The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1998/01/28 - Agenda PacketCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA WEDNESDAY JANUARY 28, 1998 7:00 PM Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center Council Chamber 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California I. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call Chairman Barker __ Vice Chairman McNiel __ Commissioner Bethel __ Commissioner Macias w Commissioner Tolstoy __ II. ANNOUNCEMENTS III. PUBLIC HEARINGS The followin~l items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice their opinion of the related project. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address the Commission by stating your name and address. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. Please sign in after speaking. A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-42 - L & M RESTAURANTS (COCO'S) - A request to construct a 5,500 square foot restaurant on a 1.1 acre parcel within the Foothill Marketplace Shopping Center within the Community Commercial District of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located south of Foothill Boulevard and immediately east of Interstate 15 - APN: 229-031-40. IV. NEW BUSINESS B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-38 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES - A request to construct a public mini-storage facility consisting of 5 buildings totaling 77,860 square feet on 2.96 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the south side of Arrow Highway, between Utica Avenue and Red Oak Street - APN: 209-491-82. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. V. PUBLIC COMMENTS This is the time and place forthe general public to address the Commission. Items to be discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda. VI. COMMISSION BUSINESS C. LOT SIZES ALONG ETIWANDA AVENUE (Oral report) D. RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING MOTORCYCLE RIDING ON TRAILS VII. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11:00 p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission. THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL ADJOURN TO A MEETING IMMEDIA TEL Y FOLLOWING IN THE RAINS ROOM REGARDING PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW 97-07 - HMC GROUP I, Gall Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on January 22, 1998, at/east 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. Page 2 VICINITY MAP CITY HALL CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ' STAFF REPORT DATE: January 28, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Steve Hayes, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 9742 - L & M RESTAURANTS (COCO'S) - A request to construct a 5,500 square foot restaurant on a 1.1 acre parcel within the Foothill Marketplace Shopping Center within the Community Commercial District of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located south of Foothill Boulevard and immediately east of Interstate 15 - APN: 229-031-40. Related File: Conditional Use Permit 90-37. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Site Characteristics: The site is a rough graded and hydro-seeded pad within the Foothill Marketplace Shopping Center, immediately west of the Claim Jumper restaurant and north of Sport Chalet and Circuit City. The site slopes minimally and drains into adjacent parking areas. B. Parking Calculations: Number of Number of Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces of Use Footage Ratio Required Provided Restaurant 6,550 1/100 66 66 * (incl. outdoor eating area) · Please refer to the parking analysis (Section B under analysis) for further details regarding the parking issue. ANALYSIS: A. General: The applicant is proposing to develop a 5,500 square foot restaurant with a 1,050 square foot outdoor eating area. The field of parking south of the proposed restaurant will be extended northward to create an additional 28 parking spaces for the shopping center, which staff anticipates being used principally by the new restaurant. ITEM A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 97-42-L & M RESTAURANTS (COCO'S) Janua~ 28,1998 Page 2 With the original Master Plan for the shopping center, a 12,210 square foot retail pad was shown on this parcel. Given its distance from the vehicular access points off the major arteries, the site will be served by the existing internal vehicular circulation system. Staff anticipates that most of the restaurant patrons will enter the shopping center from the westernmost access off Foothill Boulevard, adjacent to the In N' Out Burger fast food restaurant. The building has been designed using like exterior materials to those already used on a majority of the freestanding pad buildings and the in-line shops buildings. An overhead trellis structure is shown over the outdoor eating area. per the request of the Design Review Committee. B. Parking: On the original Master Plan, a 12,210 square foot retail pad was shown on the parcel. The current application contemplates the development of a 5,500 square foot restaurant and a 1,050 square foot outdoor eating area on the north side of the building. Given the more intensive parking requirement for restaurants as opposed to a generic retail pad building, staff was concerned with the potential parking impacts on the shopping center associated with the proposed use change. The proposed restaurant will require 66 parking spaces whereas the original retail building would require only 49 parking spaces. However, in conjunction with the restaurant proposal and its much smaller foot. print than the original ret~ '. building, the existing parking lot south of the parcel is being proposed to extend nor,, .Jard to allow for an additional 28 parking spaces adjacent to and south of the new restaurant. With the addition of the new parking spaces, staff feels that the parking situation has been improved over the original condition shown on the Master Plan. C. Internal Vehicular Circulation: As noted earlier, staff anticipates a majority of the vehicular traffic entering the site to dine at Coco's will use the westernmost vehicular access point off Foothill Boulevard. The addition of another restaurant to the site will raise traffic levels on the property, specifically for the route to the restaurant. Of particular concern to staff on this route is the internal 4-way intersection immediately adjacent to the Oil Max facility. Currently, all directions of traffic, with the exception of southbound traffic, is required to stop at this intersection and proper stop signs and striping are posted at this location. Staff has recently observed traffic flow at this intersection and witnessed several situations where accidents almost occurred. Staff feels that these "near-miss" accidents are a result of southbound traffic not having to stop but drivers assuming that they do, causing many near miss rear end collisions. With the increase of traffic volumes at this intersection associated with the development of the proposed restaurant, staff is recommending, as a potential resolution to this issue, that the intersection be posted and striped as a full 4-way intersection to the satisfaction of the City Planner and City 'Engineer, prior to occupancy of the new Coco's Restaurant. Staff feels that a full 4-way intersection would help minimize confusion and that ample on-site southbound stacking is available from the intersection back to Foothill Boulevard so as to alleviate any stacking concerns into the public right-of-way and a State Highway. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 9742 - L & M RESTAURANTS (COCO'S) January 28, 1998 Page 3 D. Internal Pedestrian Circulation: With the approval of the Master Shopping Center Site Plan, one of the critical design elements was an internal pedestrian circulation system to connect the retail and pad buildings with the larger anchor tenants and in-line shops. To that end, a pedestrian walkway was provided throughout the site. In the area of the proposed restaurant, a sidewalk was built to connect Spod Chalet and Circuit City with pad buildings to the north. However, these walkways terminate at major vehicular aisles and do not provide for any east/west pedestrian movement between the Coco's and Claim Jumper pads and WaI-Mart (see Exhibit "C"). Therefore, in conjunction with development of the new Coco's and the modification request, staff is recommending that an additional east/west pedestrian route be provided to connect these two restaurants with Wal-Mart and, where these pedestrian walkways cross major vehicular circulation aisles, provide additional special paving to specifically define the pedestrian travel routes, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. E. Missing Public Improvements: Upon a recent site inspection, staff observed that a approximately 4-foot long piece of public sidewalk was never installed along the Etiwanda Avenue street frontage, near the southeast corner of the site. A recommended condition of approval in conjunction with the modification request will be to install this missing link of sidewalk, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. F. Design Review Committee: On December 16, 1997, the Committee (Bethel, Macias, Fong) recommended approval of the project subject to conditions that have been incorporated into the attached Resolution of Approval. Please refer to Exhibit "H," the action comments from the Design Review Committee meeting. for recommended actions of the Committee. G. Technical Review Committee: On December 17, 1997, the Technical Review Committee reviewed the project and determined that, with the recommended conditions of approval, that the project is in conformance with all applicable Standards and Ordinances. The Grading Committee recommended approval of the project at their meeting on December 16, 1997. H. Environmental Assessment: Part I of the Initial Study was completed by the applicant. In reviewing the original Environmental Documentation for the Master Planned Shopping Center, it was found that the exact use of the parcel was not specified, generically referring to the building on the property as an available retail building. The original Environmental Checklist (Part II of the Initial Study), made no distinction relative to potential uses, assuming that certain uses could be located on parcels without any further Environmental Review and covered by overall Environmental Documentation for the Shopping Center. Staff has determined that no additional environmental impacts could be associated with the development of the proposed restaurant on the parcel that were not already considered under the original Environmental Review for the Shopping Center. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 97-42-L & M RESTAURANTS (COCO'S) Janua~ 28,1998 Page 4 CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 300 foot radius of the project site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 97-42 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with Conditions. Respectfully Submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:SH:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Original Shopping Center Master Plan Exhibit "B" Modified Shopping Center Master Plan Exhibit "C" - Site Plan Exhibit "D" - Landscape Plan Exhibit "E" - Grading Plan Exhibit "F" - Building Elevations Exhibit "G" - Floor Plan Exhibit "H" - Design Review Committee Action Comments dated December 16, 1997 Resolution of Approval with Conditions s ~ Coco's Restaurant at Foothill Marketplace f~ ~cho C~~ ~ifomia Coco's Restaurant at Foothill Marketplace Rancho Cucamonga,~alifornia North Elevation ' ~ ,,': ..... South Elevation -. n,~s~,e c..~,'>-rz,..,~-i,~r~-,, c..r~ ~o,,~BICKEL UNDERWOOD East Elevation / ....-.,,. ~- :~.-, ~ :~ '.',.- . __~ West Elevation Section B Section A Coco's Restaurant at Foothill Marketplace Interstate 15 & Foothill Boulevard Rancho Cucamonga, California BICKEL UNDERWOOD / / / 6, / / ta . :" .' ,'~: ,, %,~Xt{mjLij ~' ~ / I ,~ '~ Scalelm'-l'~' / / ""'\\ ,.~ \ ~ f a'~°..:':b\'' ' ", "' ' "''\\', '.,'~".':, ', '~.'~' ~'~,.'(" /'~ i,,'.' ~ / ,-/ \ ,:, ¢,, t>::,\, n '-'4~ .' / .'. / Dean Luizzi Coco's Restaurant at Foothill Marketplace ~°~°""°°'""'" "iI ;Rancho:Cucamonga~Galifomia, DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Steve Hayes December 16, 1997 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-42 - L & M RESTAURANTS (COCO'S) - A request to construct a 5,500 square foot restaurant on a 1.1 acre parcel within the Foothill Marketplace Shopping Center within the Community Commercial District of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located south of Foothill Boulevard and immediately east of Interstate 15 - APN: 229-031-40. Desiqn Parameters: The project is proposed on a rough graded and hydro seeded pad within the Foothill Marketplace Shopping Center, immediately west of the Claim Jumper Restaurant and north of Sport Chalet and Circuit City. Immediately to the west is the recently completed Foothill Boulevard offramp for the Interstate 15 Freeway. To the south is an existing field of parking for the Sport Chalet. The site slopes only minimally and drains to adjacent parking areas. With the original Master Plan for the shopping center, a retail pad building of approximately 12,210 square feet was shown on this parcel. The proposed building plotting and parking configuration are essentially identical to that of the proposed 5,500 square foot restaurant with one exception; in the area where the additional building area was proposed in a southerly direction, a proposed expansion of the parking area is currently proposed. The previous layout has been attached an shown as Exhibit "A." Staff feels that the proposed changes in the building shape and in the parking expansion layout are acceptable. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: 1. The exterior architectural treatment of the building should be applied consistently to that of other pad buildings in the shopping center. both in terms of material use and detailing. Generally, staff feels that this is being accomplished on the conceptual building elevations. but would recommend that the accent tile base treatment be used on the building more extensively and that blank wall areas be treated architecturally or trellises with vines trained to grow up the walls of the building be added. SecondaN Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. The location and orientation of the trash enclosure appears awkward and should be revised. Landscaping should be provided between the trash enclosure wall and any adjacent parking space. 2. A stronger and more direct pedestrian connection between the restaurant and the restaurant to the east should be provided. To achieve this, staff would recommend that the sidewalk connection be continued to the southeast corner of the parcel so that pedestrians can cross the drive aisle at the four-way controlled intersection east of the site. DRC COMMENTS CUP 97-42 - L & M RESTAURANTS (COCO'S) December 16, 1997 Page 2 Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. The final design of the proposed awnings, outdoor tables and umbrellas should be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division. Awnings and umbrellas should be of a solid color and not have any advertisements. 2. Special paving consistent with that already used in the shopping center should be provided in key pedestrian areas and in the handicapped parking stalls. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee recommend approval of the project to the Planning Commission with conditions. Attachment: Exhibit "A" - Master Shopping Center Site Plan Desiqn Review Committee Action: Members Present: Bill Bethel. Rich Macins, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Steve Hayes The Design Review Committee recommended approval of the project to the Planning Commission subject to the following conditions: 1. Metal trellises. identical to those used on other buildings in the Foothill Marketplace Shopping Center, such as Hollywood Video. should be used on the building in blank wall areas, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Vines should be trained to grow up the trellises. 2. The wainscot treatment should be used on all four sides of the building. to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 3, The revised layout of the sidewalk, which now connects directly to the vehicular crossing at the southeast corner of the site, was acceptable to the Committee, The continuation of the pedestrian walkways to Claim Jumper and WaI-Mart should be provided as recommended by staff, prior to occupancy of this restaurant. 4. The trash enclosure layout was deemed acceptable by the Committee. However, a planter area should be provided between the enclosure and the first adjacent parking space. 5. An overhead trellis should be constructed over the outdoor eating area, instead of the individual umbrellas proposed for each table. 6. No more than one sign should be shown per building elevation and a maximum of three signs will be allowed for the business, consistent with the 'provisions in the Foothill Marketplace Uniform Sign Program. 7. The above-referenced policy issues will be recommended as conditions of approval for the project. A ) L.P RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA. APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97-42, A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A 5,500 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT ON A 1.1 ACRE PARCEL WITHIN THE FOOTHILL MARKETPLACE SHOPPING CENTER WITHIN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT OF THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED SOUTH OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND IMMEDIATELY EAST OF INTERSTATE 15, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 229-031-40. A. Recitals. 1. L & M Restaurants has filed an application for the issuance of Conditional Use Permit No. 97-42, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereina~er in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 28th day of January 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public headng on January 28, 1998, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located south of Foothill Boulevard and east of Interstate 15 on a 1.1 acre hydroseeded parcel, located within the Foothill Marketplace Shopping Center with an Interstate 15 frontage of approximately 405 feet and maximum lot depth of approximately 290 feet and is presently improved with curb and gutter along its perimeter; and b. The property to the north and west is Caltrans right-of-way currently used as the northbound off-ramp for Interstate 15, the properly to the south is developed with a field of parking for buildings in the immediate area, including Sport Chalet and Circuit City, and the property to the east is developed with a sit-down restaurant; and c. The application contemplates the construction of a 5,500 square foot restaurant with a 1,050 square foot outdoor eating area on a vacant pad within the Foothill Marketplace Shopping Center. The approved Master Shopping Center Site Plan indicates a 12,210 square foot retail building on the parcel in question; and d. The property is zoned Community Commercial by the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan; and A ,) ~' PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 97-42-L & M RESTAURANTS January 28,1998 Page 2 e. The property will gain vehicular access via the existing internal circulation system and existing points of access off the perimeter public street system. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. b. The proposed use. together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety. or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. c. The proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. 4. The Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that the project identified in this Resolution is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15301 of the State CEQA Guidelines. A Negative Declaration was previously approved for the shopping center project of which this pad is a pad. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Plannino Division 1 ) Metal trellises, identical to those used on other buildings in the Foothill Marketplace Shopping Center, such as Hollywood Video, shall be used on the building in blank wall areas with vine materials trained to grow up onto the trellises, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 2) The sidewalk connection shall be continued to the southeast corner of the parcel in order to facilitate crossing at the four-way intersection east of the site. to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 3) A landscaped area, large enough to accommodate mature trees, shall be provided between the trash enclosure and the first parking space to the south, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 4) The final design of the overhead trellis structure over the outdoor eating area, along with other external pedestrian furniture, such as benches. bicyc!e racks, trash receptacles, etc., shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division, prior to the issuance of building permits. The trellis members and column design shall be consistent with other overhead trellises already used throughout the shopping center. 5) All signage proposed for the facility shall be in conformance with the approved Uniform Sign Program for the Foothill Marketplace Shopping /~/~ PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 97-42- L & M RESTAURANTS Janua~ 28,1998 Page 3 6) The final design of the proposed awnings and outdoor tables and umbrellas (if applicable) shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division, prior to the issuance of building permits. Awnings and umbrellas shall be of a solid color and not contain any advedisements. 7) Special paving consistent with that already used within the shopping center shall be provided in key pedestrian areas and in handicapped parking stalls, to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. 8) The on-site vehicular intersection adjacent to and east of the Oil Max facility shall be re-striped and re-signed as a controlled four-way stop, to the satisfaction of the City Planner and City Engineer. 9) A pedestrian connection shall be provided to connect the Coco's and Claim Jumper Restaurants with the Wal-Mar[ facility to the east. This shall be accomplished by providing an east/west connection within or adjacent to the planter islands on the south side of the east/west drive aisle linking the referenced businesses. Wherever a pedestrian crossing is needed across a ddve aisle, it shall consist of the decorative paving matedal already used throughout the shopping center. The final design of these internal pedestrian circulation system improvements shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of building permits and installed prior to occupancy of the Coco's facility. 10) All applicable Conditions of Approval from the original Resolutions of Approval for the Foothill Marketplace Shopping Center (Resolution Nos. 91-86, 91-248, and 91-86A) shall apply to this project. Engineering Division 1 ) The 4-foot long section of missing sidewalk along the shopping center's Etiwanda Avenue frontage, near the southeast corner of the site, shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Engineering Division prior to occupancy of the new restaurant facility. 6. The Secretan/to this Commission shall cerlify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 1998. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CiTY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker. Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretan/ '/'/ PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 97-42- L & M RESTAURANTS January 28,1998 Page 4 I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby cedify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 28th day of January 1998, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: 'COMMISSIONERS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT#: Conditional Use Permit 9742 SUBJECT: 5,500 square foot restaurant on 0.7 acre pad APPLICANT: L & M Restaurants LOCATION: 12469 Foothill Boulevard (Foothill Marketplace) PLEASE CHECK THE STANDARD CONDITIONS THAT 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 finat map or prior to the issuance of building permits when no map is involved, written certification from the affected water district 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, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors. landscaping. sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, Development Code regulations. the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. 2. 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. 3. All site, grading, landscape. irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building. etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. Project No. CUP 97-42 Completion Date 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. Trash receptacle(s) are required and shall meet City standards. The final design, locations, and the number of trash receptacles shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 7. 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 wails. berrning, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. For single family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults. 8.All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illuminafion. 9. 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. C. Shopping Centers 1.Provide for the following design features in each trash enclosure, to the satisfaction of the City Planner: a. Architecturally integrated into the design of (the shopping center/the project). b. Separate pedestrian access that does not require the opening of the main doors and to include self-closing pedestrian doors. c. Large enough to accommodate two trash bins. d. Roll-up doors. e. Trash bins with counter-weighted lids. f. Architecturally treated overhead shade trellis. g. Chain link screen on top to prevent trash from blowing out of the enclosure and designed to be hidden from view. 2. The lighting fixture design shall compliment the architectural program. It shall include the plaza area lighting figures, building lighting fixtures (exterior), and parking lot lighting fixtures. Project No. CUP 97-42 Completion Date Building Design 1. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Details shall be included in building plans. 2. For commercial and industrial projects, paint roll-up doors and service doors to match main building colors. E. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans) 1. All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet and shall contain a 12-inch walk adjacent to the parking stall (including curb). 2. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances, and exits shall be striped per City standards. 3. Handicap accessible stalls shall be provided for commercial and office facilities with 25 or more parking stalls. Designate two percent or one stall, whichever is greater, of the total number of stalls for use by the handicapped. 4. Motorcycle parking area shall be provided for commercial and office facilities with 25 or more parking stalls. Developments with over 100 parking stalls shall provide motorcycle parking at the rate of one percent. The area for motorcycle parking shall be a minimum of 56 square feet. F. Landscaping 1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. 2. Existing trees required to be preserved in place shall be protected with a construction barrier in accordance with the Municipal Code Section 19.08.110, and so noted on the grading plans. The location of those trees to be preserved in place and new locations for transplanted trees shall be shown on the detailed landscape plans. The applicant shall follow all of the arborist's recommendations regarding preservation, transplanting, and trimming methods. 3. A minimum of 20% of trees planted within industrial projects, and a minimum of 30% within commercial and office projects, shall be specimen size trees - 24-inch box or larger. 4.Within parking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-gallon tree for every three parking stalls, sufficient to shade 50% of the parking area at solar noon on August 21. 5. 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. SC - 9~97 3 Project No. CUP 9742 6. For multi-family residential and non-residential development, property owners are responsible for __/__ __ the continual maintenance of all landscaped areas on-site, as well as contiguous planted areas within the public right-of-way. All landscaped areas shall be 'kept free from weeds and debris and maintained in healthy and thriving condition, and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing, and trimming. Any damaged, dead, diseased, or decaying plant material shall be replaced within 30 days from the date of damage. 7. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the / design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division. 8. 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. 9. On projects which abut the 1-15 Freeway, the developer shall provide landscaping within the / freeway right-of-way along the boundary of this project or pay an in-lieu of construction cash deposit. The landscape and irrigation plans shall be prepared in conformance with the Caltrans Master Planting Plan for the I-15 Freeway through the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and City Engineer. Landscape and irrigation shall be installed prior to the release of occupancy of the project. If final approvals and/or installation is not complete at that time, the City will accept a cash deposit for future landscaping of the Caltrans right-of-way. G. Signs 1. The signs indicated on the submitted p~ans are conceptual only and not a part of this approval. __/__ __ Any signs proposed for this development shall comply with the Sign Ordinance and shall require separate application and approval by the Planning Division prior to installation of any signs. H. Environmental 1. A final acoustical report shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. The final report shall discuss the level of interior noise attenuation to below 45 CNEL, the building materials and construction techniques provided, and if appropriate, veri~ the adequacy of the mitigation measures. The building plans will be checked for conformance with the mitigation measures contained in the final report. I. Other Agencies 1. The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location of mail boxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for mail boxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mail boxes and the design of the overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: J. Site Development 1. 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 SC - 9197 4 Project No. CUP 9742 Completion Date the Building and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new commercial or industrial development or addition to an existing development. the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: Transportation Development Fee, Drainage Fee, School Fees, Permit and Plan Checking Fees. 3. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation and prior to issuance of building permits. K. Grading 1. Grading of the subject proper'b/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 prior to issuance of building permits. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: L. General Fire Protection Conditions 1. An automatic fire extinguishing system(s) will be required as noted below: Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15. Other: 1994 UBC, 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. 2. Sprinkler system monitoring shall be installed and operational immediately upon completion of sprinkler system. 3. A fire alarm system(s) shall be required as noted below: Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15. California Code Regulations Title 24. 4. A Knox rapid entry key vault shall be installed prior to final inspection. Proof of purchase shall be submitted prior to final building plan approval. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specific details and ordering information. 5. Plan check fees in the amount of $465.00 shall be paid: Prior to final plan approval. sc - 9/g7 5 Project NO. CUP 97-42 Completion Date 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. 6. Plans shall be submitted and approved pdor to construction in accordance with 1994 UBC, UFC, UPC, UMC, NEC, and RCFD Standards 22 and 15. M. Special Permits 1. Special permits may be required, depending on intended use, as noted below: a. Places of assembly (except churches, schools, and other non-profit organizations). APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: N. Security Lighting 1. All parking, common, and storage areas shall have minimum maintained 1-foot candle power. These areas should be lighted from sunset to sunrise and on photo sensored cell. 2. All buildings shall have minimal security lighting to eliminate dark areas around the buildings, with direct lighting to be provided by all entB, ways. Lighting shall be consistent around the entire development. 3, Lighting in exterior areas shall be in vandal-resistant fixtures. O. Security Hardware 1. One-inch single cylinder dead bolts shall be installed on all entrance doors. If windows are within 40 inches of any locking device, tempered glass or a double cylinder dead bolt shall be used. P. Windows 1. Store front windows shall be visible to passing pedestrians and traffic. Q. Building Numbering 1. Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime visibility. R. Alarm Systems 1. Install a burglar alarm system and a panic alarm if needed. Instructing management and employees on the operation of the alarm system will reduce the amount of false alarms and in turn save dollars and lives, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ' ~ STAFF REPORT DATE: January 28, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Steve Hayes, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-38 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES - A request to construct a public storage facility consisting of five buildings totaling 77,860 square on 2.96 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the south side of Arrow Highway, between Utica Avenue and Red Oak Street - APN: 209-491-82 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoninq: North Existing Office/Industrial Buildings; Industrial Park (Subarea 7 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan [ISP]) South - Existing Industrial Buildings; General Industrial (Subarea 8 of the ISP) East - Fast food restaurant (under construction); General industrial (Subarea 8 of the ISP) West - Vacant; General Industrial (Subarea 8 of the ISP) B. General Plan Desiqnations: Project Site - General Industrial North Industrial Park South - General Industrial East - General Industrial West General Industrial C. Site Characteristics: The site is currently vacant and contains no trees or any other significant natural features. Curb, gutter, and driveway approaches exist along the Arrow Highway frontage. The site slopes from north to south at approximately 3 percent. D. Parkinq Calculations: Number of Number of Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces of Use Footaqe Ratio Required Provided Public Storage 77,860 1/250'of 8 9 (Office) (2,028 - Office) Office area ITEM B PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 97-38- CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES January 28,1998 Page 2 ANALYSIS: A. General: The applicant is proposing to develop a 77,860 square foot public storage facility on the property in question. In conjunction with this project, the applicant has also submitted a Conceptual Master Plan for future development of the vacant parcel to the west. This Master Plan, with buildings shown against the Master Planned parcel's east property line, will allow for the buildings within the current proposal to be constructed with no setback requirement along the west property line. The building closest to the street (Building "A") will be a two-story structure and all other buildings in the project will be one-story. An office building and parking will be provided at the main entrance to the facility. The project is designed to share vehicular access with the Cowboy Burger restaurant to the east, and the westernmost existing drive approach along the project will be eliminated and replaced with standard curb and gutter. A security gate will be provided at the main entrance into the storage units and all openings along the perimeter of the project will be secured with block walls or decorative open fencing. A 15-foot wide private drainage and utility easement runs the entire length of the south property line. The easement does not contain any structures and will be paved as part of the drive aisle system. The buildings have been designed to blend with the variety of architectural styles in the immediate area by using stucco as the primary building finish and split-face and fluted block as accent material treatments. The office building has recently been re-designed, per the recommendation of the Design Review Committee, with a flat roof and cornice detail to be consistent with a majority of buildings in the area. B. Desiqn Review Committee: The Design Review Committee has reviewed this project on three separate occasions, most recently on a Consent Calendar basis on January 20, 1998. While it was acknowledged by the Committee that a majority of the design issues had been addressed to the satisfaction of the Committee and noted that the major architectural material refinements were acceptable, the Committee recommended that the project be forwarded for consideration of the full Planning Commission as noted in the attached Design Review Committee Action Comments (Exhibit "G"). Of specific concern to the applicant are recommended Planning Division Conditions 1 and 3 (see attached Resolution of Approval). Design Review Committee ACtion Comments from all three meetings have been attached for your convenience. C. Technical Review/Gradinq Committee: On December 17, 1997, the Technical Review Committee reviewed the project and determined that, with the recommended Conditions of Approval, the project is consistent with all applicable standards and ordinances. The Grading Committee reviewed the project on two occasions, most recently on January 26, 1998, and an oral update of their action will be given at the Commission meeting. D. Environmental Assessment: Part I of the Initial Study was completed by the applicant. Staff has completed Part II of the Initial Study, the Environmental Checklist, and found that there could be a significant impact on the environment relative to potential lost habitat for the Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly (DSF). The site is identified on maps prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as potentially having the appropriate Tujunga-Delhi soil classification to support DSF. A Habitat Assessment Survey was prepared by a federally certified biologist to assess the soils, vegetation, and species composition on the site. The study concluded that the site, which has previously been rough graded, would not be acceptable DSF habitat. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 97-38 ~ CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES January 28, 1998 Page 3 Therefore, staff feels that no significant adverse environmental impacts would result from development of this project. If the Planning Commission Concurs, then issuance of a Negative Declaration would be in order. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the inland Valtev 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 Development Review 97-38 through issuance of a Negative Declaration and adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with Conditions, with outstanding issues referenced by the Design Review Committee as Conditions of Approval for the project. Respectfully submitted, City Planner BB:SH:taa Attachments: Exhibit "A" Site Utilization Map Exhibit "B" Conceptual Master Plan Exhibit "C" Site Plan Exhibit "D" Landscape Plan Exhibit "E" Grading Plan Exhibit "F" Building Elevations Exhibit "G" Design Review Committee Action Comments dated December 16, 1997, January 6, 1998, and January 20, 1998 Exhibit "H" Applicant's Response to Design Review Comments dated January 20, 1998 Exhibit 'T' Initial Study, Part II Resolution of Approval with Conditions PURUC STORAGE RAND{O CUCAUONCA, ~ /) ....... s~_~c~,2~;~ ,. A-S1 ~FrnEV ~ ~,~ZE~ ............... ~ONCER~AA~O~E Pm ................ L1 (~ BUrLD~.G v,' .OBT. Et. EW, TSO~{'~ ~ BUILDING 'A' EAST ELEVATION ~¥TN ELEVAT~O. ~ < g) E~BT E~EV^T,O. A-A3.1L PUBLIC STORAGE w s,,ILB,.. 'A' so~. ELs~^,o~o.,.Z~ ---~EEE,E~ ,. "ATEE~ c' Q. ) L ,,SSO,:,ATBS BUILDING ^ WEST ~N{' C ') WEST ELEVATION iS~' "_I:.... ~'E)'~TII ELEVATION EAST ELEYA'EIOH OVERALL BUILDIRG 'A' NORTH ELEVATION "~) 6UILDING 'A* ,, A-A3.1 BUILDING B SOUTH Et. EVATI F ELEVATIONS A-B3.1 CONSENT CALENDAR COMMENTS 8:50 p.m. Steve Hayes January 20, 1998 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-38 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES - A request to construct a public storage facility consisting of 5 buildings totaling 76,650 square feet on 2.96 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the south side of Arrow Highway, between Utica Avenue and Red Oak Street - APN: 209-491-82. DesiOn Review Committee Action: Members Present: Bill Bethel, Rich Macias, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Steve Hayes The Design Review Committee again acknowledged the significant revisions and upgrades that the development team has incorporated into the project design since the first review of the Committee on December 16, 1997. While the Committee generally found the major design issues addressed, they did recommend that the item be forwarded to the full Planning Commission with the same recommendations from the previous meeting on January 6, 1998, reiterating the following issues: 1. An additional step should be incorporated into the pop-out elements on the north elevation of Building "A," in 2-foot increments. However, the Design Review Committee wanted the record to specifically reflect that the revisions to the north elevation of Building "A" significantly better than the original submittal. 2. The color banding on the cornice of the office building area should be removed. Finally, the Design Review Committee did note that the revised wall signage, now with the white individual channel letters in an orange recessed background area, was acceptable. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:40 p.m. Steve Hayes January 6, 1996 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-38 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES - A request to construct a public storage facility consisting of 5 buildings totaling 76,650 square feet on 2.96 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the south side of Arrow Highway, between Utica Avenue and Red Oak Street - APN: 209-491-82. Backqround: The Design Review Committee (Bethel, Macias, Fong) reviewed this project at their December 16, 1997 meeting and did not recommend approval of the project as presented. The Committee directed the applicant to work with staff to address the design issues referenced in the attached Design Review Committee Action comments (Exhibit "A") and return to the Committee for further review. Staff Comments: At the time of comment preparation, staff had not yet received any revised plans for the project, although the applicant agreed to revise all plans and submit to staff with ample review time for the Committee members and staff prior to this meeting date. Staff will provide an oral update at the meeting. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee consider the revisions to the development package and, if acceptable to the Committee, recommend approval of the project with any necessary conditions to the Planning Commission. Attachment: Design Review Committee Action Comments dated December 16, 1997 Desiqn Review Committee Action: Members Present: Bill Bethel, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Steve Hayes The Design Review Committee acknowledged that significant improvements had been made to the project design since their original review of the project. The Committee recommended that the project only need return to the next available meeting on a Consent Calendar basis, addressing the following issues: 1. The revisions to the north elevation of Building "A" were generally acceptable to the Committee. However, an additional step should be incorporated into the pop-out elements, in 2-foot increments, as dicussed at the meeting. 2. The revisions to the west elevations of Buildings "A" and "D" were acceptable to the Committee. {5 F7 "' DRC COMMENTS DR 97-38 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES January 6, 1998 Page 2 3. The proposed revisions to the east elevation of Building "E" was deemed acceptable to the Committee, provided the landscape planter area along the north and east sides of the building would be wide enough to accomodate speciman size trees planted at 30 feet on center and a dense landscape palette, to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. 4. The modifications to the office building area were generally acceptable to the Committee. However, the Committee did recommend that the proposed painted color striping shown on the cornice of the office area be removed. 5. The Committee noted that they would not support the proposed interior illuminated can signage as shown and proposed on the conceptual building elevations. The Committee did recommend that alternatives to the corporate can signage could be pursued for Committee consideration at the Consent Calendar review. 6. All other unaddressed Secondary and Policy Design Issues from the original Design Review Committee Comments dated December 16, 1997, will be incorporated into the recommended Conditions of Approval for the project. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 8:10 p.m. Steve Hayes December 16, 1997 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-38 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES - A request to construct a public storage facility consisting of 5 buildings totaling 76,650 square feet on 2.96 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the south side of Arrow Route, between Utica Avenue and Red Oak Street - APN: 209-491-82. , Desian Parameters: The project site is bounded by o~'~ce and light industrial development to the north and south, a fast-food restaurant under construction to the east and vacant land to the west. To the south, the buildings typically abut the shared property lines and walls have been constructed on other portions of the shared proper'ty lines. The proposed driveway access to the site will be from a shared access with the fast food restaurant on the east side of the property. An existing drive approach on Arrow Route, at approximately the east~west midpoint of the parcel, is proposed to be removed with this project. No significant vegetation and no structures exist on the property. The site slopes from north to south at approximately 2 percent. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. .,la!or Issues: The following broad design issues ,,viII be the locus of Committee discussion regarding project: 1 Staff is concerned with how the architectural theme of the proposed project fits in with the generally oP, qce/light industrial flavor of the surrounding area. Within the immediate area, a variety of architectural themes exist, with the most prominent style of building being composed of tilt-up concrete as the primaq,, material and fiat roofs with parapet walls to screen roof equipment. The proposed buildings consist primarily of a smooth stucco or block material with split face block applied as an accent treatment. The office building has a tower element and sloped standing seam metal roof. In order to provide a greater degree of compatibility with buildings in the area, the architecture should be revised to have tilt-up concrete or a smooth plaster over block finish with joints between blocks smoothed over as the primary building material and the standing seam metal roof eliminated in favor of fiat roofs with a parapet screen wall and upgraded cornice treatment. 2 In addition to the concern with the compatibility of the architectural theme, staff is also concerned with the minimal architectural variety presented along the street frontage. Arrow Route is a Special Boulevard that warrants greater atlention to architectural design. As currently proposed, of Building A, the primary building visible from Arrow Route, is 410 feet long and linear in nature. Only three minor 5-foot deep recesses and 15 to 20 feet in width occur to break up the vertical building plane, which again consists primarily of a stucco or smooth block material and squared off, minimally protruding arches of split face block as an accent material. Staff would recommend :hat a greater amount of variety be provided in the horizontal and vertical building planes and that the use of accent materials occur in a more substantial manner. An example would be to introduce fluted block as an accent material for areas such as the roof cornice and/or as the base material for the split face arches. 3. ~n conjunction with the application, the applicant has submitted a Master Plan for the possible future expansion of the public storage facility on the parcel to the west. Staff feels that the ~ i/.., ~ ~ i%ral~°~.lf~y°Ut of the Master Plan and how it integrates with the proposed projec are -_--.. ./,/,- 5 DRC COMMENTS DR 97-38 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES December 16, 1997 Page 2 acceptable. However, staff is concerned that, if the proposed expansion does not occur, then the publicly exposed architectural elevations for the west side of the project (i.e. the west elevations of Buildings A and D) will not have adequate architectural embellishment or a landscape buffer along the project edge. Therefore,. staff would recommend the following upgrades along the western property line: a. The west elevations of Building A and D should! be upgraded architecturally to a level consistent with the elevations along Arrow Route, per the recommendations in Comment no. 1 above; and b, Buildings A and D should be set back a minimum of 5 feet irom the west property line to allow for landscaping (including trees) along the western edge of the project to soften the mass of the buildings. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. The appearance of the street scape along Arrow Route will be critical in establishing an appealing public view of the project. Besides the above-referenced architectural modifications. staff would recommend that elements such as undulating landscaped berms, dense landscaping with specimen size trees. special landscape features such as alluvial rock should be used to five visual varieties and in[erest to the street scape area. 2. The landscaped area on the north and east sides of Building E should be widened to accommodate mature trees. In addition. a landscape planter with ~rees should be introduced on the south side of the off'ice building to frame the main entrance in to the storage projec[. 3 The proposed chain link fence over the drainage easement at the southeast and southwest corners of the site should be replaced with a decorative tubular steel or wrought iron fence. 4. The proposed gate at the entrance to the storage area should be moved west to ensure the main driveway for Cowboy Burgera in not obstructed. 5. An alternative, more aesthetically pleasing method of drainage should be provided along the north side of Building A. A concrete channel adjacent to the building would eliminate the possibility of planting any vines or shrubs at the base of the building. 6. It appears that the existing walls along the south property line will be limited in height on the north or project side given the proposed grade difference bet,,.zeen the prope~y and adjacent propedies to the south. Therefore. a new decorative block wall or wrought iron fence architecturally compatible with the project should be constructed along the south property line. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. The trash enclosures should be designed to be architecturally compatible with the buildings. 2. The proposed signage should be modified to consist of individual channel letters and not contain any extra information, such as [elephone numbers, beyond the business name. DRC COMMENTS DR 97-38 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES December 16, 1997 Page 3 3. Special paving, similar to that used at the fast food restaurant to the east, should be used near the main vehicular entrance to the project. 4. All roof and ground-mounted mechanical equipment should be completely screened from public · · view. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee direct the applicant to revise the plans per the staff comments. Once the plans are revised to the satisfaction of staff, then the item should be scheduled for further review of the Design Review Commi~ee. Desiqn Review Committee Action: Members Present: Bill Bethel, Rich Macins, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Steve Hayes The Design Review Committee did not recommend approval of the project as presented. The Committee directed the applicant to work with staff and revise the development plans addressing the :oncerns of the Committee. Issues which should be addressed are as follows: i. As currently designed, the Committee felt that the tower design was not in proportion with the building. The Committee suggested that the tower either be reduced in height or the massing increased and/or the height of the office area increased in order to address this concern. 2. The Committee recommended that the repetitive and redundant pattern of the exposed aggregate finish on the north side of Building A be mitigated by utilizing an additional pattern in the upper half of the building. In addition, the Committee expressed concern with the minimal 3-inch depth of the accent treatment in that it would not produce a sufficient shadow line or give the depth necessary to provide variety to the long stretches of vertical building plane. 3. The end panels on the west side of Building D and the east side of Building E should be architecturally treated, consistent with the recommended treatment for the building facing Arrow Highway. With this treatment, it would not be required to move Building D 5 feet easterly to produce the landscape setback requested in the initial staff comments;. 4. The cornice treatment should be modified in design from the corporate painted color banding over the smooth block finish. A fluted block cornice treatment that also extended into the recessed and return areas of the cornice was suggested by the Committee. 5. The signs should be designed per the recommendations of staff. specifically with the telephone numbers eliminated from the signs. The Committee suggested, as an option to provide a recessed area on the tower for a sign and that the corporate color banding could be introduced around the perimeter of the recessed sign area. The Committee agreed to allow the developer to work with the adjacent property owners to the south to place open decorative fencing on top of existing block walls as a solution to the wall/fence situation along the south property line. DRC COMMENTS DR 97-38 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES December 16, 1997 Page 4 7. The Committee agreed with the recommendations of the Grading Committee requiring undulating berming and shrub hedges along the north side of Building A to screen the concrete drainage swale from view. 8. The Committee directed the applicant to address all other Secondary and Policy Design issues not previously referenced in the above comments, CharlesJg January 16, 1998 Steve Hayes Planning Department City ofRancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Re: Development Review 97-38 Public Storage, Rancho Cucamonga Dear Mr. Hayes: This is as a follow-up to our conversations on January 15, 1998 correspondence concerning the referenced matter. A~er discussions with our client concerning the design review comments enclosed with your correspondence, we offer the following for the Design Review Committee consent calendar consideration on January 20, 1998: 1. The two-foot increments discussed by Commissioner Bethel would create an adverse impact on the lease ability of spaces that would not be rectangular due to the two-foot to four-foot transition locations. We believe that the four-foot pop- out elements shown on the revised plans were more than responsive to staffs desire for a three-foot pop-out element for visual impact. 2. We appreciate the Committee's concurrence that the west elevations of Buiiding "A' and "D" are acceptable. 3. We appreciate the Committee's concurrence and believe we can resolve the landscaping issues outlined in this comment. 4. We appreciate the Committee's acknowledgement of the considerable revisie,:,? to the office and tower element from what was originally proposed. The color accent band shown on the revised plans is for the purpose of helping identify the office component of the facility as suggested by staff previously. The proposed color band is a trademark feature of Public Storage facilities and, the limited color band proposed is as a good faith effort to be sensitive to the City's stated O~c~ 909 '48t · 1822 800' 240' 1822 Fax 909'481 · 1824 ~, Ci%' Center' 10681 Fnothill BIrd.. Suite _')5 Rancho Cucamonga. CA'91730 preferences on this issue. We can assure you that the color accent band proposed for this project will be far more attractive and significantly smaller in overall scale than the one on the City's facility located in the Gemco Center. 5. In a good faith effort to be responsive to the City's stated preferences on the signage issue, Public Storage is exploring signage design and alternatives that incorporate the use of channel lettering acceptable to both Public Storage and the City. We believe that this can be accomplished in an expedient time frame and will provide the City with a status update prior to the Committee meeting on January 20, 1998. 6. We appreciate the Committee's acknowledgment that we have been very rill.gent in addressing and resolving Secondary and Policy Design Issues outlined i~. b. rior Design Review Committee Comments throughout this process. We will conthroe in this manner to demonstrate our commitment for a quality project and to aci!.ieve expedient approval of same: The foregoing is offered to satisfactorily address the January 6, 1998 DRC Comments provided by your office. Your continuing assistance with activity necessary for project approval is most appreciated. Should you have any questions or need of additional information, please contact me at your earliest opportunity. Sincerely, C5, Charles J. Buqu~ Charles Joseph Associates CJB:sl cc: Jim Fitzpatrick, Public Storage City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-38 2. Related Files: PRELIMINARY REVIEW 97-12 3. Description of Project: A request to construct a public storage facility consisting of 5 buildings totaling 77,860 square feet on 2.96 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the south side of Arrow Highway, between Utica Avenue and Red Oak Street - APN: 209-491-82. 4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Mr. Chuck Buquet Charles Joseph Associates 10681 Foothill Boulevard, Suite 395 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 5. General Plan Designation: General Industrial 6. Zoning: General Industrial (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The site is a previously rough graded pad. A fast food restaurant is under construction immediately east of the site and industrial buildings exist to the noah and south. The parcel to the west is vacant and was also previously rough graded. 8. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga PLanning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 9. Contact Person and Phone Number: Steve Hayes (909) 477-2750 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: U.S Fish and Wildlife Service California Department of Fish and Game Cucamonga County Water District Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 97-38 Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ! ( ) Land Use and Planning ( ) Transportation/Circulation (X) Public Services ( ) Population and Housing (X) Biological Resources ( ) Utilities and Service Systems (X) Geological Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources (X) Aesthetics ( ) Water (X) Hazards ( ) Cultural Resources ( ) Air Quality ( ) Noise ( ) Recreation ( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: (X) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 0 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project, or agreed to, by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ( ) I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ( ) I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based upon the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ( ) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Signed: ~te~e Hayes{/, AICP Associate Planner December 24, 1997 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 97-38 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. Potentially 1. ~ND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with genera3 plan designation or zoning? ( ) ( ) (X) b) Conflict with appticable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( ) ( ) (X) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ( ) ( ) (X) d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community? ( ) ) ( ) (X) 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposah a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Potentially SignScant Issues and Supporing Information Sources; Impact Less PotentiallyUnless Than 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (~ ~z7 ( ) () () (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 97-38 Page 4 Significant Issues and St~pporlifig Information Sources: ]mpac~ Less b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Seiche hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) f) Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) h) Expansive soils? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: h) The General Plan indicates the Tujunga-Delhi soil association for the site which "May have soil bearing capacities that could limit some development. Structures proposed on this soil type should be permitted only after a site specific investigation has been prepared that indicates that the soil can adequately support the weight of the structure." A soils report will be required by the Building and Safety Division prior to the issuance of building permits. The impact is not considered significant. 4. WATER. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? ( ) ( ) (X) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) (X) c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? ( ) (X) d) Changes in the amount 0f surface water in any water body? ( ) (X) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 97-38 Page 5 Potentialh/ 0 Change in the quantity of groundwaters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ( ) (X) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) (X) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) (X) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater othe~ise available for public water supplies? ( ) (X) 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) ( ) (X) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) ( ) (X) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature or cause any change in climate? ( ) ( ) (X) d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ( ) (X) Potentially $igndicant Impact Less PotentiallyUnless Than 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (X) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (X) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (X) ( ) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) ( ) (X) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 97-38 Page 6 f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting' alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: c) The proposed project on!y has one point of vehicular access in its proposed design. However, the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Prevention District/New Construction Unit will be requiring that the applicant apply for an alternate method of secondary access to the satisfaction of the Fire District. This impact is not considered significant. 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish, insects. animals, and birds)? ( ) ( ) ( ) b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees, Eucalyptus windrow, etc;)? ( ) ( ) (X) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., Eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc;)? ( ) ( ) (X) d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? ( ) ( ) (x) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: a) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service identifies the project area soil type as Tujunga- Delhi Sand Soils which is a type of soil that is associated with the endangered Delhi Sands flower-loving fly. A habitat assessment was prepared (impact Sciences, January 20, 1998) by a biologist permitted by USFVVS to conduct surveys for DSF. In summary, results of the habitat-based survey indicate that the site does not currently support high quality potential DSF habitat, and the site is not located directly adjacent to other areas of high quality potential or known occupied DSF habitat. Based on the reConnaissance-level habitat evaluation of the site's existing environmental conditions, the Public Storage project site does not provide high quality habitat for DSF due to: (1) the lack of native vegetation communities and Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 97-38 Page 7 open study areas, (2) relatively dense coverage of invasive, non-native vegetation, and (3) repetitive exposure to human-related disturbances. Based on these assumptions, the proposed development of the 2.96 acre site will not likely result in adverse effects to DSF. I Potentially Signtruant Impact Less Potentially Unless Tryart n~'::;;. ct 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticicles, chemicals, or radiation)? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Increased fire hazard in areas with fiammable brush, grass, or trees? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: a) In conjunction with the storage activities within the buildings, potentially hazardous materials such as oil and other chemicals may be used. Storage of any such hazardous substances will require special permits to ensure safe handling, storage, and operation. The impact is not considered significant. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 97-38 Page 8 Significant 10. NOISE. Will the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would ffie proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered government se~ices in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Schools? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Other governmental se~ices? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: a) Storage activities may include use of hazardous chemicals which would require special permits for the Fire Prevention District. The impact is not considered significant. 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power and natural gas? ( ) ( ) (X) b) Communication systems? ( ) ( ) (X) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ( ) ( ) (X) d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ( ) (X) e) Storm water drainage? ( ) ( ) (X) ~ Solid waste disposal? ~ ~ ~ ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 97-38 Page 9 Potentially d g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Create light or glare? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) Commen~: c) New light and glare will be created on the prope~y with development of the vacant site. A condition of approval will require an on-site lighting plan, including a photometric diagram of the entire prope~y, to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division and the Rancho Cucamonga Sheriffis Depa~ment, prior to the issuance of building permits. The plan will be checked to ensure that it meets City policies relative to avoiding the casting of excess light and glare onto adjacent prope~ies. ~ 4. CULTU~L RESOURCES. Would the proposak a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) ( ) (X) c) Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) ( ) (X) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( ) ( ) (X) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 97-38 Page 10 15. RECREATION. Would the proposah a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Affect existing recreational oppo~unities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment. substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Short term: Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term. environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time. Long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects. and the effects of probable future projects). ( ) ) ( ) (X) d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ( ) ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 97-38 Page 11 EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The following earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply): (X) General Plan EIR (Certified April 6, 1981) (X)Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989) (X) Industrial Area Specific Plan EIR (Certified September 19, 1981) 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 proiect 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 ~igni~cant environmental effects would OCCUr, Signature: Date: Print Name and Title: City of Rancho Cucamonga NEGATIVE DECLARATION The following Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act Section 21091 and 21092 of the Public Resources Code. Project File No.: Development Review 97-38 Public Review Period Closes: January 28, 1998 Project Name: Project Applicant: Charles Joseph Associates Project Location (also see attached map): Located on the south side of Arrow Highway. between Utica Avenue and Red Oak Street - APN: 209-491-82. Project Description: A request to construct a public mini-storage facility consisting of 5 buildings totaling 77,860 square feet on 2.96 acres of land in the General industrial District (Subarea 8) 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. tf 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. January28, 1998 Date of Determination Adopted By J RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 97-38, A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A PUBLIC MINt- STORAGE FACILITY CONSISTING OF 5 BUILDINGS TOTALING 77,860 SQUARE FEET ON 2.96 ACRES OF LAND IN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (SUBAREA 8) OF THE INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ARROW ROUTE, BETWEEN UTICA AVENUE AND RED OAK STREET, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 209-491-82. A, Recitals. 1. Charles Joseph Associates has filed an application for the approval of Development Review No. 97-38, as described in the title of this Resolution. Heroinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 28th day of January 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a meeting on the application and concluded said meeting on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Pad A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced meeting on January 28, 1998, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to properly located on the south side of Arrow Route, between Utica Avenue and Red Oak Street with a street frontage of approximately 505 feet and lot depth of approximately 290 feet and is presently improved with curb. gutter, and driveway approaches along the Arrow Route frontage; and b. The properly to the north of the subject site is developed with office/light industrial buildings, the property to the south consists of industrial buildings, the property to the east is a fast food restaurant under construction, and the property to the west is vacant; and c. The application contemplates the development of 5 buildings totaling 77,860 square feet for use as a public mini-storage facility; and d. The proposed project will share vehicular access with the fast food restaurant to the east and have the existing westernmost driveway approach removed and replaced with curb and gutter per City standards; and e. An administrative office, not to be jointly used as an on-site caretakers facility, will be provided near the main entrance to the mini-storage unit entry area with required parking available in the immediate area. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 97-38- CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES Janua~ 28,1998 Page 2 3. Based upon the substantial evidence preser~ted to this Commission during the above- referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. That the proposed project is consistent With the objectives of the General Plan; and b. That the proposed use is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and the Industrial Area Specific Plan and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and c. That the proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code and industrial Area Specific Plan; and d. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to propedies or improvements in the vicinity. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral repods included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows: a. That the Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder; that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the application. b. That, based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Furlher, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration. the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission during the public hearing. the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions. attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Planninq Division 1 ) The north elevation of Building "A" shall have an additional vedical step incorporated into the design of the pop-out elements so that the 4-foot pop-out elements are broken up into two 2-foot increments, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. L PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 97-38- CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES January 28,1998 Page 3 2) The landscape planter along the north and east sides of Building "E" shall be of a sufficient width to accommodate specimen size trees planted at 30 feet on center and a dense shrub palette, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 3) The color striping on the office cornice element should be eliminated and replaced with a color palette complimentary with other colors used on the building, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 4) All proposed signage for the building shall consist of individual channel letters, with the final design of all signage requiring review and approval of a Sign Permit by the City Planner, prior to installation. 5) The final design of all new perimeter fencing (including the security gate) shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner, prior to the issuance of building permits. 6) The final design of all street scape elements along the Arrow Route frontage shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner, prior to the issuance of building permits. 7) The trash enclosures shall be designed to be architecturally compatible with the buildings, and include a separate pedestrian access and a roll- up door painted to match the building, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 8) The specific special paving material and location of its use shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner, prior to the issuance of building permits. Fire Prevention/New Construction Unit 1 ) Issues regarding the single point of vehicular and emergency access shall be addressed to the satisfaction of the Fire Prevention/New Construction Unit, prior to the issuance of building permits. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 1998. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chairman ATTEST: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 97-38- CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES January 28,1998 Page 4 I, Brad Bullet, Secretary of the Planning Commission of ihe City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby ce~lify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regular, ly 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 28th day of January 1998, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT#: Development Review 97-38 SUBJECT: 77,860 sq. ft. Public Mini-storage Facility APPLICANT: Public Mini-storage (Charles Joseph Associates) LOCATION: South Side of Arrow Route between Utica Avenue and Red Oak Street ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. ;HALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH TH ! FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. 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. The developer shall commence, participate in, and consummate or cause to be commenced, participated in, or consummated. a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) for the Rancho Cucamonga Fire ProtectiOn District to finance construction and/or maintenance of a fire station to serve the development. The station shall be located, designed, and built to all specifications of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and shall become the District's property upon completion. The equipment shall be selected by the District in accordance with its needs. In any building of a station. the developer shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations. The CFD shall be formed by the District and the developer by the time recordation of the final map occurs. 3. Prior to recordation of the final map or prior to the issuance of building permits when no map is involved, written certification from the affected water district 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. SC - 9/97 Completion Date Site Development 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance With the approved plans which include __/__ __ site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and cblors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions c~ntained herein, Development Code regulations. and the Industrial Area Specific Plan. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. Trash receptacle(s) are required and shah meet City standards. The final design, locations, and the number of trash receptacles shall be subject to City Planner review and approva] prior to the issuance of building permits. 7. 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 wails, betruing, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. For single family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults. 8. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination. C. Shopping Centers 1. The Master Plan is shown in concept only. Future development for (each building pad/parcel) shall be subject to separate DevelopmentJDesign Review process for Planning Commission approval. Modifications to the Shopping Center Master Plan shall be subject to Planning Commission approval. 2. Provide for the following design features in each trash enclosure. to the satisfaction of the City Planner: a. Architecturally integrated into the design of (the project). b. Separate pedestrian access that does not require the opening of the main doors and to include self-closing pedestrian doors. c. Large enough to accommodate two trash bins. Project No, DR 97-38 Completion Date d. Roll-up doors. e. Trash bins with counter-weighted lids. f. Architecturally treated overhead shade trellis. 9- Chain link screen on top to prevent trash from blowing out of the enclosure and designed to be hidden from view. 3. Graffiti shall be removed within 72 hours. 4. Textured pavement shall be provided across circulation aisle, pedestrian walkway, and plaza. They shall be of brick/tile pavers, exposed aggregate, integral color concrete, or any combination thereof. Full samples shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. The lighting fixture design shall compliment the architectural program. It shall include the plaza area lighting fixtures, building lighting fixtures (exterior), and parking lot lighting fixtures. D. Building Design 1. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Details shall be included in building plans. 2. For commercial and industrial projects, paint roll-up doors and service doors to match main building colors. E. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans) 1. All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet and shall contain a 12-inch walk adjacent to the parking stall (includin9 curb). 2. Textured pedestrian pathways and textured pavement across circulation aisles shall be provided throughout the development to connect dwellings/units/buildings with open spaces/plazas/recreational uses. 3. All parkin9 spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances, and exits shall be striped per City standards. 4. Plans for any security gates shall be submitted for the City Planner, City Engineer, and Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District review and approval pdor to issuance of building permits. For residential development, private gated entrances shall provide adequate turn-around space in front of the gate and a separate visitor lane with call box to avoid cars stacking into public rig ht-of-way. 5. Handicap accessible stalls shall be provided for commercial and office facilities with 25 or more parking stalls. Designate two percent or one stall, whichever is greater, of the total number of stalls for use by the handicapped. SC - 9197 3 Project No. DR 97-38 Completion Date F. Landscaping 1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope pl;anting and model home landscaping in the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the ;issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision.! 2. A minimum of 20% of trees planted within industrial projects, and a minimum of 30% within commercial and office projects, shall be specimen size trees - 24-inch box or larger. 3. Within parking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-gallon tree for every three parking stalls, sufficient to shade 50% of the parking area at solar boon on August 21. 4. Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent to and along structures at a rate of one tree per 30 linear feet of building. 5. All private slopes of 5 feet or 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. 6. For multi-family residential and non-residential development; property owners are responsible for the continual maintenance of all landscaped areas on-site, as well as contiguous planted areas within the public dght-of-way. All landscaped areas shall be kept flee from weeds and debris and maintained in healthy and thdving 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. 7. The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to City Planner review and approval and coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the Engineering Division. 8. Special landscape features such as mounding. alluvial rock, specimen size trees, meandering sidewalks (with horizontal change), and intensified landscaping, is required along Arrow Route. 9. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on the perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer. 10.All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division. 11. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of Xedscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. G. Signs 1. The signs indicated on the submitted plans are conceptual only and not a part of this approval. Any signs proposed for this development shall comply with the Sign Ordinance and shall require separate application and approval by the Planning Division prior to installation of any signs. sc- e~ 4 project No. ,DR 97-38 Completion Date Other Agencies 1. The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location of mail boxes. Multi-family residential developments shah provide a solid overhead structure for mail boxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mail boxes and the design of the overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: I. Site Development 1. 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. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new commercial or industrial development or addition to an existing development. the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: Transportation Development Fee, Drainage Fee, School Fees, Permit and Plan Checking Fees. 3. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation and prior to issuance of building permits. Grading 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. 2.A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. 3. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. K. Street Improvements 1. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: Curb & A.C. Side- Ddve Street Street Comrn Median Bike Other ~ Street Name Gutter Pvmt walk Appr. Lights Trees Trail Island Trail X X C X E Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan check. (c) if so marked, sidewalk shall be curvilinear per ST[:). 114. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu of construction fee shall be provided for this item. (e) Remove existing drive approach and replace with full height curb and gutter; repaint street traffic striping as required on Arrow Route. Comoletion Date 2. Improvement Plans and Construction: a. Street improvement plans, including street trees, stre .=t 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 byethe City Engineer. Secudty shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/~r private street improvements, prior to finat map approval or the issuance of building permits whichever occurs first. b. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a / construction permit shall be obtained from the City' Engineer's Office in addition to any other permits required. : c. Pavement str png, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and __ __/ interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction __ __/__ project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR, or any other locations approved by the City Engineer. Notes: (1)Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200 feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer. (2) Conduit shall be 3-inch (at intersections) or 2-inch (along streets) galvanized steel with pull rope or as specified. e. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. g. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards, except for single family residential lots. h. Street names shah be approved by the City Planner prior to submittal for first plan check. 3. Street trees. a minimum of 15-galeon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in accordance with the City's street tree program. L. Public Maintenance Areas 1. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits whichever occurs first. FormatiOn costs shall be borne by the developer. SC - 9/97 Project No. DR 97-38 Completion Date Utilities 1. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. 2. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bemardino. A letter of compliance from the CCWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. N. General Requirements and Approvals 1. A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated operating costs for all new street lights for the first six months of operation, prior to final map approval or prior to building permit issuance if no map is involved. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: O. General Fire Protection Conditions 1. Mello Roos Community Facilities District requirements shall apply to this project. 2. Fire flow requirement shall be 2.000 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 builde~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 prior to delivery of any combustible building materials on site (Le,, lumber, roofing materials, etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire department personnel. 4. Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided prior to water plan approval. Required hydrants, if any. will be determined by the Fire District. Fire District standards require a 6" riser with a 4" and a 2-1/2" outlet. Substandard hydrants shall be upgraded to meet this standard. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specifications on approved brands and model numbers. 5. Prior to the issuance of building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be submitted to the Fire District that an approved temporary water supply for fire protection is available, pending completion of required fire protection system. 6. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for all hydrants and installed prior to final inspection. 7. An automatic fire extinguishing system(s) will be required as noted below: Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15. Other: 1994 UBC. SC - 9197 7 Project No. DR 97-38 Completion D~te 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. 8.Sprinkler system monitoring shall be installed and operatidnal immediately upon completion of sprinkler system. ~ 9. Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District'~ fire lane standards, as noted: All roadways per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 22. Other. Apply for alternate method application for single access issue. 10. 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. 11. A Knox rapid entry key vault shall be installed prior to final inspection. Proof of purchase shall be submitted prior to final building plan approval. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specific details and ordering information. 12. Gated/restdcted entry(s) require installation of a Knox rapid entry key system. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specific details and ordering information. 13. Plan check fees in the amount of $465.00 shall be paid: Pdor 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. 14. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1994 UBC, UFC, UPC, UMC, NEC, and RCFD Standards 22 and 15. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: P. Security Lighting 1. All parking, common, and storage areas shall have minimum maintained 1-foot candle power. These areas should be lighted from sunset to sunrise and on photo sensored cell. 2. All buildings shall have minimal secudty lighting to eliminate dark areas around the buildings, with direct lighting to be provided by all entryways. Lighting shall be consistent around the entire development. 3. Lighting in exterior areas shall be in vandal-resistant fixtures. Q. Security Hardware 1. A secondary locking device shall be installed on all sliding glass doors. 2. All garage or rolling doors shall have slide bolts or f secondary locking dewces Proiect No, DR g7-38 Completion Date Security Fencing 1. When utilizing secudty gates, a Knox box sub-master system security device shall be used since fire and law enforcement can access these devices. S. Windows 1. Store front windows shall be visible to passing pedestrians and traffic. T. Building Numbering 1. Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime visibility. SC - 9/97 g CITY OF RANCHO CUCAIVIONGA ' ,~ STAFF REPORT DATE: January 28, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Dan Coleman, Principal Planner SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING MOTORCYCLE RIDING ON TRAILS BACKGROUND: The Trails Advisory Committee has discussed how to improve measures to address the problem of motorcycles riding on private trail easements within subdivisions. Motorcycles present a danger to trail users because of their speed and noise, which can startle horses. Many of the motorcycles ridden on trails are "dirt bikes" without mufflers, which create a noise nuisance for residential neighborhoods. Sergeant Jerry Davis, Solutions Oriented Policing Officer, met with the Committee on December 4, 1997. Motorcycles on trails have been a difficult problem to solve for several reasons. The motorcyclist is usually gone before patrol units can respond to complaints. Riders wearing helmets are essentially unidentifiable. The motorcycle is also difficult to identify because the license plate is often unreadable or missing. RECOMMENDATION: The Trails Advisory Committee requests Commission concurrence on the following recommended actions in this order of priority: 1. Post signs at trail entrances which clearly indicate "No Motorcycles" and list fine. Initial phases should target those neighborhoods with the most complaint calls regarding motorcycles. 2. Increase penalties through adoption of local ordinance. 3. Purchase motorcycles for police patrol of trail system. Funding source could be asset seizure funds. 4. Install vehicle gates, with side step-through for horses, at key trail entrances. Initial phases should target those neighborhoods with the most complaint calls regarding motorcycles. If the Commission concurs, staff will pursue budgetary review to implement. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:DC:taa ITEM D