback from 45 feet to 3 feet and 0 feet adjacent to existing residential uses to the north and south of the project site, respectively. The current application proposes to expand the existing public storage facility by providing an additional 46,683 square feet of building space on 1.78 acres of land located directly to the south of the existing facility (see Exhibit "A"). Access to the expansion area will be gained through an existing vehicle connection along the south boundary of the existing project site. The perimeter buildings will be single-story and will resemble a wall from the perimeter (see Exhibit "E"). So Design Review Committee: On July 1, 1997, the Design Review Committee (Bethel, Coleman) reviewed the project and recommended approval subject to the following: The project shall be designed for architectural consistency with the existing project including: stucco finish and color, cornice detailing, door color, etc. In addition to the proposed tree plantings, irrigated vine pockets shall be provided along the west, south, and east elevations at a spacing of 8 feet on center. Technical Review Committee: The Technical Review and Grading Committees reviewed the project and recommended approval subject to the conditions contained in the attached Resolution. Environmental Assessment: In completing the Initial Study, staff determined that there would not be a significant adverse impact upon the environment from this project. Issuance of a Negative Declaration is recommended. FINDINGS: Before approving a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission shall make certain findings that the circumstances prescribed below do apply: The proposed 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. So The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or mateddally injurious to propeRies or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code and the Industrial Area Specific Plan. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 93-13 & VAR 97-02 - E&R RANCHO PACIFIC, INC. August 13, 1997 Page 3 VARIANCE ANALYSIS: General: Dudng the development of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, the City identified that there were a number of single family residences within the boundaries of, and adjacent to, the Industrial Area Specific Plan area. As with any interface between different land uses, the City was concerned about potential conflicts between the residential and industrial uses. As a result, the City incorporated a development standard that required industrial buildings to maintain a 45-foot setback from the adjacent residences to reduce the impact of manufacturing noise, vibration, odors and particulates. The setback in question involves the west property line of the project area. The application proposes a reduction in the required setback from 45 feet to 0 feet. There are two existing single family residences to the west of the project (see Exhibit "B") that are located over 70 feet from the project perimeter wall. These residences are separated by the existing rear yard areas and several rows of the existing vineyard. The proposed use involves no noise, vibration, odor or particulates. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: In considering any request for a Variance, there are a sedes of findings under State law that must be substantiated by facts in order to approve the request. Generally, these findings center around the uniqueness or special circumstances of a particular property or the use of the designation. Staff believes that there are special or unique circumstances with the development of this site that are different from other sites under similar zoning designations. Therefore, the following facts are provided to support the required findings: Ao A Vadance request was approved for the existing storage facility allowing the construction of the facility on the south property line adjacent to the residences. This results in an approximate 30-foot separation between the residential uses and the storage facility. The current Variance request would provide an approximate 70 foot separation between uses. The Industrial Area Specific Plan allows the construction of 8-foot high walls on the property line of industrial properties, including those areas adjoining existing residences. The proposed buildings will have the same visual impact on the adjoining residences as a block wall. The storage facility is less intensive than other uses permiffed in this subarea of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. Manufacturing uses have the potential to create greater amounts of noise, vibration, and odor than the proposed facility. Additionally, the storage facility will generate less traffic than the other industrial uses, and therefore, is more compatible with the adjacent residential uses. If the 45-foot setback were maintained, the applicant could provide for the storage of recreational vehicles within the setback area. Because of their greater height, the recreational vehicles would have a greater visual impact on the residences than the proposed facility. Buildings on the property line will provide a buffer between the residences and the drive aisles of the storage facility. Any activities conducted within the facility will be located at 45 feet from the property line due to the building separation between the property line and the PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 93-13 & VAR 97-02 - E&R RANCHO PACIFIC, INC. August 13, 1997 Page 4 internal ddve aisle. If the buildings were at the 45-foot setback, ddve aisles could be provided adjacent to the residences with only a 5-foot landscape setback. FINDINGS: As previously mentioned, the Planning Commission must make all of the following findings in order to approve a Vadance request: That strict 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 and the Industrial Area Specific Plan. 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. That stdct or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would depdve the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. 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. 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. CORRESPONDENCE: These items were advertised as a public headng 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 Conditional Use Permit 93-13 and Variance 97-02 through adoption of the attached Resolutions of Approval with Conditions and issuance of a Negative Declaration. City Planner BB:TG:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Exhibit "B" - Exhibit "C" Exhibit "D" Exhibit "E" Exhibit "F" Exhibit "G" Resolutions of Approval Site Utilization Map Site Plan Grading Plan Landscape Plan Building Elevations Design Review Committee Comments dated July 1, 1997 Initial Study Part II I I f Project:_ 1~ ~? ~ Title: ~'~,_ (,I~I'~(lWl _ ._......o......~~~. Exhibit: J~ Date: Project: Title: ~1'~ Exhibit: ,,% i-.-..':~:'' .-:---~:~i::'.~[:i~ Title: Exhibit: ("/ Date' ~1~)~'~ 'Z~ III __r ,J ,I,I z~ 0 z ELE'v'ATI ONE~ (EXItTIN®) 56.,,ALE : I/~"= I'-0" nriO ,,, .... ,,,, ,,,,I · ..... ~OUTH ELEVATION (EXISTINg) SECTION f~) EAST ELEVATION (EXISTINg) tNTE~10~ ELEVATION (TYP. OF P~OPOSEP) I~E~T ELEVATION (EXI.~TIN~) FA(.,,IN~ HE~.,lvIO_~A AVE. z~ 0 z m-t-o §LDG 15A EAST BLDG ~A NORTH BLDG 156 SOUTH BLDG 13C, EAST BLDG 10 EAST BLDG 10 $OUfM BLDG 10 NORTH BLDG q WEST II' BLDC, 10 WEST 6:30 p.m. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS Tom Grahn July 1, 1997 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 93-13 (MODIFICATION) - F,&R RANCHO PACIFIC. INC. - A request to expand an existing storage facility by providing an additional 46,683 square foot building on 1.78 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 5) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the east side of Hermosa Avenue, south of 8th Street - APN: 209-211-19. Background: This application proposes the expansion of an existing public storage facility that was initially approved by the Planning Commission on November 23, 1993. That application provided for the development of a 61,500 square foot building on 3 acres of land. A related application, Variance 93-06, allowed for a reduction in the building setback from 45 feet to 0 feet adjacent to existing residential uses to the north and south of the project site. Design Parameters: The project site is currently vacant and the site is covered with grape vines and brush. The site is bordered on the north by the existing public storage facility, to the east by the Deer Creek Flood Control Channel, to the south by a Metropolitan Water District easement, and on the west by an existing single family residence. Under the Industrial Specific Plan, structures are required to be setback 45 feet from existing or planned residential uses. In this instance, the 45-foot setback would be required along the western portion of the project site. Because this area is zoned for industrial uses and the proposed structure at the property line is not much different from a block wall, the applicant submitted a variance application to allow for a reduction in the building setback from 45 feet to 0 feet. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Major Issues: The project design is identical to the existing public storage facility, and therefore, there are no major design issues associated with this project, except for the setback variance. Secondam Issues: The Committee shall discuss the following secondary design issues: The project shall be designed for architectural consistency with the existing project including: stucco finish and color, cornice detailing, door color, etc. Vine pockets should be provided along the west, south, and east property lines at a spacing of 8 feet on center. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee forward the project to the Planning Commission for their consideration. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Bill Bethel, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Tom Grahn The Committee recofnmended approval of the project subject to the following: 1. The project shall be designed for architectural consistency with the existing project including: stucco finish and color, cornice detailing, door color, etc. In addition to the proposed tree plantings, irrigated vine pockets shall be provided along the west, south, and east elevations at a spacing of 8 feet on center. I:~TOM~CEQA~CUP93-13.PT2 City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND Project File: Conditional Use Permit 93-13 (Modification) Variance 97-02 Related Files: Conditional Use Permit 93-13 Vadance 93-06 Description of Project: A request to expand an existing storage facility by providing an additional 46,683 square foot building on 1.78 acres of land. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: E&R Rancho Pacific 8949 Hermosa Avenue Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 General Plan Designation: General Industrial Zoning: General Industrial (Subarea 5) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: To the north is the existing storage facility, to the east is the Deer Creek Flood Control Channel, to the west are existing single family residences, and to the south is a Metropolitan Water Distdct easement. am Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Contact Person and Phone Number: Thomas Grahn, AICP (909) 477-2750 Initial Study for Conditional Use Permit 93-13 (Modification) City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ( ) Land Use and Planning ( ) Population and Housing ( ) Geological Problems (~') Water ( ) Air Quality (~') Transportation/Circulation ( ) Biological Resources ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources ( ) Hazards ( ) Noise (v') Mandatory Findings of Significance Public Services Utilities and Service Systems (v') Aesthetics Cultural Resources Recreation DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: (v') I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. () I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project, or agreed to, by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. () I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. () I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based upon the eadier 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. () Signed: 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. Tlomas Grahn, AICP Associate Planner July 28, 1997 Initial Study for Conditional Use Permit 93-13 (Modification) City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an explanation is required for all "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact" answers, including a discussion of ways to mitigate the significant effects identified. Issues end Supporting Inforelation Sources: LAND a) b) c) d) Potentially Sign~r~..ant Impact Less PotentallyUnless Than S~gnificantMibgation Signifman! No Imoaot Inco~3oratedIm13act Impact USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal.' Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~') Issues end Suplx~ Information POPULATION AND HOUSING. a) b) c) Potentially S~gnE'~.~a nt Impact Less Po{entiellyUnless Than S~gnificantMitigation S~gnificantNo Imoaot Incorlx3~atedImpact Im13act Would the proposal.' Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v~) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Issues and Suplx~mg Information Sources: GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? b) Seismic ground shaking? Potelltially SignS:ant Impact Less Potentially Unless Than S~nificant Mibgation S~gnifmant No Impact Inco~orated Impact Im13act () () () (v) () () () Initial Study for Conditional Use Permit 93-13 (Modification) City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 4 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: c) d) e) f) g) h) i) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? Seiche hazards? Landslides or mudflows? Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? Subsidence of the land? Expansive soils? Unique geologic or physical features? Potentially Significant Impact () () () Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation IncorPorated () () () Than Signirmant No Impact Impact ( ) (v') ( ) (v') ( ) (v') () () () (~) () () () (v) () () () (v) () () () (~) Comments: a) Adoption of the proposed project will not result in the exposure of people to geotechnical hazards. The project site is not located within an area of slope instability, excessive slope, or seismic hazards as identified on Figure V-4 of the General Plan. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: WATER. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? Potentially Significant Impact Less iPotentially Unless Than :S~liflcant Mitigation Significant No Imoect Incomorated Impact Impact () () (v) () () () () (v) () () () (v) () () () (v) () () () (~) () () () (v) Initial Study for Conditional Use Permit 93-13 (Modification) City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 5 I~ues end Supporting Info.nation Sources: g) h) i) Potentrally S~gnificant Irnoact Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ) Potentially S~gnificant Impact Less Unless Than Miagation Significant Inco~3o~ted Impact () () () () No Impact (v,) (v') () () (~) Comments: a) Adoption of the proposed project will increase the amount of paved surface area 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 which were designed to handle the subject water flows. No mitigation is required. b) Adoption of the proposed project will not result in the exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding. Figure V-5 of the General Plan identifies that the project site is within a Flood Hazard Area. The Flood Insurance Rate Map (Map No. 06071C8629 F, Effective Date June 21, 1996) identifies that the majority of the site is within a Flood Zone "X" outside the 500 year flood plane. The eastedy portion of the site is within a Flood Zone "A" which indicates the area is within a 100 year flood plane. Conditions of approval establish that the structure shall be constructed in conformance with the City's Flood Ordinance or removed form the Flood Zone prior to occupancy. luues and Sul~m~'ting Information Sources: AIR QUALITY. a) b) c) d) Potent,~,lly Signtficant Impact Less Potentially Unless Than S~gntficant M'~gatK~ S~gnificant No Im~ ~ ~ Impa~ Would the proposal.' Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Create objectionable odors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Initial Study for Conditional Use Permit 93-13 (Modification) City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 6 Issues and Supporting Informmk~ Sources: TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. proposal result in: a) b) c) d) e) f) Would the Potentially S~gnif~.ant Impact Potentrally Signif'merit Impact Less Unless Than Mitigation Significant Inco~ed Impact No Impact () (v) () () () (v) () () (v) () () (v) () () (v) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ( ) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ( ) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Comments: a) The project will be constructed outside any public rights-of-way and will not interfere with transportation system components. The project will generate additional vehicular movement in the localized area. The City's General Plan EIR and Industrial Area Specific Plan EIR address the short-term and long-term cumulative impacts of traffic upon adjacent streets. Based on this information, the proposed project has no potential to alter the present pattern of circulation. No mitigation is required. Issues and Supporting Infom~ation Sources: Potenda~/ S~nifk:~nt Impact Less Pmentmily Un~ ~ S~nt M~ S~n~t No Im~ I~ Im~ Im~ 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., hedtage trees, eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v~) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Initial Study for Conditional Use Permit 93-13 (Modification) City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 7 Isa.,es and Supporting Information Sources: d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, alparian, and vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? Potentially S~gnificant ImmK:t Potentially S~gnificant Impact Less Unless Than Mitigation Significant Incorlx~ated ImDacl No Impact () () () (~) () () () (~) Comments: a) Adoption of the proposed project will not impact biological resources. The project site is not located within an area containing natural resources as identified on Figure IV-3 of the General Plan. Issues and SuplxHling InformatJo~ Sources: Potentially S~nir~ant Impact Less ,P(Xenfially Unless Than Signif'm. ant Mitigation S~gnificant No ImDacl Incorix3rated Impact Impact ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal.' a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') b) Use non-renewable resources 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') 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? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? Potentially S~gnificant ImpaCt Less Potentially Unia~ ~ S~ M~ S~n~m No Im~ I~ Im~ Im~ () () () (v) () () () (v) () () () (v) () () () (v) Initial Study for Conditional Use Permit 93-13 (Modification) City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 8 Issues and Suppo~ling Information Sources: e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? Potentially Significanl Imoaot Potentmlty S~gnir~an/ Impact Less Unless Than Mibgatlen Signifyant Incomorated Impact No Impact () () () (v) 10. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: NOISE. Will the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? Potentially S~nificent ImPact Potentially S~gnifmant Iml:~Ct Less Unless Than Mitigabon Signifment Incomes'areal Iml~ct No () () () (v) () () () (~) 11. Issues end SuppoSing Information Sources: PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) b) c) d) e) Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? Other governmental services? Potentially Significent Impact Potenflelly Significant Impact Less Unless Than Mitigaben S~gnificent Inco~oorated Impact No Impact () () () (v) () () () (~) () () () (v) () () () (v) () () () (~) 12. Issues and Supporting InformaUon Sources: UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) b) c) d) Power or natural gas? Communication systems? Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? Sewer or septic tanks? () () () () Potentially Slgm~ent Impact Unle~ M~n () () () () Less () () () () No Imoact (v,) (v') (v) (v,) Initial Study for Conditional Use Permit 93-13 (Modification) Issues an~ Su~ InformBtia~ e) f) g) Storm water drainage? Solid waste disposal? Local or regional water supplies? City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 9 Potentially S~gn~cant Impact Less Potentially Unless Than S~gnificant Mit~g~ion S~gnificant No ImPm~ IncorPorated ImPBc~ ImpGct ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') ( ) ( ) ( ) (v) ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') 13. issues and Supporting InformaUon Sources: Potentially S~'tifican! Impact Less Potentiafiy Unleu Than SqF~ificant Mitigation S~gnificant No Impact Incoroorated Impact Impact AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? () () () (v) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? () () () (~) c) Create light or glare? () () (v) () Comments: c) The project site is located within an urbanizing area which has no light sensitive uses. The only outdoor lighting associated with the project will be for security purposes or to illuminate entrances and parking areas. This type of lighting is common to the project area, including existing industrial areas directly to the north and south, and will not significantly alter the present condition or result in significant adverse impacts. Light fixtures will be designed to comply with City Standards. No mitigation is required. 14. Issues and Supporting Information Sources CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) b) c) d) e) Po~.~iar~ S~gnif~ant Impact Less Polenbally Uni~ ~n S~ M'~ S~nt No Im~ I~ ~ Impa~ Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Initial Study for Conditional Use Permit 93-13 (Modification) City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 10 15. 16. luues and Supportr~g Information Sources: Potentially Significant Impact RECREATION. Would the proposal.' a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) Issues and SuPlX~tslg Informatio~ Souroes: Pote~ltially S~gn~:ant Impact 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 restdct the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ( ) 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 pedod of time. Long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) ( ) c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) ( ) d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ( ) Potentially Signif'~ant Impact Less Unless Than Mibgat~on Signifi,'canl Incorporated Imoact No Impact () () () () (v) Potentially Significan! Impact Less Unlees Then MihgaUon Significant Inco~rated Impact No Impact () () () () () () () () (v) Initial Study for Conditional Use Permit 93-13 (Modification) City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 11 Comments: c) The proposed project will pay development impact fees established by the City, the rates of which have been designed to mitigate the potential impacts to fire protection services, police protection services, parks or other recreational facilities, and other governmental services to a level of non-significance. To the extent the project may impact upon utility resources provided by private utility companies, potential impacts upon such resources will be mitigated by the payment of rates and charges to these companies. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The following earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply): (v') General Plan EIR (Certified April 6, 1981) (v') Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989) (v') Industrial Area Specific Plan EIR (Certified September 19, 1981) APPLICANT CERTIFICATION I certify that I am the applicant for the project described in this Initial Study. I acknowledge that I have read this Initial Study and the proposed mitigation measures. Further, I have revised the project plans or proposals and/or hereby agree to the proposed mitigation measures to avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where cleady no significant environmental effects would occur. Signature: Print Name and Title: Date: 7 ~'~ ( - ~ '~ 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.: CUP 93-13 Modification Public Review Period Closes: August 13, 1997 Project Name: Hermosa Storage Center, Phase II Project Applicant: E&R Rancho Pacific Project Location (also see attached map): Located on the east side of Hermosa Avenue, south of 8th Street - APN: 209-211-10. Project Description: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 93-13 (MODIFICATION)- E&R RANCHO PACIFIC, INC. - A request to expand an existing storage facility by providing an additional 46,683 square foot building on 1.78 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 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. August 13. 1997 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. 93-13 (MODIFICATION) FOR THE EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING STORAGE FACILITY BY PROVIDING AN ADDITIONAL 46,683 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING ON 1.78 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF HERMOSA AVENUE, SOUTH OF 8TH STREET IN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (SUBAREA 5) OF THE INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 209-211-10. A. Recitals. 1. E&R Rancho Pacific, Inc. has filed an application for the issuance of Conditional Use Permit No. 93-13 (Modification), as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as '1he application." 2. On the 13th day of August 1997, 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 forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public headng on August 13, 1997, including wdtten and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located, south of and immediately adjacent to 8949 Hermosa Avenue with a lot width of 274 feet and lot depth of 376 feet and is presently vacant; and b. The property to the north of the subject site contains the existing storage facility, the property to the south is vacant, to the east is the Deer Creek Flood Control Channel, and the property to the west contains existing single family residences; and c. The application contemplates development of a mini-storage facility as an expansion to an existing mini-storage facility on the property to the north; and d. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and the Industrial Area Specific Plan; and e. The design of the proposed project, together with the conditions of approval, meet all applicable provisions of the Development Code and the Industrial Area Specific Plan; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 93-13 - E&R RANCHO PACIFIC, INC. August 13, 1997 Page 2 f. The development of the preposed project would not have a significant impact to the environment. 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 paragrephs 1 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 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 properties or imprevements in the vicinity. c. The proposed 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 Negative Declaration, together with all wdtten and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the envirenment and adopts a Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows: a. That the Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality ACt of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder; that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the application. b. Based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into the proposed project, no significant adveree envirenmental 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 dudng the public headng, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby 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. Planning Division 1) This appreval is for the expansion of an existing storage facility by adding 46,683 square feet of building on 1.78 acres of land. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 93-13 - E&R RANCHO PACIFIC, INC. August 13, 1997 Page 3 2) The project shall be designed for architectural consistency with the existing project including: stucco finish and color, cornice detailing, door color, etc. 3) In addition to the proposed tree plantings, irrigated vine pockets shall be provided along the west, south, and east elevations at a spacing of 8 feet on center. 4) Graffiti shall be removed within 72 hours. Engineering Division 1) The project is located adjacent to and includes landscaping a portion of a Metropolitan Water Distdct easement and the developer has received written comments form Metropolitan Water Distdct (copy on file in the City Engineer's office: Metropolitan Water District to Mr. Angel, letter dated June 5, 1997). The developer shall obtain written approval from MWD for the Landscape and Grading Plans and required easements prior to the issuance of any building permits. 2) The developer shall process a lot line adjustment to incorporate a portion of the Cucamonga County Water District parcel (APN: 209-231-10) with the existing adjacent project parcel (APN: 209-221-19). The lot line adjustment Certificate of Compliance shall be recorded with the County Recorder prior to the issuance of building permits for this expansion project. 3) A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer pdor to issuance of building permits. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. 4) The project is located in a Flood Zone "A." The new structures shall be constructed in conformance with the City's Flood Ordinance or removed from the Flood Zone prior to occupancy. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 1997. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 93-13 - E&R RANCHO PACIFIC, INC. August 13, 1997 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 13th day of August 1997, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDA:RD CONDITIONS PROJECT#: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: Conditional Use Permit 93-13 (Modification) Public Storage Facility Expansions E&R Rancho Pacific, Inc. East side of Hermosa Avenue, south of 8th 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: Time Limits 1. Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, if building permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 24 months from the date of approval. Comr)letion Date / / B. Site Development The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include site plans, architectural elevations, extedor materials and cotors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, Development Code regulations, and the Industrial Area Specific Plan. / / Pdor 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. / / Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Pdor to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection Distdct and the Building and Safety Division to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. / / Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. / / All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or pdor to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. / / SC - 6/97 1 Project No. Completion Date 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. / / 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. / / 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. / / C. Landscaping A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or pdor final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. / / Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent to and along structures at a rate of one tree per 30 linear feet of building. / / All pdvate slopes of 5 feet or less in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope, but less than 2:1 slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for erosion control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. / / All pdvate 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. if. 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. if. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. / / For 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 plant material shall be replaced within 30 days from the date of damage. / / All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division. 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. / / APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: SC - 6/97 Project No. Completion Date Site Development The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of issuance of relative permits. Please contact the Building and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. / / Pdor 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. / / Existing Structures 1. Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for the property line clearances considering use, area, and fire-resistiveness of existing buildings. / / Grading Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. / / A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. / / 3. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. / / APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: G. General Fire Protection Conditions 1. Mello Roos Community Facilities District requirements shall apply to this project. / / / / / / / / 2. Fire flow requirement shall be 2,500 gallons per minute. Fire hydrants are required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed and operable pdor to delivery of any combustible building materials on site (i.e., lumber, roofing materials, etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire department personnel. Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided pdor to water plan approval. Required hydrants, if any, will be determined by the Fire District. Fire District standards require a 6" dser with a 4" and a 2-1/2" outlet. Substandard hydrants shall be upgraded to meet this standard. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specifications on approved brands and model numbers. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for all hydrants and installed prior to final inspection. / / An automatic fire extinguishing system(s) will be required as noted below: X Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15. / / SC - 6/97 3 Project No. Note: Special sprinkler densities 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 sprinkler system is adequate for proposed operations. 7. Sprinkler system monitoring shall be installed and operational immediately upon completion of sprinkler system. 8. A fire alarm system(s) shall be required as noted below: X Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15. X California Code Regulations Title 24. 9. Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District's fire lane standards, as noted: X All roadways per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection Distdct Ordinance 22. 10. Fire department access shall be amended to facilitate emergency apparatus. 11. A building directory shall be required. 12. 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 ordedng information. 13. Gated/restricted entry(s) require installation of a Knox rapid entry key system. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specific details and ordering information. 14. A tenant use letter shall be submitted prior to final building plan approval. Contact the Fire Safety Division for the proper form letter. 15. Plan check fees in the amount of $0 have been paid. An additional $645.00 shall be paid: Prior to final plan approval. Note: Separate plan check fees for fire protection systems (sprinklers, hood systems, alarms, etc.) and/or any consultant reviews will be assessed upon submittal of plans. 16. Plans shall be submitted and approved pdor to construction in accordance with 1994 UBC, UFC, UPC, UMC, NEC, and RCFD Standards 22 and 15. ComDletion Date / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / SC-6~7 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 97-02 TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED BUILDING SETBACK FROM RESIDENTIAL AREAS FROM 45 FEET TO 0 FEET FOR THE EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING STORAGE FACILITY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF HERMOSA AVENUE, SOUTH OF 8TH STREET IN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (SUBAREA 5) OF THE INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 209-211-10. A. Recitals. 1. E&R Rancho Pacific, Inc. has filed an application for the issuance of Variance No. 97-02 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Variance request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 13th day of August 1997, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on August 13, 1997, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located, south of and immediately adjacent to 8949 Hermosa Avenue with a lot width of 274 feet and lot depth of 376 feet and is presently vacant; and b. The property to the north of the subject site contains the existing storage facility, the property to the south is vacant, to the east is the Deer Creek Flood Control Channel, and the property to the west contains existing single family residences; and c. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and the Industrial Area Specific Plan; and d. The design of the proposed project, together with the conditions of approval, meet all applicable provisions of the Development Code and the Industrial Area Specific Plan; and environment. The development of the proposed project would not have a significant impact to the PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. VAR NO. 97-02 August 13, 1997 Page 2 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 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 stdct 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 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. Planning Division 1) Approval is granted for the expansion of the storage facility only. 2) Irrigated vine pockets shall be provided along the west, south, and east elevations at a spacing of 8 feet on center to soften the appearance of the exterior walls of the facility. 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 1997. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. VAR NO. 97-02 August 13, 1997 Page 3 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 13th day of August 1997, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: August 13, 1997 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer Phillip Verbera, Assistant Engineer ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 15016 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO. - A subdivision of 3.9 acres of land into two parcels in the Terra Vista Promenade Shopping Center, located at the northwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue - APN: 227-151-39. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: Action Requested: Approval of the proposed Tentative Parcel Map as shown on Exhibit "B". Parcel Size: Parcel 1 0.94 Acres Parcel 2 2.95 Acres Total 3.89 Acres C. Existing Zoning: Community Commercial, Terra Vista Community Plan D. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North South East West Commercial (Home Depot), Terra Vista Promenade Shopping Center Masi Industrial Park Vacant Vacant E. Surrounding General Plan and Developments Code Designations: North South East West Terra Vista Community Plan, Community Commercial ISP Subarea 7, Industrial Park Foothill Specific Plan, Office Terra Vista Community Plan, Community Commercial ITEM D PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT PM 15016 August 13, 1997 Page 2 F. Site Characteristics: The site is vacant and slopes southerly with runoff collected into an existing storm drain inlet on Foothill Boulevard. Street and storm drain improvements are in place on both frontages, Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue. At the southeast comer lies a pedestrian activity center with a water fountain element and palms. ANALYSIS: The purpose of this parcel map is to subdivide an existing parcel (lot 2 of PM 14022, Terra Vista Promenade Shopping Center) into two parcels. The proposed development will consist of a future retail service building and a restaurant (Old Spaghetti Factory). ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The applicant completed Part I of the Initial Study. Staff conducted a field investigation and completed Part II of the Initial Study. No adverse impacts upon the environment are anticipated as a result of this map. Therefore, issuance of a Negative Declaration is appropriate. CORRESPONDENCE: Notices of Public Hearing have been sent to surrounding property owners and placed in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin. Posting at the site has also been completed. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider all input and elements of the Tentative Parcel Map 15016. If after such consideration, the Commission deems appropriate, then the adoption of the attached Resolution would be in order. Respectfully submitted, Senior Civil Engineer DJ:PV:sd Attachments: Vicinity Map (Exhibit "A") Tentative Map (Exhibit "B") Resolution and Recommended Conditions of Approval B~E LINE FOOTHILL DRIVE MAYTEN AVENUE tlTI~~/, 1,4AS! DRIVE / ARROW CHURCH CHERVIL STREET i--- c') ST. ROAD CHUR(?.H tiT ROl~TE' pV CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ENGINF, ERING DIVISION 3.09 &CIIS lilt TENTATIVE PARCEL ~AP NO . t50 ~6 IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA L Illl~l' I Oir I lIBIT JAIIfll~f 1997 City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKI,IST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: Tentative Parcel Map No. 15016 2. Related Files: C.U.P. 97-17 3. Description of Project: A subdivision of 3.0 acres of land into two parcels e Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Lewis Development Co. 1156 N. Mountain Ave. Upland, CA 91785 General Plan Designation: Community Commercial 6. Zoning: Commercial, Terra Vista Community Plan Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Property to the north is an existing Home Depot. To the east is an existing vacant lot. To the west is an undeveloped commercial lot. To the south is the Masi Industrial Park (sub-area 7 per the Industrial Specific Plan) e 10. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Contact Person and Phone Number: Phillip Verbera, Assistant Engineer (909) 477-2740, extension 2319 Other agencies whose approval is required: None Initial Study for Tentative Parcel Map No. 15016 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ( ) Land Use and Planning ( ) Population and Housing ( ) Geological Problems ( ) Water ( ) Air Quality ( ) Transportation/Circulation ( ) Biological Resources ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources ( ) Hazards ( ) Noise ( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance ( ) Public Services ( ) Utilities and Service Systems ( ) Aesthetics ( ) Cultural Resources ( ) Recreation DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: (x) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. () I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project, or agreed to, by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. () I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. () I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based upon the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. () I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EI1L including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Signed: Assistant Engineer July 10, 1997 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Initial Study for Tentative Parcel Map No. 15016 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 3 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. and Supportins information Sourcea: LAND a) b) c) d) Potentially Sis~ificant Impact Leas PotentiallyUnlea~ Than SignificantMitigationSignificantNo Impact IncorporatedImpact Impact USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal.' Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: a) b) c) d) i~ues and Supporting Information Sources: POPULATION AND HOUSI1NG. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? Potanti&lly Significant Impact Leas PotentiallyUnless ~ SisnificantMiligationSisnificantNo Impact Incoq~oratedImpact Impact ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for Tentative Parcel Map No. 15016 Comments: a) b) c) Issues and Supporting Information Sources GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? b) Seismic ground shaking? c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? d) Seiche hazards? e) Landslides or mudflows? Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? g) Subsidence of the land? h) Expansive soils? i) Unique geologic or physical features? Comments: a) b) c) d) e) g) h) City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 4 Potentially Significant Impacl Potentially Significant Impact Less Unless Than Mitigation Significant lncot9orated Impnct No Impact ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for Tentative Parcel Map No. 15016 i) City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 5 o i~u~, tnd Supporting Information WATER. a) b) c) d) e) g) h) i) Poumtially Significant Impact Will the proposal result in: Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff?. ( ) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? ( ) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? ( ) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ( ) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ( ) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? Comments: a) b) c) d) e) () Potentially Significant Iml~.ct ~ Unlm Than MillBallon Significant IncorooratedImpact No Impact ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) () () (x) Initial Study for Tentative Parcel Map No. 15016 g) h) i) I~ue~ and $uppo~ng Information AIR QUALITY. WouM the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive reeeptors to pollutants? c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? d) Create objectionable odors? Comments: a) b) c) d) Issues and Supporting Information Sources: TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. IFould the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? Pot~a-~lially Significant Im0act City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 6 Po~tially Significant Impa~t Lma Unlm Than Mitigation Significant In~a, lx~t~:lImpact Pot~tially Significant Impact No Impact ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Po~atially Significant Unless Than Mitigation Significant Inco~om~:l I m!~'t No Im0act ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for Tentative Parcel Map No. 15016 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 7 lasue$ and Suppo~ng Information Sourced: f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail or air traffic impacts? Comments: a) b) c) d) e) g) Potentially Significant Im!~act Polrgnlialiy Significant Impact Lass Unless Than Mitigation Significant IncorporatedImpact NO Impact ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) e Issue~ and Supporting Information Source: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees, eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? Pot~ti-Ily Significam Pote~ia,lly Significant Impact ~ Unlms Than MitignUon Significant Incorporatedlm Pact No ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for Tentative Parcel Map No. 15016 Comments: a) b) c) d) e) City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 8 ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. proposal.' a) b) c) Would the Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? Comments: a) b) c) pot~tially Significant Impact Po~nti-Ily Significant Impact Less Unless Than Mili~tion Significant IncorporatedImpact No ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) e l~su~ a~d Supporting Information ~ourc. m: b) WouM the proposal involve.' A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Potentially Significant Impact Polentially Sifnifictnt Im!m~t Less Unl~s~ Thnn Mitigstmn Si~ifi~l IncomoratedImpac~ No Impact ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for Tentative Parcel Map No. 15016 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? Comments: a) b) c) d) e) Potentially Significant Impael City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 9 Pol~tially Significant Impsel L~ss Unless ThAn Milignfion Significant Ineo~oratedImp&c~ No ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) 10. lssu~andSuppo~in8 Informsion Sources: NOISE. Will the proposal result in.' a) Increases in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? Comments: a) b) Potefi~ially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Unte~ Than Mitiption Significant lnco~o~'a~edImpa~t No lmpael ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) 11. lasue~ and Supporting Information Sources: PUBLIC SERVICES. WouM 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potend,lily Si~nificam Impact Less Unl~ Tlum Mifiilation$i~nifiomt IncorporatedImpnet No Impact ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for Tentative Parcel Map No. 15016 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 10 l~u~ ~nd Supponin8 lnformntion Sources: b) Police protection? c) Schools? d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? e) Other governmental services? Comments: a) b) c) d) e) Potmatially Significant Imp~:t Potentially1Jnle~s Thlm SignificantMitisationSignifiomt No lmpact IncorporatedImpact Impact ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) 12. Issu~ ~nd Supporting information Sources 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 and natural gas? b) Communication systems? c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? e) Storm water drainage? f) Solid waste disposal? g) Local or regional water supplies? Comments: a) b) Potentially Signific~m Impact lh:~te~ntiatly Significant lmp~ct L~s Units Th~n Mitigntion Signifie~m Inco~o~ltedImpact No Impact ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for Tentative Parcel Map No. 15016 c) d) e) g) 13. Ilt, ues end Supporting Information SUurc~: AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? c) Create light or glare? Comments: a) b) c) 14. Issue~ and Supporting informalion Sources CULTURAL RESOURCES. WouM the proposal.' a) b) c) d) Disturb paleontological resources? Disturb archaeological resources? Affect historical or cultural resources? Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? Potentially Significant () () () Poe~tially Significant lm0aet City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 11 Potentially Impa~ Le~ Unless Than Mitigation Significant I neo~ontedImpact No Impact ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) Po~nslgly Significant Impac~ Less Unless Than Mitigation Significant Incorpm~tedlmpaa No ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for Tentative Parcel Map No. 15016 Comments: a) b) c) d) e) City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 12 15. l~u~ and Supportin8 Information RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? Comments: a) h) Potentially Significam Impa~t Potentially Significant Impact Less Unless Than Mitigation Significant No IraDie! ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) 16. ]ssuas and Supponin8 Information Sources: 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 Califomia history or prehistory? Pot~tially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Unless Than Mitigaaon Significant Incorpo~tedlmpacl No [mpa~ ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for Tentative Parcel Map No. 15016 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 13 I~um ~md Supporting Information ~ourc.~: 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.) c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Significant Imp~:t Less PotentiallyUnlms Than SignificantMitisafionSignificantNo Impact Incor0oratedImpact Impact ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a) b) c) d) 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): () General Plan EIR (Certified April 6, 1981) Initial Study for Tentative Parcel Map No. 15016 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 14 () Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989) () Industrial Area Specific Plan EIR (Certified September 19, 1981) () Industrial Area Specific Plan, Subarea 18, EIR (SCH #93102055, certified June 15, 1994) () Victoria Planned Community EIR (Certified May 20, 1981) (x) Terra Vista Planned Community EIR (SCH #81082808, certified February 16, 1983) () Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan EIR (SCH #87021615, certified September 16, 1987) () Etiwanda Specific Plan EIR (SCH #82061801, certified July 6, 1983) () Etiwanda North Specific Plan EIR (SCH #89012314, certified April 1, 1992) ( ) Other: ( ) Other: APPLICANT CERTIFICATION I certify that I am the applicant for the project described in this Initial Study. I acknowledge that I have read this Initial Study and the proposed mitigation measures. Further, I have revised the project plans or proposals and/or hereby agree to the proposed mitigation measures to avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant environmental effects would occur. Signature: ~.__~f~G G~. Ba~r~~ Date: 7o~n{~ /~'~ PrintNameandTitle: ~ector - Commercial Constructi and Proiect Management CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Brief Description of Project: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 15016 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO. - A subdivision of 3.9 acres of land into two parcels in the Terra Vista Promenade Shopping Center, located at the northwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue - APN: 227-151-39. Name and Address of Applicant: Lewis Development Co. 1156 North Mountain Avenue Upland, CA 91785 Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, the City of Rancho Cucamonga has determined that the above project will not have a significant effect upon the environment. An Environmental Impact Report will not be required. Minutes of such decision and the Initial Study prepared by the City of Rancho Cucamonga are on file in the Planning Division of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. This decision may be appealed to the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. A written appeal and filing fee must be received by the Planning Division no later than 5:00 pm ten (10) calendar days from the date of the Planning Commission decision. This Negative Declaration is subject to the implementation of mitigating measures (if any) as listed on the attachments. Dated Meeting Date E. David Barker Planning Commission Chairman Title RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NUMBER 15016, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND ROCHESTER AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 227-151-39 WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 15016, submitted by Lewis Development Co., applicant, for the purpose of subdividing into two parcels, the real property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, identified as APN 227-151-39, located at the northwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue; and WHEREAS, on August 13, 1997, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing for the above-described map. NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION !: That the following findings have been made: 1. That the map is consistent with the General Plan. That the improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed development. That the proposed subdivision and improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or public health problems or have adverse effects on abutting properties. SECTION 2: Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows: 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. That, based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PARCEL MAP 15014 - AMIR DEVELOPMENT July 9, 1997 Page 2 Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission 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. SFCTION 3: Tentative Parcel Map Number 15016 is hereby approved subject to the following Special Condition: ENGINEERING DIVISION A signed Consent and Waiver form to join the appropriate landscape and lighting districts shall be filed with the City Engineer pdor to final parcel map approval. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 1997 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby 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 13th day of August 1997, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: July 9, 1997 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Alan Warren, Associate Planner FOOTHILL BOULEVARD ACTIVITY CENTERS BACKGROUND: Included with this Staff Report are excerpts from the Foothill Boulevard Design Supplement and the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan which address the Activity Center provisions for the City. The specific Activity Center references are shown by an '~, with support information included to properly place them within the Specific Plan design concepts. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner bb:aW/jfs Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Exhibit "B" - Exhibit "C" - Excerpts from Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Excerpts from Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Design Supplement Photographs of Activity Centers L ITEH E CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ~The city to of Rancho Cucamonga is a community committed excellence. The Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan is a long term commitment for the development of this vital corridor." FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN SUMMARY The Cily of Rancho Cucamonga is a community committed to excellence. The City's development and design review process places heavy emphasis on quality, long term viability, and support of community goals in all development projects. WHAT IS THIS PLAN ABOUT ? Foothill Boulevard is the most significant commer- cial corridor in the City. Established as a major east/west commercial thoroughfare, the corridor is an important part of the developing regional business area for the West Valley. The Boulevard's part in this potential commercial growth will be all the more significant with the de- velopment of the regional mall at Foothill Boule- vard and the 1-15 Freeway. · The purpose of this Plan is to provide a balanced and unified panera of development along Foothill Boulevard by taking advantage of opportunities in future community growth. SUBAREA I SUBAREA 2 SUBAREA 3 I 'Beer Gulch' [ 'Vineyard' [ "Old Cucamonga' ~.~ ~ ~ [ ~ ~ Foothill It Vineylrd [ ~ Archiblld 3venue ~~ '~ ~ ; ~ e Activity Cenlet ;; Activity FOOTHILL BOU VARD SPECIFIC AREA COMMUNITY DESIGN The Plan aims to visually unify the entire corridor. To do so, the Plan calls for a series of highly identifiable activity centers and gateways which ff are linked by a unifying suburban parkway design Activity Centers are points of interest located at' major intersections and/or landmarks along the Corridor. They are to provide individual identity by concentrating commercial activity at the following areas: * Foothill at Bear Gulch * Foothill at Vineyard Avenue * Foothill at Archibald Avenue * Foothill at Turner Avenue * Foothill at Etiwanda Avenue These activity centers are generally more urban nature, with buildings closer to the street and a D-eater~mg design~ The essence of the Plan is to facilitate the devel- opment of projects and public improvements which meet these criteria: Provide high quality standards Help unify the communitiy' s image Reflect the communities heritage Strengthen the economic viability of the corridor Provide a balanced mix of land uses or tenants Deal effectively with traffic and safety problems WHY A SPECIFIC PLAN ? The Specific Plan is a tool that combines traditional zoning with detailed design and development standards tailored to specific conditions. It is a comprehensive document which contains all policies and development standards necessary for the design of any project within the Foothill Boulevard Corridor. The Specific Plan examines the needs of the commercial and residential area and implements the policies of the General Plan. Because the conditions along the corridor vary significantly, the Plan and its Development Standards are divided into four subareas. Each of these planning areas have unique problems and opportunities: SUBAREA 1 "Bear Gulch" Grove to Cucamonga Creek SUBAREA 2 "Vineyard" Cucamonga Creek to Hellman Ave. SUBAREA 3 "Old Cucamonga" Hellman to Deer Creek SUBAREA 4 "Etiwanda" 1-15 to East Avenue Development Standards unique to each subarea are used to provide the necessary guidelines for development. The Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan includes four major elements: Community Design Circulation Implementation SUBAREA 3 'Old Cucamonga' Foolhill at Turner Avenue Activity Center ../ SUBAREA 4 'Etlwanda' I ........ "~. "1__, ~ Aclivtty Center These areas link the activity centers with a less formal streetscape design to include meanderin~undulating sidewalks and informal landscaping. Buildings in these areas have deeper setbacks and are often separated from the street by landscaped parking areas. Architecture: One of the more recognizable aspects of a community design image is its architectural style. This Plan recognizes the importance of the community's heritage and identifies significant historical Structures and architectural elements along the boulevard. r archit. ecmre alls fo architectur_al _ one cept is strongly~ encouraged throughout the corridor, and panicularily in the activity centers, where existing historicaJ_. structures serve as" architectural deterrmnants". THOMAS BROS. WINERY CIRCULATION A major concern to which the Plan must provide solutions is that of future traffic congestion. The traffic analysis predicts an ultimate daily traffic count of 50,000-60,000 cars. This means that the importance of adequate traffic control measures cannot be over-emphasized. This Plan calls for the construction of Foothill Boulevard as a six lane divided arterial, with: * Synchronized signalization at all intersections. * A continuous median island, with openings limited to major intersections and selected additional locations. * Selected access location points on Foothill Boulevard based on a restrictive policy for driveway locations and minimum spacing. * Multiple left-turn lanes and separate right-turn lanes at critical intersections. The Plan also provides criteria under which additional median openings or access points may be considered. However, it must be recognized that the corridor is an integral part of the City-wide and regional circulation system and that all traffic control measures must work in concert with one another. 'The desire to provide additional median openings or points of access to localized areas must be weighed against the Boulevard's ability to carry safely the projected volumes of traffic. TYPICAL MID-BLOCK LOCATION J,AND USE Specialty Commercial (SC) In an effort to establish the Corridor as a viable regional commercial area the plan provides for significant commercial opportunities along the boulevard. The land use designations and activities have been carefully selected to enhance the community design concept and improve its" commercial viability. The Plan is tailored to unique opportunities and constraints of selected areas, and contains special land use provisions highlighted below: Re~onallv Related Commercial (RC) This category is located immediately adjacent to the east side of the I- 15 Freeway to take advan- tage of the land's freeway exposure and close proximity to the regional mall. The intent is to provide available environment for retailers of re- gional nature that will not locate within the mall :self. This designation was incorporated into the Plan to facilitate specialized development of landmark and activity centers along the corridor. The intent here is to provide high quality, pedestrian-ori- ented activity areas, with eating establishments, entertainment and specialty shopping. The loca- tion of this designation is at key areas, as follows: * Bear Gulch * Vineyard Avenue Intersection (Thomas Brothers Winery) * Archibald Avenue Intersection In addition, the Plan calls for more traditional commercial, office, and residential developments, with focus on quality, balance, and community identity. IMPLEMENTATION To ensure that the plan area develops successfully, the implementation section provides suggested methods of f'mancing for needed public improvements. Cost estimates and proposed phasing of improvements are provided. This section includes a lot consolidation program which provides incentives for small lot owners to work together with the Redevelopment Agency to improve development potential at certain target areas. The Plan also recognizes the need to bring high sales volume businesses into the City, and this section suggests certain incentive to attract these strong market performers. In addition, it is recognized that the existing businesses along the corridor need to be helped in the corridor's revitalization with a small business assistance program with the Redevelopment Agency, Small Business Administration, and other programs. Uniqueness. This quality can be derived from a single feature, a district-wide theme reflecting ethnic or historical themes, or an event which is staged in a special place each year. A sense of place in a shared past, which gives people a sense of belonging. 5.3 COMMUNITY DESIGN VOCABULARY In an effort to provide a unique com- munity image for the Foothill Boulevard Corridor, a variety of existing or pro- posed image enhancement elements will be provided or enhanced, designed to in- crease corridor identity. Vocabulary of these image giving elements include the following: ection at ma, ~or streets or landmarks along the Foothill Boulevard Corridor . ~ls°ng~cthh~. tL°~thai~le ~po~l~a~fd cCo°nrcreidn~)rr~;ted ~-~ a t~tyc ~v~ whic gh 've~ identity to individual ~are~s._ ......... ~,~ Ma'or Actij vity Centers located contiguous~,, to t Foohe t~'11 Boulevard Corridor include the areas surrounding the following o Foo h_ 71!_ _ at t 5.a.n Bernardino o Foothill at Vineyard Avenue o F too hi_ II at Archibald Avenue ~, o Foo ht ill at Turner Avenue ~ o Footh.,,, at_ Et ,wa. nda Avenue ~.) The in'ectl ion of small doses of urbanity t thesea key activity centers is suggested ethod for creatrn ~_ ng~a' more inte er sting, f Iorma and diverse impression of the F th'11oo ~ Corri od r The Act'v~ ity Center at /~'Footh'11 a~ ndS. n.~Be. rnar.din. o is a more 5.3.2 Suburban Parkway Transitions It is recognized that the Foothill Boulevard Corridor will not become a totally pedestrian oriented environment. Therefore, the five pedestrian oriented activity centers listed above, will be linked together by "suburban parkway" transition areas. These parkway transi- tion sections will consist of informal landscape treatments, dominated by drifts of London Planes, California Sycamore, and Purple Plum trees. Other parkway characteristics include rolling turf berms and meandering/undulating sidewalks, de- signed to complement informal landscape treatments. 5.3.3 Landmarks Specific elements of the environment that exhibit and promote an individual or uni- que identity include landmarks. Because landmarks are, by definition, unique and distinct, they are also few in number. Landmarks are typically associated with historic structures/features or prominent land forms which exhibit memorable qual- ities and project a strong identity or image. Landmarks located contiguous to the Foothill Boulevard Corridor include: The Sycamore Inn The Oso Bear Monument The remnants of the Cucamonga China Town The Thomas Brothers Winery The Virginia Dare Winery The First U.S. Post Office site in Cucamonga John and George Klusman Houses Mitchell House Mandala House Bell House Gu idera House Sacred Heart Aggazzotti Winery 11-5.2 COMMUNITY DESIGN CONCEPT S. 1 INTRODUCTION This section of the Specific Plan estab- lishes parameters within which the com- munity character for the entire Foothill Boulevard Corridor can be created. To do so, a number of issues and design concepts have been previously explored. However, at the core of all discussion and investigation has been the attempt to define community character in an accu- rate, comprehensive, and pragmatic manner. The Community Design Plan is primarily focused on the creation of aes- thetic character. It's purpose is to create a visual environment that evokes a distinctive and unifying image which is unique to Rancho Cucamonga. To accom- plish this task, the Foothill Boulevard Corridor must first distinguish itself from other major thoroughfares in nearby com- munities; and second, it must serve as a visually unifying concourse that links the entire community of Rancho Cucamonga. Lastly, it is important to have a design statement for the Foothill Boulevard Corridor with each contributing communi- ty design element skillfully orchestrated to promote a contiguous, cohesive, community design image. · The community design section consists of the following components: 0 Image Enhancement Features (5.2), define common community design qualities which enhance community image and identity. Community Design Vocabulary (5.3), defines and describes various image enhancement features includin9 nodes/activity centers, suburban parkway transitions, landmarks, gateways, and views. L Key Existing Community Design Feature [5.~4), identifies a variety of existing community design features including prominent building struc- tures, and natural features. These elements hold potential for the Foothill Corridor. Overall Community Design Concept (5.5), describes overall design concepts related to subarea struc- ture, activity center and suburban parkway definitions, architecture, and landscape architecture. 5.2 IMAGE ENHANCEMENT FEATURES Community image is related to the way people experience the City driving through it, observing its natural qualities and the character of it's buildings, walk- ing through commercial areas, and visitin9 specific destinations. The best communities have the following memorable image enhancement features: A clear sense of arrival through a distinct change in landscape, hard- scape, built areas, or special entrance monumentation features. A civic, commercial, or cultural public urban open space, which de- fines the activities, history, com- merce, or natural/manmade features which the community as a whole values. Typical public urban open spaces consist of plazas, courtyards, urban paseos, market streets, historic landmarks, and public parks. O A clear orqanization of streets, identifiable districts, and landmarks which 9ives people a sense of direc- tion and orientation. The extent of confusion in traffic circulation, and the amount of congestion increasing- ly figures in people's perceptions of cities. COMMUNITY DESIGN CONCEPT Foothill Archibald Intersect. ion _. This intersection is located at the center of the Foothill Boulevard Corridor and holds potential for establishing a major, urban oriented, activity center, Develop- merit surrounding this intersection will promote pedestrian oriented retail ser- vices designed to serve the specialty needs of the community. Major redevel- opment on all corners, excluding the Millers Outpost Center, will promote active commercial uses within a pedes- trian dominated context. The opportunity~ of establishing a "commons" or public / urban open space should be explored, de-~ signed to reinforce and promote pedestrian usage. ' ::.:.::..: ::!i;..· . · 25' URBAN SETBACK · PEDESTRIAN LEVEL ARCHITECTURE STEPPED TO UPPER LEVELS · FORMAL LANDSCAPE ARRANGEMEN' · URBAN STREETSCAPE VOCABULAR · MAJOR URBAN DESIGN STATEMENT ALONG FOOTHILL · PUBLIC PLAZA SPACE · PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES 5.~1.3 Sycamore Inn The Sycamore Inn activity center is dom- inated by a quality sit-down restaurant, complemented by small specialty oriented restaurants, shops, and support offices. Originally established in the 1880~s this large two-story structure was constructed as an inn/stage stop in the area com- munity known as Bear Gulch. The architecture is characterized by chateau and craftsman details. The building is sheathed in vertical wood siding and has a moderately pitched gable roof with a native stone chimney. The building and site are enhanced by the presence of numerous mature California Sycamore trees. 5.q.~l Magic Lamp Restaurant The Magic Lamp Restaurant is located in an eclectic building which is character- ized by brick walls, and a unique clay tiled hip roof. The roof of the structure is composed of a variety of roof tiles stacked in such a fashion as to provide a rich textured effect. The restaurant lies within the Bear Gulch activity area. 5.q.5 Eucalyptus Windrows The remnants of a windrow are found on either side of Foothill Boulevard, east of the Southern Pacific Railroad bridge crossing which traverses the boulevard. The trees are mature and appear healthy, although are not maintained and set a distinctive open space character along Foothill Boulevard. COMMUNITY DESIGN CONCEPT OVERALL COMMUNITY DESIGN CONCEPT The overall Community Design Concept is comprised of a hierarchy of urban design components which range from the devel- opment of large subareas, to specifically located district activity centers. The intent of the Community Design Concept is to provide a broad-brushed overview of qeneral design components which ulti- mately lead to the development of specific design guidelines. The overall Community Design Concept consists of the following components: O O O O O Subarea structure Activity centers Suburban parkways Overall architectural concept Overall landscape architectural concept 5.5.1 Subarea Structure In an attempt to provide individual district identity, the planning area has been segmented into four distinct sub- areas. Each subarea contains an activity center or focal point, such as a concen- tration of urban oriented specialty uses, which is intended to increase the "image- ability" of each individual subarea. These separate subarea identities will promote a sense of place for the residents and visitors to the Specific Plan area, and will ultimately enhance property values. ~A~ivity Centers Each subarea within the planning area is punctuated by an urban oriented activity center. Typically located at major inter- sections, these activity centers function to provide a district level focal point which ultimately increases district level density. The activity centers will be composed of urban oriented specialty commercial uses, designed in such a man- ner as to accommodate pedestrian orient- ed activities. Individual structures and large commercial shopping centers will be designed in such a manner as to promote an urban oriented "Rancho Winery .Reviva. l" the.me complemented by higher r~ intensity built fo~ II-5.8 5.5.3 Suburban Parkways Suburban parkways will be designed to link individual activity centers. The parkways will be designed with informal clusters of trees and rolling turf berms, which evoke pastoral, suburban oriented, qualities. $,$,~ Overall Architectural Concept The overall architectural concept is characterized by architectural elements which complement Rancho Cucamonga's heritage. A diversity of architectural styles are allowed within the corridor, rather than one specific style, in an effort to promote a richness of archi- tectural character, While no specific architectural theme is required, "Rancho Cucamonga Heritage" architectural styles such as California Barn, winery, mission, agriculture character are encouraged. 5.5.5 Overall Landscape Architectural Concept The Landscape Concept for the Foothill Boulevard Corridor proposes the use of a specific palette of trees in designated areas, designated to reinforce both urban and suburban architectural features. The activity centers will distinguish from suburban parkway areas to the use of formal urban oriented tree plantings except as noted in Bear Gulch. These formal tree plantings will border all activity centers and will define these areas as being higher intensity urban oriented districts. Informal plantings will provide a casual backdrop to suburban parkway areas which lie between activity nodes (see graphic). The informal plantings will be located between activity centers in order to relate to these lower intensity suburban transition areas. In addition, the overall landscape concept shall incorporate a mixture of landscape and hardscape features using native materials. COMMUNITY DESIGN CONCEPT LAND USE CONCEPT 6.1 INTRODUCTION The Specific Plan Component Section includes a variety of individual component plans which define the overall framework for development within the planning area. Major components include: o Overall Land Use Concept o Land Use Categories and Types o Subarea Structure o Vehicular Circulation Concept o Community Design Concept o Implementation The intent of these concept plans is to describe, in detail, various planning con- cepts related to the items listed above, in order to outline an evolution or process designed to transform broad-brushed goals, objectives, and policies into specific design and development regul- ations. The concept plans are in direct response to the various implementing actions listed in the goals, objectives, and policy section. 6.2 OVERALL LAND USE CONCEPT The Overall Land Use Concept is based on the concept of dividing the planning area into four maior subareas; all of which should be punctuated by higher in- tensity urban activity centers. Subareas were determined by various environmental features; such as topography, recent de- velopment patterns, architecture, blight, physical form, and circulation routes. The activity centers are designed as neighborhood/subarea focal points. For example Bear Gulch Village, which already contains a variety of quality sit-down oriented restaurant uses, provides an overriding "restaurant row" theme which is unique to its subarea. Other subareas within the planning area also contain concentrations of unique land uses which foster the potential to create and strengthen higher intensity activity centers. Specific land uses within the planning area also contribute to the diversity of the planning area. As is evident when viewing the Overall Land Use Plan, the planning area contains a variety of land uses ranging from higher intensity com- mercial oriented uses; such as conven- ience, specialty, and regional related commercial designations, to residential uses. Other land uses include office, light industrial, and public oriented uses. Related to these land uses are their accompanying Development Standards [see Section 9.0) which provide the necessary setbacks and landscaping to buffer the adjacent properties. See the Overall Land Use Plan Map. 11-6.1 LAND USE CONCEPT RESOLUTION NO. 91-276 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF T6E CITY OF RANOK) ~, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING tXX7I,n~. BOUiA%rARD ~Fh~J/~%C PLAN ~ NO. 91-01, AMI~D~ THE BOULEVARD ~hul~'£C PLAN TO INCLUDE THEPARCEL ~SIST/NG OF API~O~IH%.T~Y 8.3 ACRES AT THE NO~IHEAST C0~N~R OF FINDINGS IN ~T}~EOF. APN: 227-152-18AND 30 A. Recitals. (i) The City of Rancho O,~monga has initiated an application for Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment No. 91-01 as d~cribed in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." (ii) On July 10, 1991, the Planning C~...,i~ion of the City of Rancho O,cam~nga oonduct~ a duly noticed public hearing with respect to the application. Follc~ing the conclusion of said public hearing, the Planning C~,~ssion adopted its P~solution No. 91-95, thereby reo~,~nding that the City Council adopt Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment No. 91-01. (iii) On September.18, 1991, the City Council of the City of Rancho O,ca~nnga conducted a duly noticed public hearing and concluded said hearing on thatdate. (iv) All lec3al prerequisites prior to the adoption of this B. R~so!ution. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho CUc~o~= does hereby find, detannine and resolve as follows: 1. TD~-~ Council 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 Council durin~ tb~ above-referenced public h-a~ing on September 18, 1991, including written and oral testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The ameDdment pertains to a _+ 8.3 acre parcel of land which is located at the nortb~t corner of Foothill Boulevard and RDchester Avenue with a street frontage of _+900 feet alon~ Foothill Boulevard and _+400 feet along Rochester Avenue and is presently vacant. Said parcel is currently designated as "OP" (Office Professional); and (b) The pr~e~ty to the north is designate_ for residential uses and is developed with single family homes. The property to the west is designated for office and c~rcial uses and is vacant. ~ne property to the south is designated for industrial uses and is developed with a single family residence. The property to the east is designat~ for utility and flood control facilities-and is developed with such; and Resolution No. 91-276 Page 2 (c) ~ amendment will incorporate the _+8.3 acre paroel located at the northeast oorner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue into Subarea 4 of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan as an ~L~civity Center; (d) ~ ~ent will "tie" together the visual aspects of Foothill Boulevard as a major c~m~-~cial corridor through the implementation of s~ and site design standards contained within the Foothill s = ic p n. 3. Based upon the substantial evidenoe presented to this Council during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Council hereby finds and o0~cludes as follows: (a) ~hat the ;~ment will provide for develo~ of a c~ively planned urban o~unity within the District that is superior to development otherwise allowable under alternate re~tions; and (b) That the Amendment will provide for development within the District in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development and growth management policies of the City; and (c) That the ;~,~-~.~,,L will provide for the col~t~uction, improwm~nt, or extension of ~rmnsportation facilities, public utilities, and public servioes required by devel~ with the District. 4. This Council hereby certifies that the project b~ been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Envi~,~ltal Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Council hereby issues a Negative Declaration. 5. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, based upon the find/rigs and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, that this Council hereby approves ar~ adopts Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment 91-01 as attac~ed in Exhibit "A". PASSED, APPROVe), and ~ 'thi~ 18th day of September, 1991. Denns L. Stout, Mayor Resolution No. 91-276 Page 3 I, DV~A J. ADAMS, CITY ~T.V~K of the City of Rancho O,mam~nc3a, California, do hereby certify that the fc~e~oing Resolution was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho O,ca~nga, California, at a regular meeting of said City Council held on tb~ 18th day of September, 1991. Executed this 19th day of September, 1991 at Rancho Cucamonga, California. ~ J~.J. ~, City Clerk m x I ! I I ~ I i I ,~ I I "~ ~',1 I ~ I ~1 I ',l I I .t I I [r I I I I I I ...... III I"()()'l'llll.i. I~()tI!.I';VAItl) .~1'1".('11"!(' I'I.AN PLANNING SUB-AREA 4 SETTING I"()()'1'1111.1. I~()1 I.l';¥/\l{I) .~1'1'~('11.'1(' I'I.,\N PLANNING SUB-AREA 4 CIRCULATION CONCEPT II. !.I · FOOTHILL BOULEVARD DESIGN SUPPLEMENT Amencling the Terra Vista Community Plan, Victoria Community Plan, and Industrial Area Specific Plan. INTRODUCTION WHAT IS TH!-q RUPP! I=M!=NT ARC~UT? On September 16, 1987, the City Council approved the Foothill Boulevard Specific Ptan (FBSP). The F13SP was enacted to provide a unified development scheme for the FoothiU Boulevard corridor throuF~h the community. Of prime importance to the FBSP are the special streetscape desi~ provisions which "tie" to~ether the visual aspec~ of this co~ roadway. 'Missing Link' Area Figure I - Missing Link Area The portion of Foothill ~oulevard betwe~ Haven Avenue and the Interstate 15 Freeway (I-15) was not a part of the specific plan study; t!~.[cfore, its provisions did not apply to the development of this "miss- ing link." At the time of the FBSP approval, the City Council and Planning Commission expressed a desire to include silFgficant design provisions of the plan in the development of the "missing link." This amendment to the Terra Vista Community Plan (TVCP), the Victoria Community Plan (VCP), ar, d the Industrial Area Specific Plan (ISP) is proposed to include specific streetscape design provisions of the FBSP in the develop- ment of the properties adjacent to Foothill Boulevard. WHFRF no!=R IT APP! Y? The foUowing provisions w~U apply to all properties bordering Foothill Boulevard within the 'T'VCP. VCP, and ISP. This amendment augments the development regulations and standaids of the TVCP, VCI". and ISP. When an issue, condition, or situation occurs which is not covered or provided for in this amendment provisions of the 'I'VC'P, VCP, or [SP, the regulations of the Development Code of the City of Rancho Cucamon§a that are most applicable to the issue, condition, or situation shall apply. SUmmLElaENT~M II. COMMUNITY DESIGN CONCEPT The Foothill Boulevard Design Supplement is intended to extend the concepts of the Foothill Boule- vard Specific Pla~ to the "mi~ link" through the creation of a dynamic concourse that is attractive and of high quality with a unifying community design image reflective of the community heritage and identity, providing an economically viable setting for a balanced mixture of commercial and residential uses with safe, efficient circulation and access. Create a community image that expresses and enhances the unique character and identity of Rancho Cucamonga. B. ORJFCTIVFR: Develop a streetscape system which designates major intersections as activity centers and emphasizes the suburban parkways between the activity centers as vehiozlar areas. Promote compatible building elevations which afford a human scale at pedestrian areas and provide transitions to buildings of greater height, while protecting adjoining residential conditions. Promote appropriate landscape treatments throughout the comdor, particularly those that are low maintenance, drought tolerant, itnd wind resistant within intense urban conditions. Provide for the control of visually objectionable views, such as outdoor storage and loading areas, through proper site design and screening. C. PO! IClFR: Develop consistent streetscape and architectural palettes which are sensitive to creating a "heritage" statement for Foothill Boulevard. Require compliance with community design guidelines in plans for new development and expansion or redevelopment of existing development and make community design a major consideration in site plan review and approval. Utilize landscape materials which am clean, safe, wind resistant, and relatively low maintenance. Formal forms and configurations should be utilized at activity centre' nodes while less formal configurations should be utilized throughout the parkway links between nodes. Designate special landscape and architectural features at major in~rsections. Combine thematic plantings with contemporary architectural statements designed to promote a distinctive character for t he activity centers. Changes in paving materials, lighting, signing, and siting of adjacent structures should occur at major intersections to enhance their distinctiveness. 7~)1 Iil. DESIGN GUIDELINES Activity centers ..a~_ .selected intersections along the Foothill Boulevard corridor defined as 'Theme" or "Statement" areas which 'tie tosether the visual aspects of the Footh/11 Boulevard corridor through the dty, J promote concentrated activity at these areas, and give identity and theme to the areas in which they are ~ located. The activity centers a,-e located contiguous Io FootKill Bou]ev~d as indicated in Figure 2. ~ ,\ _ il II /4, Figure 2 -Activtty Center Locations ~ Because three comers of the Haven Avenue intemection are fully or part/ally developed, the devel- ~ opment provisions of the activity center am lirrdted to those streetscape and landscape improvements wittan/ the public right-of-way. Therefore, many' of the followin§ standards apply only to the Mi/Uken Avenue and / Rochester Avenue activity centers: ~ a. All building orientations will relate to the FoothiU Boulevard frontage. The building setback areas will be enhanc~ pedestrian zones with special hardscape materials, formal landscape arrange- ments, and pedestrian level lighting. b. Streetscape elements such a.~ boilards, crosswalks with speciaJ paving materials, light standards, and street furrdture should be uniform throughout the FoothJU Boulevard corridor. c. The concept within the activity center is to incorporate a formal, re~ularly spaced, street tree planting system utilizing a palette of informally shaped, colorful trees. d. The urban or formal streetscape design characteristic of the activity center shou Id extend along Foothill Boulevard and secondary/intersecting streets to a point of io~icaJ transition to the suburban parkway. Typically, the design will extend to at least the first driveway or as modified through design review process. The extent of the urban streetscape should be able to adjust to changes in public ncht. of-way conditions, such as right turn lanes and bus bays. 2. Site Planning: a. At activity centers, buildings may be placed at or adjacent to the front setback line to c'mate a more appealing, active streetscape. Front yard areas of parking lots dominating the streetscene are specifically prohibited. b. Multi-story buildings shall be designed to relate to the pedestrian level. All ground story facades shall be designed to relate to the human scale. This can be accomplished through the breaking of facades into bays and the signage brought down in size and location. Further, this reduction in scale can be established through the use of elements which add horizontal articulation to the facades. Examples of these elements include pedestrian arcades and awnings. (Milliken & Rochester only.) c. Buildings shall be designed to eliminate a fragmented, strip commercial appearance and should be oriented to the activity center (Milliken & Rochestin' only). d. Archil~ure and outdoor spaces along Foothill Boulevard shall be inmgrally designed and oriented toward the pedestrian experience. The experience should be visually diverse and stimulating and should include activities that create a sense of variety and interest (Milliken & Rochester only). e. Structures, pathways, and landscaping shall be incorporated within the site so as to ensure ease of access from one site to adjoining sites in a safe manner. f. Building entrances shall be designed to accommodate logical pedestrian access from the Foothill Boulevard fight-of-way. This may include direct entrances from Foothill Boulevard, separations in the buildings that allow access to the interior pl;~;,a areas, or other appropriate methods. 3. Architectural Concept: a. Within individual activity center, the architectural style should be consistent to provide continuity of design at the intersection. 1. Milliken Activity Centex - Them are no existing buildings located at the Milliken activity center intersection. As a result, the Development Review process will establish the flavor for the area when reviewing the development proposals. New developments need not "duplicate" the architectural style of previous submittals but must be compatible in ten'ns of architecture and orientation with the other comer(s) of the intersection. 2. Rocheslur Activity Center - New proposals shall consider and respect the architectural style of existing buildings. For example, the Aggazzotti Winery at the southeast comer of Foothill and Rochester, is a potential National Historic Registry candidate. Any proposals for this activity center should be designed to be compatible with this structure. This does not mean that new proposals must emulate the architectural style of the winery but, rather, that they must complement existing buildings. b. Differentiate the ground floor facades from the second floor in recognition of the differences in the character of activities at the ground floor level. Examples include, but are not limited to. the use of storefront glass, stepped-back or tiered forms, fenestration, and other appropriate architectural feature, facin. g Foothill Boulevard, Milliken Avenue, and Rochester Avenue. Page 5 ~ 4. !.~ndscape Concept: The activity centers shall be distinguished from suburban (informal) parkway areas through the u~ of formal, urban tree plantings. These formal plantings shall border all aclivity centre s and shall de~ln~ these ar~s as being !xigher intensity, urban districts. The plantings shall consist of ~n off,Jet double row of C.,tape Myrtle (Lagemtroernia inclica) trees along each road frontage. Addi- tional plant materials ( ev~fr~,..., canopy trees, palms, etc.) may be introduced to supplement the Crape Myrtle as a backdrop. The type and location of the additional materials should be based on the particular buiding design, scale, and ~ SU~L£1d ENI'~M Figure 3 - Activity Center Concepts/Examples Pag¢6 B. RURURBAN PARKWAYS: 1. Streetscape: a. The parkways will be designed with informal dusters of trees, rolling turf betres, and meandering/undulating sidewalks evoking pastoral, suburban qualities. b. Streetscape elements such as bollards, crosswalks with special paving, light standards, and street furniture shall be identical in style and finish to those used in the FBSP area. 2. Architectural Concept: a. The archit~al characteristics shall be governed by the existing standards of the Development Code, *I'VCP, VC~, and ISP. b. In situations where buildings are highly visible from the side streets and/or adjacent parking areas, special emphasis shall be placed on creating architectural interest. 3. Landscape concept: The plantings will consist of informal treatments, dominated by London Plane (Platanus acerifolia), California Sycamore (Platanus racemosa), and Flowering Plum (Prunus cerasifera) trees. Other species may be used to accent and/or supplement these designated tree types. The type and location of these species should be reviewed in conjunction with specific development proposals. C. PARKWAY TRANRITIONR: In order to provide a g"mduaJ transition from the urban activity cent~s to the suburban, infon'nal parkways, "parkway transitions" will be intnxiucecl along the corridor. Parkway transitions are designed to blend the formal hardscape and tree planting pattern of the activity cenmrs with the informal landscape and hardscape treatment of the suburban parkways. Specifically, the parkway transition is characterized by a 75-foot to 1SO-foot zone, domexited by Flowering Plum trees. Other tree species may be introduced to supplement the Flowering Plum to assist in creating a smooth transition. Figure 5 - Parkway Transition Ii CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: August 13, 1997 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS BACKGROUND: Commissioners and staff to explore options. meeting. The current membership is as follows: COMMITTEE Bill Bethel Rich Macias This item was continued from the July 9 and 23, 1997, meetings to allow the Those options will be reviewed at the Commission ALTI=RNATES (in order) Peter Tolstoy Dave Barker Larry McNiel A history of Design Review Committee membership since January 1993 is attached as Exhibit "A." RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission should determine appropriate membership for the Design Review Committee. City Planner BB:GS/gs Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Design Review Committee Membership History I I'EM F DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP January 1993 to Present COMMITTEE ALTERNATES (in order) July 1992 - October 1992: Larry McNiel Wendy Vailerie Peter Tolstoy Suzanne Chitiea John Melcher October 1992 - January 1993: Larry McNiel John Melcher Peter Tolstoy Wendy Vallette Suzanne Chitiea January 1993 - October 1993: John Melcher Wendy Vailerie Peter Tolstoy Suzanne Chitiea Larry McNiel October !993 - December 1993: Larry McNiel John Melcher Peter Tolstoy Suzanne Chitiea Wendy Vallette December 1993 - June 1994: Larry McNiel John Melcher Peter Tolstoy Heinz Lumpp Dave Barker June 1994- December 1994: Heinz Lumpp John Melcher Peter Tolstoy Larry McNiel Dave Barker December 1994 - August 1995: Heinz Lumpp Larry McNiel Peter Tolstoy Dave Barker John Melcher August 1995 to January 1996: Heinz Lumpp John Melcher Dave Barker Peter Tolstoy Larry McNiel January 1996 to August !996: Heinz Lumpp Larry McNiel Peter Tolstoy Dave Barker John Melcher August 1996 to January 1997: Rich Macias Larry McNiel Bill Bethel Peter Tolstoy Dave Barker January 1997 to present: Bill Bethel Rich Macias Peter Tolstoy Dave Barker Larry McNiel Exhibit A PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 97-07 - DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC HOMES LTD. August 13, 1997 Page 2 3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference: Planning Division 1) The rear elevation for the iii~'i?'~'~.~_~i~ side-rear entry garage {or elevations 300A and B shall have an additional window treatment added. 2) For lots with unconventional plotting; ie., 8,17, 46, and 52, label and revise all final plans to indicate the front, side, and rear yard setbacks. In addition, the applicant shall record a deed restriction, or other similar type of recordation instrument, which shall inform homeowners of actual front, side and rear yard setback locations and code restrictions. 3) Conditions of approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 13851 and Variance 88-24 shall apply. Engineering Division 1) Submit improvement agreement, improvement securities, and monument cash deposit to substitute for the existing agreement, securities, and monument cash deposit from the previous developer. 2) Update the existing approved street Improvement Plan to reflect current City Standards and new location of drive approaches. Processing and plan checking fees will be required. 3) A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated cost of operating all street lights during the first six months of operation, prior to building permit issuance. 4) All accent paving shall be located outside the public right-of-way. 5) All conditions of approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 13851 and Design Review per Resolution No. 88-208 shall apply. Building and Safety Division 1) The storm drain provided generally at the rear of the properties thc castorn cdgc of thc tract for thc purposcs of conveying cross-lot dra nagc i~;~'ie'i:e ~Jiilti~'pi:~..~i~'0's~]'c~t~.id'raini~a~i"~'~i!'d.'~o~i~ii:~ shall either be constructed of reinforced concrete pipe, or shall otherwise be designed in a manner consistent with City requirements and policies. 2) On Lot 46, the wall located along the front setback shall be placed at the top of the slope rather than at the bottom as currently shown on the Landscape Plan.