No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005/06/22 - Agenda Packet • r~ LJ THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA CuRc~ Ncn June 22, 2005 - 7:00 PM Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center Council Chambers 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California I. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call Chairman Macias _ Vice Chairman McNiel _ Fletcher _ McPhail _ Stewart _ II. ANNOUNCEMENTS III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 8, 2005 June 8, 2005, Adjourned IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS The following items are public hearings m which concerned md~wduals may voce their opinion of the related protect Please wait to be recogn¢ed by the Chairman and address the Commission by stating your name and address All such opinions shall be l~mded to 5 minutes per individual for each protect Please sign ~n after speaking A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT17424 - HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES IRVINE, INC. - A request for a condo map related to 414 multi-family apartments (including live work units) on 17 3 acres in the Haven Overlay District, located at the southwest corner of Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard - APN a portion of 0208-331-37 Related Files• Development Review DRCDR00-79, Development Review DRC2002-00720, General Plan Amendment DRCGPA01-016, Development District Amendment PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA June 22, 2005 RANCHO CUCAMONGA 2 DRCDDA01-01, Development Code Amendment DRCDCA01-01, Tentatwe Tract Map SUBTT16179, and Pre-Application Review PAR00-07. This action includes approval of an Addendum, pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15164, to the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration that was adopted by the City Counal on July 18, 2001 The Mitigated Negative Declaration addressed issues for Air Quality, Traffic, Hazardous Materials, and Noise for the subject site The environmental assessment was circulated to the State Clearing House There have been no significant environmental changes to the project site since the adoption of the aforementioned Mitigated Negative Declaration B TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT17277 - G & L COMMERCIAL, LLC - A request for a single parcel subdivision for Industrial Condominium Purposes in the General Industrial District (Subarea 4), located at 9201 - 9299 Archibald Avenue - APN 0209-211-14. Related File. Minor Development Review DRC2004-01251 This project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to State CEQA Gwdelines Section 15315 (Class 15 Exemption -Minor Land Dmsions) C CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-45 AND ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT 91-03 -MARGARITA BEACH - A public hearing to examine the business operation to ensure that it is being operated in a manner consistent with conditions of approval or in a manner which is not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties in the vianity. The Planning Commission wdl consider modification or revocation of the approved Conditional Use Permit and Entertainment Permit (Continued from May 11, 2005) V. PUBLIC COMMENTS This ~s the hme and place for the general public to address the commission Items to be discussed here are those that do not already appear on this agenda VI. COMMISSION BUSINESS VII. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11 00 p m ad/oumment hme If dems go beyond that time, they shall be heard only wdh the consent of the Commission • • _ PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ~~HO June 22, 2005 Cvc,vaoxcn 3 THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL ADJOURN TO A WORKSHOP IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING TO DISCUSS DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2004-01270 - LEWIS INVESTMENT COMPANY, LLC 1, Gad Sanchez, Planning Comm~sston Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certdy that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on June 16, 2005, at least 72 hours poor to the meeting per Government Code Section 54964 2 at 10500 C~vtc Center Dnve, Rancho Cucamonga ~~ If you need special assistance or accommodations to partiapate in this meeting, please contact the Planning Dmsion at (909) 477-2750 Notification of 48 hours poor to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ® ensure accessibility Listening dewces are available for the heanng impaired Vicinity Map Planning Commission June 22, 2005 0 c: ~~,. • '* Meeting Location Rancho Cucamonga City Hall 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 • N City of Rancho Cucamonga CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting June 8, 2005 Chairman Macias called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7 00 p m The meeting was held in the Council Chambers at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Dnve, Rancho Cucamonga, California Chairman Macas then led in the pledge of allegiance ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT Richard Fletcher, Rich Macias, Lany McNiel, Cnstine McPhail, Pam Stewart ABSENT None STAFF PRESENT Peter Bryan, Fire Chief, Brad Buller, City Planner, Dan Coleman, PnnGpal Planner, Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney, Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary, Lois Schrader, Planning Department Secretary, Mike Smith, Assistant Planner, Joe Stofa, Associate Engineer 111.1 ANNOUNCEMENTS . There were no announcements 11111 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion Moved by McNiel, seconded by McPhail, tamed 4-0-0-1 (Fletcher abstain), to approve the minutes of May 25, 2005 • ! i i R CONSENT CALENDAR A HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2005-00003 - AGUIRRE/BRUNO A proposal to construct a two-story single-family residence with a floor area of 3,974 square feet (including the garage, patios, and decks) on a parcel of about 12,000 square feet in the Low Residential Distnct, (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located west of Predera Court at the north side of Camino Predera - APN 0207-631-22 This protect is categoncally exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to State CEQA Gwdelines Section 15303(a) (Gass 3 Exemption -New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) Motion Moved by McNiel, seconded by Fletcher, to adopt the Consent Calendar Motion tamed by the following vote AYES FLETCHER, MACIAS, McNIEL, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES NONE ABSENT NONE -tamed 8 1 1 1 1 PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments ..:.. COMMISSION BUSINESS There was no Commission Business •:y~~ ADJOURNMENT Motion Moved by McNiel, seconded by McPhail, tamed 5-0, to ad~oum The Planning Commission ad~oumed at 7 04 p m to a workshop The workshop ad~oumed at 8 30 p m and those minutes appear separately Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Secretary Approved Planning Commission Minutes -2- June 8, 2005 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Ad~oumed Meeting June 8, 2005 Chairman Macias called the Adtoumed Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7 15 p m The meeting was held m the Rams Room at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Dnve, Rancho Cucamonga, California ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT Richard Fletcher, Rich Macias, Larry McNiel, Cnstme McPhail, Pam Stewart ABSENT None STAFF PRESENT Brad Buller, City Planner, Dan Coleman, Pnncipal Planner, Michael Diaz, Sernor Planner, Joe Stofa, Associate Engineer, Rozalynne Thompson, Contract Planner rt~t~ NEW BUSINESS A PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW DRC2005-00448 - ETCO DEVELOPMENT - A proposed subdivision of 8 90 acres of land into up to 12 lots m the Very Low Residential Distnd, located at the northwest comer of Etiwanda Avenue and I-210 Freeway - APN 0225-171-19 Brad Buller, City Planner, introduced the item and gave an overview of the Pre-Application Review process He emphasized that the purpose of the workshop was to review the proposed subdiwsion's layout and its relationship to the surrounding area He stated that the parcel before the Commissioners was one of the City's remnant parcels bounded by the 210 freeway to the south, single-family developments to the west and north, and Etiwanda Avenue to the east He then added that the applicant submitted two proposals for the Commissioners to consider He commented the first proposed 12 lots, all of which would have direct access to Vintage Dnve, and the second layout addressed the Traffic Engineer's request to eliminate dvect access on Vintage Avenue by proposing cul-de-sacs He concluded by stating that the pnmary issue about the subdivision is that of safety because Vintage Dnve is designed to be a busy collector street m the City Steve Schapel, representing Etco Investments, descnbed the two layouts He stated that Etco Investments and the owner favored the first design because it allows a greater number of lots He agreed with Mr Buller that the second design was m response to traffic comments. Mr Schapel then presented an alternative to both proposals In an alternative layout, he proposed shared access dnves for every two lots Rozalynne Thompson, Contract Planner, gave a bnef overview of the protect She stated that the key issue is whether a perfect solution for the layout of the parcels is obtainable She then stated that after considenng the key City's development standards, including traffic arculation, staff prefers the ongmal proposal rather than the recently submitted one Ms Thompson believed that the first proposal is more favorable from a livability and long-term maintenance standpoint because the home pads have greater setbacks from the 210 freeway and Vintage Dnve, there are fewer potential deep street side yard landscape areas that are difficult to maintain, and horse corrals will meet the minimum setback of 70 feet She acknowledged the second proposal is more favorable from a traffic arculation standpoint, however, she noted that Lots 3, 5, and 8 of the this proposal would not have direct access to the local trail located to the south of the existin~~~a~cel Finally, she added that t there might be an issue as to whether the horse corrals, especially the one on Lot 9, could comply with the minimum 70-foot setback Mr Buller stated that there were additional issues for the Commission to consider including the issue of the maintenance of the local trail, ~-. one north side of Vintage Dnve He said they should also consider the layout of the lots witf ~ rrontage along Etiwanda Avenue because the garages of those residences should be directed away from Etiwanda Avenue Finally, Mr Buller recommended that an attractive, single-story home should be developed on lot 12 (lot 11 m the second layout) He then concluded the overview and turned the discussion over to the Planning Commission Commissioner Stewart preferred the first layout to the second However, she doubted that Lot 12 of Exhibit I would be viable because she feared a lot of such a configuration and size could become unsightly Furthermore, she cautioned that off-street parking must be heavily regulated and available to guests She suggested dnveways with an attractive and user-fnendly hammefiead design might work Commissioner McNiel thought that the first layout is a supenor plan He antiapated that traffic traveling through Vintage Dnve would be lighter than surrounding streets Although he would prefer guest parking, he concurred with Commissioner Stewart's recommendation of access dnveways vnth hammerheads He stated that Lot 12 of Exhibit I presents the same problem as other lots with dual frontages Commissioner McPhail agreed with both Commissioners Stewart and McNiel She stated that she would like to see Lot 12 of Exhibit I as a pocket park for the community Commissioner Fletcher commented he preferred the first layout because rt meets more Development . Code regwrements, especially relating to trails He recommended that the two homes on Lots 11 and 12 either front Etiwanda Avenue or be designed so that the sides of the houses look like an additional front of the home He added that the dnveways must prowde as much off-street parking and decorative paving on the site as possible and that Lots 11 and 12 need to be designed as upscale as possible Chauman Macias agreed with all the comments made by the other Commissioners He concurred with the other Commissioners that something unique must be done on Lot 12 of Exhibit I Mr Buller concluded that the consensus of the Commissioners was that they would support the first layout of the subdivision, provided that the developer considers the unique charactenstics of Lot 12 of Exhibit I and site and design the residence accordingly f R • / f B PRELIMINARY REVIEW DRC2005-00273 - SHEA HOMES -Discussion of proposed architectural designs for 310 condominwms on 18 32 acres (gross) at the southeast comer of Day Creek Boulevard and Church Street within the Victona Gardens Master Plan - APN 0207-161-48 Attending the meeting were Steve Wesson from Forest City and Joe Stucker and John Young from the Lewis Operating Corporation City Planner Buller opened the meeting and gave a general overview of the architectural gwdelmes and direction for the area He invited the representatives for Shea Homes to present their design concepts for the architecture of the new units PC Ad~oumed Minutes -2- June 8, 2005 Overall, the Commission was supportive of the project and excited about the potential for having a ` high quality residential development to complement Victona Gardens The general consensus of the Commission was that the architectural designs as presented were a good start, but that further refinement was necessary Most of the Commissioners felt that more emphasis should be given to the development of high quality architectural details (e g ,windows, doors, overhangs, building matenals) to enhance the proposed architecture However, Commissioner Stewart felt that too much detailing would be counterproductive and that the designs should emphasize Gean lines with fewer, yet high quality, details .::.. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time ..... ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission ad~oumed at 8 30 p m Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Secretary Approved PC Adloumed Minutes -3- June 8, 2005 • 7 H E C I T V O F R A N C FI O C U C A M O N G A StaffReport DATE: June 22, 2005 TO. Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Douglas Fenn, MPA, Associate Planner SUBJECT TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT17424 - HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES IRVINE, INC. - A request for a condo map related to 414 multi-family apartments (including live work units) on 17.3 acres in the Haven Overlay District, located at the southwest comer of Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard - APN: a portion of 0208-331-37. Related Files: Development Review DRCDR00-79, Development Review DRC2002-00720, General Plan Amendment DRCGPA01-01 B, Development District Amendment DRCDDA01-01, Development Code Amendment DRCDCA01-01, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16179, and Pre-Application Review PAR00-07. This action includes approval of an Addendum, pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15164, to the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration that was adopted by the City Council on July 18, 2001. The Mitigated Negative Declaration addressed issues for Air Quality, Traffic, Hazardous Materials, and Noise for the subject site. The environmental assessment was circulated to the State Clearing House. There have been no significant environmental changes to the project site since the adoption of the aforementioned Mitigated Negative Declaration. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION. A. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning' North - Commercial shopping center, General Commercal South - Multiple-family ResidentiaUvacant, Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) and Industrial park East - Office center/and government buildings, Industrial Park West - Flood Control Channel and single-family residential neighborhood, Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) B. General Plan Desianations• Project Site -Mixed Use North - Commercial South - Medwm-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) and Industrial Park East - Flood Control/Utility corridor and Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) West - Industrial Park ITEM A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SUBTT17424 - HUNSAKER AND ASSOCIATES IRVINE, INC. June 22, 2005 Page 2 C. Site Charactenstics• The site is currently developed with retail buildings, and multiple family units are under construction. The professional office portion of the master planned protect is vacant. ANALYSIS: A. General: The applicants propose the subdivision of the 414 multi-family rental apartments (including live work units) into condominium "for sale° units. Because of the accelerating housing prices in our city and the surrounding communities, this proposed subdivision would be benefiaal to the community and in the spent of the affordable housing goals of the City's General Plan housing element. Staff believes that this will be an opportunity for first-time homebuyers to have the option of owning a residence. B. Design Grading and Technical Committees• The affiliated Committees recommended approval at their meetings on May 3, 2005 The Committees determined that, with the recommended standard and special conditions of approval, the project is consistent with the City's standards and ordinances. C. Environmental Assessment• This action includes approval of an Addendum, pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act Gwdelines Section 15164, to the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration that was adopted by the City Council on July 18, 2001. The Mitigated Negative Declaration addressed issues for Air Quality, Traffic, Hazardous Matenals and Noise for the subfect site. The environmental assessment was circulated to the State Clearing House. There have been no significant environmental changes to the protect site since the adoption of the aforementioned Mitigated Negative Declaration. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public heanng in the inland Valley Dailv 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 Tentative Tract Map SUBTT17424 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with Conditions. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:DF~ma Attachments. Exhibit A - Tentatve Tract Map 17424 Exhibit B -Design Review Action Comments dated May 3, 2005 Exhibit D -Mitigated Negative Declaration, adopted on July 18, 2001, and Addendum to Tentative Tract Map SUBTT17424 dated June 1, 2005 Draft Resolution of Approval with Conditions for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT17424 ~a • ~Y~e ! @I@ tlYtl , „~ ~i : ~: Pp 7 ~~ ai ~ = Y ~i1 ~~~e ~S ~ i ~ E ~Ae 3 1 I ~ ~;~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~g ~e~ ~f~~p qj ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ RR~~~ 3 ~~g 1_e~R ~ bi~ § ~ ~Qp~ ~Y 9~ ~a C eC Y g ~ g pyy g y(~~ § ~ ~' 8 t C i~ X t 4 '1F~ ~^4 Q4~g ~ ~~}~i~ ~!1pp M ~y}~y}a pp° ~ pp' 3 ~ gp ~dC ~ E ~> c~:c ~~~9g~~r ae~aYpaY9 ~~O~n ~~~a i~ ~ B p~9C~~~Y~ ~ ~ee f ~ Y ~ ~ ~ o~~„"~~^ ~Xi~$SiSY igggg@@p~e pQQpdggS gp3q^o~' ~~g~@gegge +F § q! ~°_ Q p6~ p ~ D 3~^- ~_ee..e.e ~~EpYC~~iHil~~~:@fly @"6Y 1-A-~Q~ ~§~I~~tl~ tq ze~ ~~9~~ I ~ '~ M~ j~F Q ~~Z 1' e ~~ a W S d CONSENT ITEM DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 p m Doug Fenn May 3, 2005 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT17424- HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES IRVINE, INC -A request for a condominium map related to 414 multi-family apartments (including live work units) on 17.3 acres m the Haven Overlay Distnct, located at the southwest comer of Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard - APN. a portion of 0208-331-37. Related File Development Review DRC2000-00079, Development Review DRC2002-00720, General Plan Amendment DRCGPAA01-01 B, Development District Amendment DRCDDA01-01, Development Code Amendment DRCCA01-01, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16179, and Pre-application Review PAR-07. The applicant proposes the subdivision of the apartment protect into condominium units Because of the accelerating housing prices in our city and the surrounding communities, this subdiwsion propose will be benefiaal to the community and in the spent of the City's housing element in our General Plan. Staff believes that this would be an opportunity for first time homebuyers with the option of owning a residence Design Review Committee Action• Members Present• Fletcher, Stewart, Coleman Staff Planner Doug Fenn The Committee recommended approval ~ `~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~ ~1 LJ City of Rancho Cucamonga NEGATIVE DECLARATION California Environmental Quality Act Section 21091 and 21092 oft the Pub ciResources Codeth fhe Project File No.: General Plan Amendment DRCGPA01-01B, Development District Amendment DRCDDA01-01, Development Code Amendment DRCDCA01-01, Development Review DRCDR00-79, and Tentative Tract DRCTT16179 Project Location (also see attached map): Located at the southwest comer of Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard - APN: 20t1-331-01, 24, 25, and 26 Public Review Period Closes: July 18, 2001 Project Name: Rancho Cucamonga Town Square Project Applicant: Burnett Companies Project Description: The proposed protect is the subdivision and construction of a new mixed-use development on approximately 31 5 aces of land and also includes changing the zoning district from Industrial Park to Mixed Use for 18.5 acres and from Medium-High Residential to Mhcation InGudes the stalbl sh rig of and establishes Industrial District Subarea 19 for the entire site The app development standards for the site including an office wmplex, high density apartments, two restaurants, a I f~as welll i s a sine III outdoor malDl in the ogrtheast cogme rof the developmented-use retail and apartment 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 identfied potentially signficant effects but. (1) Revisions in the protect 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 signficant effect on the environment. H adopted, the Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will not be roqulred. Reasons to support this finding are included in the attached Initial Study. The project file and all 10500 Civic Center Drive (909) 477-2750iorrFaxt(909)1477 2847cho Cucamonga Planning Division at NOTICE The public is Invited to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration during the review period. Julv 18 2001 Date of Determination fxlN/,er/r C ADDENDUM TO THE PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PREPARED FOR SUBTT16179 IN ORDER TO CONSTITUTE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION FOR SUBTT17424 June 1, 2005 Prepared by Planning Department City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 ~~ ~_~ C~ Page Purpose ............................................................................................................................1 TABLE OF CONTENTS . 1 2. The Previously Approved Project ................................................................................. i 1 3. on .............................................................. The Previous Mitigated Negative Declarat 4. Actions Subsequent to the Adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration........... 2 2 5. Project Changes Addressed in this Addendum .......................................................... ... d 2 6. um ............................................................ Required Findings for Use of an Adden luation of Environmental Impacts ........................................................................... E 3 7. va 4 8. Modified Environmental Checklist Form ...................................................................... Addendum June 1, 2005 Page f ADDENDUM TO THE PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PREPARED FOR SUBTT76179 IN ORDER TO CONSTITUTE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION FOR SUBTT17424 1. Purpose This Addendum is prepared to augment the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration that was adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga on July 18, 2001 for Development Reviews DRCDR00-79 and DRC2002-00720, General Plan Amendment DRCGPA01-01 B, Development Distract Amendment DRCDA01-01, Development Code Amendment DRCCA01-01, and Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16179. This Addendum, together with the above-mentioned Mitigated Negative Declaration, serve as the environmental review of the proposed protect, known generally as Tentative Tract Map SUBTT17424, and more fully described below, as required pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21000 et. seq. and the State and local CEQA Guidelines. Pursuant to the provisions of CEQA and the State and local CEQA Guidelines, the City of Rancho Cucamonga is the Lead Agency and is charged with the responsibility of deciding whether or not to approve the proposed protect (Tentative Tract Map SUBTT17424). As part of the decision making process, the City is required to review and consider the potential environmental effects that could result from the modification of the protect analyzed in the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration. 2. The Previously Approved Project A General Plan Amendment DRCGPAI-01 B to change the subtect site from Industrial Park to Mixed Use, Development District Amendment DRCDA01-01 to change the zoning district from Industrial Park to Mixed Use; Development Code Amendment DRCCA01-01 to establish Master Plan development standards for the Mixed Use District, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16179 to subdivide 31 5 acres into 11 lots, and Development Reviews DRCDR00-79 and DRC2002- 00720 were approved to develop the °Rancho Cucamonga Town Square Master Plan,° which consists of a mixed use project of 414 apartment units, lofts over retail, retail, and professional office. On June 13, 2001,The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts of the aforementioned protects. The City Council adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration on July 1 S, 2001. 3. The Previous Mitigated Negative Declaration The Mitigated Negative Declaration analyzed the potential environmental impacts of the aforementioned protect and was adopted by the City Council on July 18, 2001 The Mitigated Negative Declaration addressed issues for Air Quality, Traffic, Hazardous Materials, and Noise for the subtect site. The environmental assessment was circulated to the State Clearing House. The Mitigated Negative Declaration determined that the aforementioned would not have the potential for creating a significant environmental effect on any environmental resource. Page 1 • Addendum ~ O June 1, 2005 0 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT17424 • 4, Actions Subsequent to the Adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration Subsequent to the adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration on July 18, 2001, and the approval of General Plan Amendment DRCGPAI-01 B to change the subject site from Industnal Park to Mixed Use; Development District Amendment DRCDA01-01 to change the zoning district from Industnal Park to Mixed Use; Development Code Amendment DRCCA01-01to establish Master Plan development standards for the Mixed Use District; Tentatroe Tract Map SUBTT16179 to subdivide 31.5 acres into 11 lots, and Development Reviews DRCDR00-79 and DRC2002-00720 were approved to develop the "Rancho Cucamonga Town Square Master Plan," which consist of a mixed use prolect of 414 apartment units, lofts over retail, retail and professional office , Hunsaker & Assoaates Irvine, Inc. has applied for a modification to subdivide the apartment units (which are under construction) into condominiums. This new application is Tentative Tract Map SUBTT17424. In response to the application, this Addendum to the Mitigated Negatroe Declaration was prepared to consider the impacts associated with the modifications and changes from the previously approved Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16179 to the new Tentative Tract Map SUBTT17424. This Addendum focuses on the changes between the prolect as previously evaluated and as approved in July 18, 2001, to subdivide the apartment units (which are under construction) into condominiums. 5. Project Changes Addressed in this Addendum As previously stated, the prolect is the request for a condo map related to 414 multi-family . apartments (including live work units) on 17.3 acres in the Haven Overlay District, located atthe southwest corner of Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. Specifically, the application now pending would change the prolect from what was previously approved in the following way: (1) Subdrnsion of the apartment units under construction to condominium units. 6. Required Findings for Use of an Addendum Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines states that an Addendum to an earlier Mitigated Negative Declaration or EIR shall be prepared if some changes or additions are necessary to the previously adopted document, but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration or EIR have occurred. Section 15162 of the State CEQA Gwdelines identifies the conditions that regwre preparation of a subsequent EIR A proposed change in a prolect will regwre preparation of a subsequent environmental document if: A. The change in the project is substantial. Substantial changes in the prolect are those that would require major revision of the previous environmental document because of the involvement of new significant environmental effects, or if a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects has occurred. B The arcumstances under which the prolect is undertaken have substantially changed. . Substantial changes in circumstances are defined as those that would regwre major revisions of the previous environmental document in order to describe and analyze new Addendum ~~ r°y` ` June 1, 2005 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT17424 significant environmental effects, or any changes that would cause a substantial increase m the seventy of the previously identified sigmficant effects C. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could have not been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous environmental document was approved, shows• (1) The protect will have one or more sigmficant effects not discussed m the previous environmental document; (2) The sigmficant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than identified in the previous environmental document, (3) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found notto be feasible would m fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the proiect, but the proiect proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or altematives; or (4) Mitigation measures or altematives that are considerably different from those analyzed m the previous environmental document would substantially reduce one or more sigmficant effects on the environment, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or altematives. If none of the above conditions are met, the City may prepare an Addendum in order to make minor changes to the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration and to document the Citys analysis as to why no further environmental review is regwred. In performing the regwred analysis and determining that the cntena is met for use of an • Addendum, this Addendum relies on use of a Modified Environmental Checklist Form, as suggested in Section 15063(d)(3) of the State CEQA Gwdelines. Section S of this document contains the Modified Environmental Checklist Form and explains the basis for each response to the questions on that Form This Addendum has evaluated each of the changes to Tentative Tract Map SUBTT17424 between the version adopted in 2001 and the version now presented, and measures the impacts of those changes against the checklist of questions presented m Section 6 of this document. Based on this analysis and the information contained m this Addendum, there is no evidence that the proposed proiect regwres major changes to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Companson of the previous proiect with the proposed project, as described in Section 5 of this document, indicates that there are no new sigmficant environmental impacts associated with implementation of the 2003 Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract Map SUBTT17424 In addition, there is no substantial evidence that the arcumstances under which the proiect is undertaken have substantially changed and there is no evidence of new or more severe environmental impacts ansing out of the proposed changes to Tentative Tract Map SUBTT17424. 7. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts As indicated above, the Modified Environmental Checklist Form included m Section S of this Addendum was used to identify the potential environmental effects of the proposed project changes. Each proiect change was referenced against the standard environmental categories listed m Appendix G of the State CEQA Gwdelmes. A summary of the proposed proiect Addendum /0 Page 3 June 1, 2005 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT17424 i changes, resulting potential impacts, and the reasons why an Addendum is appropnate m this situation, are set forth below: The only change is to subdwide the apartment units under construction to condominium units 8. Modified Environmental Checklist Form This Checklist Form is used to compare the antiapated environmental effects of the protect with those disclosed in the previous Mitigated Negatwe Declaration and to review whether any of the conditions set forth m Section 15162 of the State CEQA Gwdelines requmng preparation of a subsequent environmental document are met. The Fonn is used to review the potential environmental effects of the proposed protect for each of the following areas • Aesthetics • Agncultural Resources • Air Quality • Biological Resources • Cultural Resources • Geology/Soils • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Hydrology/Water Quality • Land Use Planning • Mineral Resources • Noise • PopulatioNHousing • Public Services • Recreation • TransportatioNTraffic • Utilities/Service Systems • Mandatory Fmdmgs of Significance There are six possible responses to each of the questions included on the Form: , A. Substant~a/ Change ~n Profect Requ~nng Mafor Revision of Previous Mitigated Negatwe Declaration. This response is used when the project has changed to such an extent that major revisions of the previous Mitigated Negatwe Declaration are regwred due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or an increase m the seventy of the previously identified significant effects. B. Sututant~a/ Change in Cvcumstances under which Project ~s Undertaken Regwnng Mafor Revision of Previous Mitigated Negative Declaration This response is used when the circumstances underwhich the protect is undertaken have changed to such an extent that major revisions of the previous Mitigated Negatwe Declaration are regwred because such changes would result in the protect having new significant environmental effects or would substantially increase the seventy of the previously identified significant effects. C. New Information of Substantial Importance Showing New or Greater S~gmficant Effects Than Identified m Previous Mitigated Negatwe Declarahon. • This response is used when new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted, shows that the protect would have a new significant environmental effector more severe significant effect than identified m the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration Addendum ~~ June 1, 2005 rage 4 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT17424 D. New /nfomtat~on of Substantial Importance Showing Abddy to Substantially Reduce Significant Impacts Identified m Previous Mrhgated Negatwe Declaration. This response is used when new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous Mitigated Negatwe Declaration was adopted, shows: (1) The significant environmental effects of the prolect could be substantially reduced through imposition of mitigation measures or alternatwes that although previously found to be infeasible are in fact now feasible, but the prolect proponent declines to adopt them; or (2) The significant environmental effects of the project could be substantially reduced through imposition of mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration, but the prolect proponent declines to adopt them. E. Less Than Significant ImpacUNo Changes or Circumstances and No New Information That Would Require the Preparation of a New Mitigated Negatwe Declaration. This response is used when: (1) the potential impact of the prolect is determined to be below known or measurable thresholds of significance and would not requre mitigation; or (2) there are no changes in the prolect or circumstances and no new information that would require the preparation of a new Mitigated Negative Declaration and/or EIR pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines F. No Impact. This response is used when the proposed project does not have any measurable environmental impact. The Form, and accompanying evaluation of the responses, provided the information and analysis upon which the City of Rancho Cucamonga makes its determination that no subsequent environmental document is regwred for Tentatwe Tract Map SUBTT17424. ~J • u Addendum Q /~ rage a June 1, 2005 ~/ TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT17424 New New Inromueun Lea Then Idortretlond olSubstenlYl Spndham $ubslan0el Impafanw IrrpedMa InpMence Showhp ~Y Cherpeaa Suesientlel Cherpe Shorsn0 Naw ro SubetenUesy Chamulerkes In ClrcurmUmcea or Greeter ReAUCe and NO New Substentlel antler wUloh Protect SlpnNCerit Sipnstrere Inrormetbn Charge in Prgect Is Uneertaken Etlecls Then Impels Thal Wou/0 ReWInnO Meer Regddrq Mepr roenUliee In Medskeh Repube the ReWSlon d Revisim d Previous Prevbu9 PreperaUOn d e PreNan iAtlGatatl Previctn Mitlpetetl IAtlpatetl Mkyeted New Mlopatetl N NepaWe Nepenx Nepetms No ro d Issues and Supporting Infortnatwn Sources D ed ~~n c~181H"0n ced°feLb" °1dB°4on pe 1. AESTHETICS. Would the prolect a) Have a substantial adverse effect X on a scenic vestal X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and histonc buildings within a state scenic Mghway~ c) Substantfaltydegredetheextsbng x visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of X substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime wows In the area There unit be no additional impacts because the request is to subdiwde the apartments that are under construction into ated Negative Declaration and nothing contained in the n the Miti d d g i ere condominiums However, prewous Impacts were consi osed changes alters the type or degree of Impact that the Tentative Tract Map SUBTT17424 well have on aesthetics Therefore, ro p p the Clty finds A Substantial changes in the project and protect circumstances resulting in new significant effects or a substantial Increase in the seventy of previously identified significant effects have not occurred, w information of substantial importance wrath respect to this enwronmental resouroehmpact resulting in new significant N e B effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously Identified effects has not been identified, and C None of the proposed project changes would significantly affect this enwronmental resource 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the prolect a) Convert Pnme Farmland, Unique X Farmland, or Farmland of Statewnde Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Fertnland Mapping and Monrtonng Program of the Callfomia Resources Agency, to non-agnculturel use? b) Conflict wrh existing zoning for X agncultural use, or a Williamson Act contract Addendum June 1, 2005 ~/3 Page 6 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT17424 Now New lnbrrruaon Less Then brtonrmtland of SllheMnael SgN(cairt $Iltldelltld Impartanar ImpaWnb Inportaxe Silawelg AOdty Cherpes or SubsMmiel Change Showing Now ro SubsienW/ry Cbwmsrericn In Clicurterarices neramar Reduce aM NO New Subshmlid antler wTich Pmiecl Slpnilicanl S/pnMYxnf Inromretbn Cheops in Prgeel is Undenekan EHede Then Impeds mMl Would Requtdnp Malor Repuidrp Meer IdenHped In IdenGlwtl h Reqube the RM>tond ReWdand PreWOw Prevbus Pnvs2Wn We Prewoue Mltlpelad PreWae Mlhpete0 i.Ltlpeted M2yeted New Megefed Nepavve Nepetlve Napatlva NepeWe Nepatlve No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Dederepm oed.reoan oederehan ceden,dsn neden,ibn Inver' c) Involve other changes in the x ewsting environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agncultural use? Tentative Tract Map SUBTT77424 is a request for a condo map related to 414 multi-family apartments (including live work units) on 17 3 acres in the Haven Overlay Distract, located at the southwest corner of Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard There are no environmental impacts because this protect will subdivide the apartments that are under construction into condominiums In ts were vnthin the scope of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the changes in the protect do not create the h ese impac addition, t need for additional environmental review for the following additional reasons. A Substantial changes in the protect and protect circumstances resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the seventy of previously identified significant effects have not occured, B New information of substantial importance wrath respect to this environmental resouroelmpact resulting in new signihcant a substantial Increase in the seventy of previously identified effects has not been identified, and t ff s or ec e C None of the proposed protect changes would significantly affect this environmental resource 3. AIR DUALITY. Where available, the signs/icance crtera established by the applicable air quarry management or air pollution control d~stnct maybe relied upon to make the /ollowing detenninabons Would the protect a) Conflict with or obstruct X implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or X contnbute substantially to an ewsting or protected air quakily wolahon7 c) Result in a cumulatively X considerable net increase of any craena pollutant for which the protect region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quandtatrve thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to x substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create obtechonable odors X affecting a substantial number of people Addendum /I/!~ June 1, 2005 ~l / Page 7 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT17424 ~~ New New lnlonnetlan Less Tlmn mtomiatim al o/SuDaGntlel SbraYkmnt SuCStentinl Importenw myxNNa hrponerwe ShowMp vlbdXy Gbrpea or Substemlel Chent7e ShovAnp New ro SuosMnlally Cbaanaunces In Gr~vrretencea or greeter fletluce eM NO New su0stemlei antler which Project Signllkent SpnNbnl Inbrmeeon Change m Prelxt la UrMertaken EHecia Than Impectl Thaf WauM Requmnp Molar Repuirin9 Meer Menefletl in Itlerrtllkdh flepwa Na Revision of Revision of PreNaua Pnvbw PreParedon of e Prewaw Mltlgetetl PreNaw ASflVetetl MPoGetetl Mklyale0 Now Mapele0 Neoetlva Nepebve NetMawi Nepatlva No Issues and Supportng Information Sources Daft oaaerena, oeaareuon UerJareaan oxlarewn ~' The prewously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration considered the impacts on air quality resulting from the Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16179 As this request does not result in any new construction, the changes considered for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT17424 do not alter or increase the levels or severity of those impacts Therefore, the City concludes that A Substantial changes in the project and project circumstances resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in reviously Identified significant effects have not occurred, of t h p y e seven t B New information of substantial importance with respect to this environmental resource~mpact resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the seventy of previously identified effects has not been identified, and C None of the proposed project changes would significantly affect this environmental resource 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project a) Have a substantial adverse X effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the Califomia Department of Fish and Game or U S Fish and Wildlife Sernce~ b) Have substantial adverse effect X on any npanan habitat or other sensdrve natural commumty identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the Califomia Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Serncel c) Have a substantial adverse effect X on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, veinal pool, coastal, etc) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the X movement of any native resident or migratory fish or vnldlrfe species orwdh established native resident or migratory wildlife comdors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites Addendum June 1, 2005 ~/.~ Page 8 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT17424 New Naw Inbmbem Less Than Iaommflana asalbranml s4nTimnt SuEstanNa Importance ImpecLNo Importance siowaiO AbiM purpeaw SuOStenfla CNanpe Slowino Now ro Suealentlelty (,kcunpsancea InGmpmelencea wGraeter ReeWe ene NO New SuWtemla upMer whicft Prgea Signlflcea Spnlficem Inbrmafon Ganpe m Projea is Utoerteken In d~f Th Requninp Major Requlrinp Mapr E I Ie ~ Mbtl h Re9pam flo Rwoiona ReNalona Previous Prevwpe Repamfbnae Prevlow MlUpeteC Pmvlow Mitlgeted Mltlpeletl MMpefed tt eO NeN M NepeWe Nepetive Neparve NepeWe ~ e ~ ' ~ Issues and Supportng Information Sources Geaerefla„ oeaeratlea Geaammn °e°'a'B"D" °eP a'B1pn I~OBLY e) Conflict wdh any local pollees or X ordinances protecting biological resouroes, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an X adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan As mentioned in the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration, there vnll be no impact to biology or natural habitat because the site is under construction of the previously approved mixed use project The current request is to subdivide the apartments into condominiums The changes considered in this Addendum to the project are not expected to have any impact on biological resources Consequently, the City finds A Substantial changes in the project and project circumstances resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the seventy of previously Identified significant effects have not occurred, B New information of substantial importance with respect to this environmental resouroe/impact resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the seventy of previously identified effects has not been identified, and C None of the proposed project changes would significantly affect this environmental resource 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the pro/act a) Cause a substantial adverse X change in the significance of a histoncal resource as defined in §15064 5 of the State CEQA Guidelines? b) Cause a substantial adverse X change in the significance of an archaeological resourea pursuant to §15064 5 of the State CEQA Guidelines c) Directty or indirectly destroy a X unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Distufi any human remains, X including those interred outside of formal cemetenes~ Addendum ~J// _ June 1, 2005 ~7 c!~ Page 9 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT17424 New New lnromMtlon LesaTMn Inlormeliand dSUbarentlel SpNfimnl SubdeMiel Impodanta IrnWCMo Irrporlerce S/awip AbdM GMIIQe90r Sutlatentlal pianpa Showing New ro Subsrentls/ry Capansfanoea Ingwrmlencroa or Greeter Reduce end NO Naw Substentlel under whits Project 90nrocard SipWbd InrormeMan ChanyB In Pmlecl b UManekm FJtecb Then Irrpeda mr.t Wou#0 Requidrq Major Rapuidrp Major Identlfe0 in prmr~e0 n Requre tlr Renalond Rwia,ond Prwnaua Prevbw PreparaeMde Prevlaua Mitlpflted PreWau Mitlpeted Mitlgeled Mdpeted New MAgeted Negetlve NepeWe NepaOVe Nepefhs Net7atlre No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Detlnebon pedererlon Gedereaa, Dede°°°" oed...ran °'°~" The previous Mitigated Negative Declaration Indicated no prehistonc or histoncal aroheological sties were ewdent on sde Based on the on the lack of findings, the City finds A Substantial changes in the project and project circumstances resulting In new significant effects or a substantial increase In the seventy of previousy Identified significant effects have not occurred, B New Information of substantial importance with respect to this environmental resourcefimpact resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the seventy Gf previously Identified effects has not been Identified; and C None of the proposed project changes would significantly affect this environmental resource 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project a) E>~ose people or structures to X potential substantial adverse effects, including the nsk of loss, injury, or death involving. i) Rupture of a known X earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Pnolo State Geologist for the area ar based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special PubOcation 42 n) Strong seismic ground X shaking? III) Seismic-related ground X failure, including Ilquefactlon~ rv) Landslldes~ X b) Result In substantial Boll erosion X or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or X soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result In on- or off-site Iandsilde, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse Addendum June 1, 2005 ~~~ rays ~ v TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT17424 New New Inbrmetbrr Less 1Mn Irdomeuon of of SubsNnlbl SgnMraru Suoetential Mportenrs ImpecuTro Importance Showh0 ~M Cherpea or Suastentlel Chenpe Sharilnp New ro SuWlendeM CbannaMr¢ae In Cimrrmlancea aGreater Redoes end NO New Suostemiel under which Protect Sipniacard SpnX/ant InMrmelbn Chonpa In Pmlect la Undertaken Fltaeb Then Impede That Would Repuidnp Mapr Requidrq Motor Ideritl0ed In IdonuRed n ReWbo eta ReWim of ReNaiand Prewaue Prevan PreParatlon ola Prewarn Miaf7ated PreWaua MMpated Mdflated MApeted New Mepero0 ~ ~ NepefM Nepalw ' No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Ded~re an ca ~ ~~beA 010 "'"0" °1pAet d) Be located on expansive Boll, as X defined in Table 18-1 B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial nsks to life or property) e) Have soils incapable of X adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste wateR Implementation of the Tentative Tract Map SUBTT17424 will 'not' result in additional development wrath the City and require additional grading, and sod preparation for development activity As indicated In the prewously adopted Mitigated Negative adherence to standard building code requirements, including requirements for grading and compaction of sod, will be Declaration , required, and therefore the impacts to and from geology have already been addressed and are within the scope of the prewousty adopted Mitigated Negative Declaraticn Therefore, the City is able to conclude A Substantial changes in the protect and protect ciroumstances resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the seventy of previously identified significant effects have not occurred, B New information of substantial importance with respect to this enwronmental resource/impact resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the seventy of previously identified effects has not been identified, and C None of the proposed protect changes would significantly affect this environmental resource 7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the protect a) Create a significant hazard to the X public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous matenals7 b) Create a significant hazard to the X public or the environment through reasonabty foreseeable upset and accident conditions invoMng the release of hazardous matenals into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or X handle hazardous or acutely hazardous matenals, substances, or waste within one quarter mile of an existing ar proposed school? Addendum ~/~ rage ~ June 1, 2005 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT17424 New New Inbnnetbn line Than IMOmmtlonM dSUbaleMW Spnalonf Sutlstantlel Importance ImpacMlo Inportence Showrp ~aHHl' Gwpea or SubsHUmel Chenpa Showing New ro SubsfanlWy CLaanalenca+ In Grcu~lenca+ overeater Reducer end NO New SuastentlM under whkh Prgect SlpnHkant SpMHCenI Irdonnatlon Change In Proiecl la Undertaken EHecb men InlpeCa 7haf Would Repuidrp Malor ReQulnnp Mawr IdaNHed in IdmbriedH Repdre tlr ReNaian M ReNVm M PreWaa Pta`wa Prepentlm o!a PreWOw MHIpMed Prewar Mitlpeled Mltlpata0 MID'peted New Malpared Nepatlve Nepetlw NepeWe NepaHw No Issues and Suppomng Information Sources oaa ~~a~ cw~~0on °eO'"°°0A °Ptl°f8d" ~ d) Be located on a site which is X Included on a Ilst of hazardous matenals sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962 5 and, as a result, would It create a significant hazard to the public or the enwronment~ e) For a protect located within an X airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the protect result In a safety hazard for people residing or working In the protect area? f) For a protect vnthin the wcinity of X a pnvate airetnp, would the protect result In a safety hazard for people residing or working in the protect area? g) Impair implementation of or X physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a X significant nsk of loss, intury or death involving wildland fires, including where wnldlands are adtacent to urbanized areas or where residences are Intermixed with wlldlands7 The previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration already considered the Impacts associated vnth this type of protect, In terms th e acts on contaminated soil, the impacts of placing development near the MTA rail line and other associated hazards from m f p o i development of additional housing units in the City The City concludes that A Substantial changes in the protect and protect circumstances resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase In the seventy of previously identified significant effects have not occurred, B New information of substantial importance with respect to this environmental resouroelmpact resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects has not been identified, and C None of the proposed protect changes would affect this environmental resource Addendum June 1, 2005 ~/ Page 12 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT17424 New New lnromudon leaf Than IMametlond dSuosfentlel SpNham Suoatemld Imporfamx ImPewTk Irryonence Shownp AblNy Grarpea or Suestentlal Change Shovanp New ro Subabndely grtumslancea in grcunetencaa or Greeter Reduce arM Na New Suestludlel under whim Prolecl Sipnlilcanl Slpnekwnt Inrortnatbn Change In Project la Undaneken EXecb Then Impact Trot Woultl Requlnrp Melor Reflulnnp Mepr Identlfled in Wenofiedn RagWre the ReWalon d Rewaan d Previaua Prawus Pmpamlbn of a PreWwa Mptlgeled Prewo~ Auhpeted htltlpafed Mdgafetl New Mklpated Nepaave Nepatlva NeperAw Napa1M No Issues and Supporting Infonnahon Sources oen oaaaratlon oeaereaon oedaamn ud.moon mpect 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER DUALITY. Would the pro/ect a) Violate any water quality X standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater X supplies or interfere substantialty with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aqurfer volume ar a lowenng of the local groundwater able level (e g , the production rate of preewsting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support exsting land uses or planned uses for which permits have been grented~ c) Substantially alter the existing X drainage pattem of the sde or areas Including through the ateration of the course of a stream or river, In a manner which would result in substantial erosion or stltahon on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing X drainage pattem of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or over, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result inflooding on- or off- sde~ e) Create or contnbute runoff water X which would exceed the capacity of exsting or planned stormwater dreinage systems or provide substantial additional souroes of polluted runoff? n Otherwise substantially degrade x water qualiry7 i • Addendum ~~O Page 13 June 1, 2005 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT17424 • Naw New lnbrtnelon Lsat Than Inlanretlond dsubstenml SpnMam $ooatentlel Importerrce IrripecnNo Irrportenee saownOAWay ChanOaa or Substemial Change Showino New ro SubsfanmaY CacvmsMnrw in grwrmtarnea orOreeter Reduce erH NO New SubatenHel antler whkh Protect SI~Aeam SgnMicxnt IdormeLM Cnenpe In Prgecl le Undertaken Eflecro Than Irtpads TMI Wald ' Repuidnp Melon Requmnq Mawr Idenulletl In Menldiedn eW Reeu6 Re+ialond RevWand ProAOUa Prewow Preparetlwlda Pralow Mnlpa[etl Prenoua MNgetetl kUtlOated MIDpeted New MapareC °~ Nepaave Nepdive Nepaaw Nepeave No Issues and Supporting Infortnabon Sources maran oau omarea«t oeaa~e"°^ °°tla'a40A °e"a""0A "'°AC g) Place housing within a 100-year X flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood X hazard area structures which would Impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a X significant dsk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or damp t) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or X mudflow? The previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration indicated that the master planned protect is likely to increase impermeable t d ream owns surfaces in the City and would result in additional urban runoff that could contnbute to the cumulative degradation of se resources and facilities were not considered significant The th t t e s o surface waters and groundwater However, the impac changes contemplated with Tentative Tract Map SUBTT17424 and analyzed in this Addendum do not alter or change those impacts The City therefore finds that A Substantial changes in the protect and protect circumstances resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the seventy of prewously identified significant effects have not occurred, B New information of substantial importance with respect to this enwronmental resouroe~mpact resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the seventy of previously identified effects has not been identified, and C None of the proposed protect changes would significantly affect this enwronmental resource 9. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the pro/ect a) Physically divide an established X community? b) Conflict with any applicable land X use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with junsdiction aver the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mdigahng an enwronmental effect? Addendum June 1, 2005 ~~/ rays a+ TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT17424 New New Inlorrriatlon Lean Than Idormetland alSubslenbel S/pnXkarrt SuEntemlal Impbrtence ImpadMo Importance Slrowap AbP,ly ChenOna $uWtanbal Change Slwwlnp New roSdulenlb/y grdansfancav In gmurtotancea or erecter HeN.w aM NO New Suestentlel antler whkh Prgect Slpnltlced SlpnRiced Inrormalbn Chenue in Pmga Is Undertaken EHaar Then Impear That WOUM Re@nrinp Meer ReQUinnp Motor ItlemlHad in Mentllietl n Requpe tM Revleion d Ranelon d Pmvioua Pnmaus Preparetgn of e Prawan Millgatetl Pmnau kbtluated Mltlpeted Md,Uarotl New Mddpaletl NeUetlve Nepebva Nepetlva NeOatl~+a Nepelhe No Issues and Supporting Infornahon Sources oenan,tlm Uederebon oaaarauon aaar~abcn O.dantwn brpect c) Conflict with any applicable X habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? The Tentative Tract Map SUBTTt 7424 does not contain pollees or programs that would divide an established community, conflict with other land use plans or impact a habitat conservation plan or a natural community conservation plan Consequently, this protect is not likely to have any impacts on land use planning and the City concludes that A Substantial changes In the protect and protect ciroumstances resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the seventy of previously identified significant effects have not occurred, B New information of substantial importance with respect to this environmental resource/impact resulting in new significant effects or a substantial (ncrease in the seventy of previously identified effects has not been identified, C. None of the proposed protect changes would significantly affect this environmental resource 10. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the protect a) Result in the loss of availability of X a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state b) Result in the loss of availability of x a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan Because this is a request for apartments to be subdivided into condominiums, this protect is not anticipated to have eny Impact on this resouroe Consequenty, the Ciry finds A Substantial changes in the protect and protect cimumstances resulting in new sigmficant effects or a substantial increase in the seventy of previously identified sigmficant effects have not occurred, B New information of substantial importance with respect to this environmental resouroelmpact resulting in new signfcant effects or a substantial increase in the seventy of previously identified effects has not been identified, and C None of the proposed protect changes would significantly affect this environmental resource 11. NOISE. Would fhe pro/ect result In a) Exposure of persons to or X generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies --~ J Addendum //~a rage ~a June 1, 2005 /~ TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT17424 u New New Mronnedorr Lw Then IMOmrelbn al olSUbslenael Spnldtrera sucacenael ImportanCB ImpaanlJo In'porlence 9aowMp Abaay Chenpea or Subatermel Che~ge Showlnp Now ro SWSfanHaOy Cbawnarencea in grwrtelencm or erasion Retluce eM NO Naw $utlatMeel antler wMtlr Projeel SIpMHCeM Sbndcenf Mbrmedon Caanpe In Pmlacl la Untleneken EHacLS Then Impecb lhef WoWe Requltlrp Melon ReQUiarp Mapr Itlentlflatl in beraaktl n RepuMr Me ReWalon of Revision of PreWaua Prevbua Pmperelbn o/a PreWOU+Mtlpaietl Prenow Aftlpetetl Mtlpeted MIDpetea New Mayelee N ~tl Issues and Supporting Information Sources oeeren o ed o areaonm o.e~en o.~.~aeen °°d°"'b" "'cam' b) Exposure of persons to or X generetion of excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase X in ambient noise levels in the protect vicinity above levels ewsting without the protect d) A substantial temporary or x penodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels ewsting without the protect? e) For a protect located within an X airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the protect area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of X a pnvate airstnp, would the protect expose people residing or working in the protect area to excessive noise levels This protect will not create additional noise impacts because it is a subdivision of apartment units for condominium purposes The changes proposed by the Tentative Tract Map SUBTT17424 are not expected to create new or more severe impacts than those already considered in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. For these reasons, the City concludes A Substantial changes in the protect and protect ciroumstances resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects have not occurred, B New information of substantial importance with respect to this environmental resource~mpact resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the seventy of previously identified effects has not been identified, and C None of the proposed protect changes would significantly affect this environmental resource Addendum June 1, 2005 ~~~ rage ~ o TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT17424 New New Inromubm Less Than Imametlpnd MSUbsfanhal SpnINmnr SuhslentlM ImpaMnce ImpanMo Inponence SMwarp ADaay Chanpesw $ubslenhal Chenpe Showing New ro SubstenheNy Gmemstencea In Grtunetencea or Greeter Retluce and Na New Sutxitamlel antler which Pmtaa Sipnilicent SgnlHnnt e Change in Proles Is Untletleken Eflect9 Then Impacts Thet WauM Repuinnp Mapr Repmdnp Mawr ItlenllNetl In Identlrietl n RaWmon a Ra.+sion of Prwau Plevqua Preparatbn of a PreNau MHlpatetl Prewar ahhpated Mltlpeled Magerod New MApeted eb Nepetlve Negative Negative uen o a Nepatlva oealataaen Nspaav ixwn,hon ~' Issues and Supporting Infonnatlon Sources oeaaretla, oeaarena, e are 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the pro/act a) Induce substantial population X growth m an area, edher directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of X ewsting housing, necessitating the construction of the replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of X people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere The proposed protect will not create additional persons in the area The impact of the protect on population growth was fully considered in the prewously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration The City therefore finds A Substantial changes in the protect and protect circumstances resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects have not occurred, B New information of substantial importance with respect to this environmental resourcefimpact resulting In new significant effects or a substantial increase in the seventy of previously identified effects has not been identified, and C None of the proposed protect changes would significantly affect this environmental resource PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the protect result In substantial adverse physical Impacts associated with the prowslon of 13 . new ar physically altered governmental laalrties, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction o/which could cause significant enwronmen[al Impacts, In order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance obfectrves for any o/the public services a) Fire protection? X b) Police protection? X c) Schools? X d) Parks? X e) OtherpubhcfaGhties? X Addendum ~~ c~ June 1, 2005 / Page 17• TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT17424 New New lnbrtnelbn Less Then Mfometlond of SubeMnlMl S/ynMhed SuDetedld Importena ImpedMo Inporter,ea Slawhp AbAiry CheMes or SubslMrtlM Charge Showing New to Subwniklly CbamuMnose in Grcunsrercm ar greeter RetliK'6 erMNO New Suhstaitlel unCer whidl Protect Sipnpkent Spn~iwrt Inewmerkn ChMpe In PnHael u Untlerteken Etlecle Then Impectr mbl WouM RequMnp Meer Requinnp Meer ItlentlfleC In IOenbruCh Repute the ReNalan d ReMVOn d PreNaua Piewuv Prepemgpn d a Prevlow MlBpeted Previous fNOOereE ipgpeteE MAgeMC New MkyereE NBpaWe Nepebve NepeWe Nepehs Nepsrkv No Issues and Supporting Infortnabon Sources oeaereucn oeaerena, oeaerenm Oederemn °ae'"""" e*c~' The previous Mitigated Negative Declaration fully considered the Impacts of this protect on the need for additional schools, ponce and fire services, and other municipal servlces The changes contemplated and analyzed in this Mltlgated Negative Declaratlon are not expected to significantty change the level or seventy of any of those Impacts Consequently, the City concludes A. Substantial changes in the protect and protect ciroumstances resulting In new significant effects or a substantial Increase in the seventy of previously identified significant effects have not occurred, New Information of substantial importance with respect to this environmental resouroelmpact resulting in new significant B . effects or a substantial Increase in the seventy of previously identified effects has not been identified, and C None of the proposed protect changes would significantly affect this environmental resource 14. RECREATION. Would the pro/act a) Increase the use of ewsting X neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical detenoration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Include recreational facilities or X require the construction or expansion of recreabonal facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The proposed condo map will not create new impacts on recreational facilities or expansion of recreational facilities The previous Identified impacts were fully considered and analyzed in the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration The changes contemplated by this Mitigated Negative Declaration are not anticipated to result In new or more significant effects on recreation sernces The City therefore finds- A. Substantial changes In the protect and protect circumstances resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the seventy of previously identified significant effects have not occurred, B New information of substantial importance with respect to this environmental resourcelmpact resulting in new significant effects or a substantial Increase in the seventy of previously identified effects has not been identified, and C None of the proposed protect changes would significantly affect this environmental resource 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the pro/act a) Cause an increase m traffic which X is substantial in relation to the ewsting traffic load and capacity of the street system (i e , result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle tops, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at mtersechons)? Addendum June 1, 2005 ~°?~ Page 18 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT17424 New New Inbrtneeon Lass TMn IMamellonM olSUGSIeMNI Spnakanl SubstenllM Importance IrnpatlMo Irrponance Showrp AbnaY Charpea or SuESteneal Cheops Showing New b SubsMnaelty Cbuvmatancea In Gtwnatances or er9eter RMuce end NO New SubstaMlM under which Prater SlpnillceM Spnakanf Inbrmetbn Cheops in PrgeM Is Undertaken EpecU Then Impecb Thal Would ReWlnnp Meior Requinrq Meer IdendOed in Meritllledn ~ RaNaim M Re.75fan M Previous Pravous tbn de Preps Previous Mkpated Previous Mitlpetad Mitlpeted MApaletl New Mdpaled Nepatlve Nepeave Nepeave NBpeWe Nepatlro No Issues and Supporting Information Sources I)ec+eradon I)e<1era0an DaGeredan oaaarewn Oeclareeon aror+ b) Exceed either individually or X cumulatively, a level of sernce standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result m a change m air traffic X pattems, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety nsks~ d) Substantially increase hazards X due to a design feature (e g , sharp curves or dangerous Intersections) or incompatible uses (e g ,fans equipment)? e) Resufl in inadequate emergency X access? f) Result in inadequate parking X capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, X plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e g , bus tumours, bicycle racks)? The previously approved protect for housing units within mixed-use zoning addressed ail issues of traffic The proposal will not ncrease traffic that was not already previously analyzed and addressed The previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration i already considered the effects of this type of change on the level of sernce at certain key intersections in the Ciry, as well as the impact that such changes would have on parking pattems and demands The Mitigated Negative Declaration indicated that improvements are already underway for those intersections that could be affected and no additional mitigation measures are required Consequently, the Ciry concludes A Substantial changes in the protect and protect circumstances resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the seventy of previously identified significant effects have not occurred B New information of substantial importance with respect to this environmental resourcelmpact resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the seventy of previously identified effects has not been identified C None of the proposed protect changes would affect this environmental resource 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the pro/ect a) F~cceed wastewater treatment X requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Addendum ,~/ June 1, 2005 ~~~ Page 19 I .__J TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT17424 New New aaornuwn Lela Than Mformetland dSrAafenbal SgnMwnt Sutxitantltl IrriporMnre IrrpscLTb krponerice snow.N ~a^M CherWea or $upatenbtl Cheops Slwwinp New ro Sutntenmdy CY/aln44fBnale in prtaarelencaa ar6reeta Reduce eno NO New Suosterltltl antler which Pregd SlpnleceM Sgnikxrd InlorrlleWn Chang In Ptgecl b Undeneken EflecV Then Impede ?het Wade Requldrp Me~or Requidtq Meior Idantleed in Mendlbdn Requae pre Rwitlm d fleWtlon d PreWau Pravbua Prape2aan of e Prevlau Mitlgted Prewar Mlbgtetl Mflipaletl M/tlpafed New Mapated Negtlva Negtlwi Nagtlwi Npetlve Nepetlw No Issues and Supporting Information Sources oeaereua, omaretlan oednretlon IladenrBn oewremn Inpecl b) Require or result in the X construction of new water or wastewatertreatmentfacilities or expanson of exsting facrfrties, the construction of which could cause signrficant enwronmental effects? c) Require or result in the X construction of new stone water drainage facilities or e~ansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies X available to serve the project from exsting entitlements and resources, or are new or e~anded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the X wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the prowdei's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill wdh X sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs g) Comply vnth federal, state, and X local statutes and regulations related to solid waste The previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration considered the impacts of the Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16179 programs A t t l s i ies i and policies on the need for wastewater facilities, stone water drainage facilities, solid waste disposal, water and other u this request does not result in any new construction, the changes considered forTentative Tract Map SUBTT17424, no changes are the Ciry finds refore Th d d , e en um anticipated by the revisions to the Tentative Tract Map SUBTT17424 as discussed in this Ad A Substantial changes in the project and protect ciroumsiances resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in d , the seventy of previously identified significant effects have not occurre B New information of substantial importance with respect to this environmental resouroe/impact resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the seventy of previously identified effects has not been identified, and C None of the proposed project changes would affect this environmental resource Addendum June 1, 2005 ~~~ raa~c cai TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT17424 New New lrtMmabon lass TiMn Imometlan of of Sueslensel SpnTre^t $ubatentlal Mportence Impetl/No brPOBerce Shownp A631ry Cfianpea or $upatyttlel Cheops Showing New to suesrenmar CbprtnaNnwa Inpw,rstencea orereeler Reeuua ens NO New Suostentlel uneer which Ptgxt Slpnilkars SpnTran! Inlwmelbn Change in Propct b UnEeneken FJlecb'rhen Impact The! WouM RequiBip Major RequlBnp Maur Ieanbfled In 81enIHKe h Requite tlro ReNNan of Revlelon of Previous Prevbus Prepareaon o!a Previous Mitlpeted Previous Mitlpeteo Mlapetao MklpateA New MBpated Nepatlve Nepetlve Nepetlve Nepeare Nepatlve No Issues and Supporting Information Sources oeciereuen ceaeratla„ oeaarenon oeclaretbn Uedarenan inpecl 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: a) Does the project have the X 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 restnct the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major penods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have Impacts X that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed jn connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have X environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or mduectly~ The previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration considered the impacts of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16179 The revisions contemplated in this modrfied project do not change the intended outcomes and thus do not change the likely cumulative impacts of the project The changes made to the Tentative Tract Map SUBTT17424 will not increase cumulative impacts Consequentty, there ' s contnbWon to cumulative is no anticipated change in the impacts to biological resources and no anticipated change to the project impacts Therefore, the City finds A Substantial changes in the project and project circumstances resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the seventy of previously identified significant effects have oat occurred, B New information of substantial importance with respect to this environmental resource~mpact resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects has not been identified, and C None of the proposed project changes would significantly affect this environmental resource Addendum Page zi June 1, 2005 ~~~ RESOLUTION NO. 05-43 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT17424, A SUBDIVISION FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES RELATED TO 414 MULTI-FAMILY UNITS ON 17.3 ACRES IN THE HAVEN OVERLAY DISTRICT, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF HAVEN AVENUE AND FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 020&331-37. A. Recitals. 1. Hunsaker&Assoclateslrvine,IncfiledanapplicationforapprovalofTentaUveTraclMap SUBTT77424, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Tentative Tract Map request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 22nd day of June 2005, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing for the above-described map and conGuded said hearing on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2 Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on June 22, 2005, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows• a. The subject property is within the Haven Overlay District, and b. The subject ske is under construction ofmulti-family apartment units and retail, and c The application proposes to subdivide the site into 414 residential condominium units (including live work units), and d. The proposed subdivision would create 414 condominium ownership units consistent with the following goals and objectives of the General Plan Housing Element: i. To provide "a variety of housing types for economic segments wishing to reside in the community regardless of race, religion, sex, or income group." ii. "Allow and create opportunities that enable a broad range of housing types, maintain a balanced supply of ownership and rental units, and provide sufficient numbers of dwelling units to accommodate expected new household formations." iii. "Provide opportunities so that 30 percent of the persons employed in the City may live in the City " 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows. ~a9 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 05-43 SUBTPM17424 - HUNSAKER 8 ASSOCIATES IRVINE, INC. June 22, 2005 Page 2 a. That the tentative tract map is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and any applicable speafic plans; and b. That the design or improvements of the tentative trad map is consistent month the General Plan, Development Code, and any applicable spec plans, and c. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed, and d That the design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to humans and mnldl~fe or their habitat, and e. That the tentative tract map is not likely to cause senous public heakh problems, and f. That the design of the tentative tract map will not conflict vmth any easement acgwred by the public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property wnthm the proposed subdivision. 4. This action indudes approval of an Addendum, pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15164, to the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration that was adopted by the City CounGl on July 18, 2001. The Mitigated Negative Dedaretion addressed issues for Air Quality, Traffic, Hazardous Matenals and Noise for the subled sde. The environmental assessment was Grculated to the State Cleanng House. There have been no significant environmental changes to the prated sde since the adoption of the aforementioned Mitigated Negative Dedaration 5 Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subled to each and every wndRion set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference Planning Deaartment 1) All pertinent wnddions of approval of Planning Commission Resolution No. 01-83 for Development Review DRCDR00-79, Planning Commission Resolution No 03-13 for Development Review DRC2002-00720, and Planning Commission Resolution No 01-82 for Tentative Trad Map SUBTT16179 shall appN• Engineering Deaartment 1) All pertinent conditions of approval of Planning Commission Resolution No. 01-82 approving Tentative Trad Map SUBTT16179 shall apply. 6 The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ~~v PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 0543 SUBTPM17424 - HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES IRVINE, INC • June 22, 2005 Page 3 BY Rich Mauas, Chairman ATTEST• Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planrnng Commission of the Gty of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of June 2005, by the following vote-to-wit AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES' COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT' COMMISSIONERS: ~3/ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT #: SUBTT17424 SUBJECT: CONDOMINIUMS APPLICANT: HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES IRVINE, INC LOCATION: SOUTHWEST CORNER OF HAVEN AVENUE AND FOOTHILL BOULEVARD ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Comole4on Date A. General Requirements 1 The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its _/_/~ officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to agents , relinquish such approval The applicant shall reimburse the City its agents, officers, or for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or l oyees, emp employees maybe required by a court to pay as a result of such action The Cdy may, at its sole discretion, partiapate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this conddion B. Time Limits 1. This tentative tract map shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, unless a ears from the date of the approval r within 3 E C _/ ~_ y nginee ity complete final map is filed with the C. Site Development 1 The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which inGude _/_/_ architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and site plans , grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, and the Development Code regulations Pnor to any use of the protect site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions 2 ~ ~_ . of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner 3 All site, grading, landscape, irngation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for ior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, _/_/_ consistency pr bwlding, etc) or pnor to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first ~~ 1 Project No SUBTT17424 Comoletion 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 Speafic Plans in effect at the time of budding permit issuance 5 Street names shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval in accordance with the adopted Street Naming Policy prior to approval of the final map 6 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 rewew and approved prior to the issuance of budding permits D. Landscaping 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 prurnng, fertdmng, mo~nnng, and trimming Any damaged, dead, diseased, or deceNng plant material shall be replaced ~nnthin 30 days from the date of damage The £nal design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included in the regwred landscape plans and shall be subject to City Planner rewew and approval and coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be regwred by the Engineering Dmsion E. Other Agencies • 1 The applicant shall contact the U S Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and Iocetion of mailboxes Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for mailboxes with adequate lighting The final location of the mailboxes and the design of the overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits / / / / /~.~ 2 T H E C I T Y O F RANCHO CUCAMONGA Staff Report DATE: June 22, 2005 TO. Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM. Brad Buller, City Planner BY• Donald Granger, Associate Planner SUBJECT. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT17277 G & L COMMERCIAL, LLC - A request for a single parcel subdivision for Industrlal Condominium Purposes in the General Industnal Dlstrlct (Subarea 4), located at 9201-9299 Archlbald Avenue - APN. 0209-211-14. Related Flle. Minor Development Review DRC2004-01251 This protect Is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Ouallty Act (CEQA) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15315 (Class 15 Exemption - Minor Land Divisions). PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A Surroundlno Land Use and Zoning' North - Commercial and Industrlal Use; General Industnal Dlstrlct (Subarea 4) South - Commercial and Industnal Use; General Industrlal District (Subarea 4) East - Industnal Development, General Industnal Dlstrlct (Subarea 4) West - Single-Family Residential; Low Resldentlal Dlstnct (2-4 dwelling units per acre) B. General Plan Deslonatlons Project Slte - General Industnal North - Generallndustrlal South - Generallndustrlal East - Generallndustrlal West - Low Resldentlal (2-4 dwelling units per acre) C. Site Characteristics• The six buildings were constructed prior to the City's Incorporation (1977) The 5 50 acre site is presently comprised of legal, non-conforming commercial and Industrial uses and structures To the north, south, and east are commercial and industrial uses, some of which are legal non-conforming structures and uses. To the west, across Archlbald Avenue, are single-family homes There are three existing driveways off Archibald Avenue which access this site ITEM B PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SUBTT17277 - G & L COMMERCIAL, LLC June 22, 2005 Page 2 ANALYSIS: A. General: The applicant is concurrently processing an administrative Minor Development Review (DRC2004-01251) that is nearing completion. The Minor Development Review is for a storefront remodel (Exhibit C), including a new color scheme and the introduction of architectural elements that add visual interest (cornices, accent lighting, dryvit base treatment, and roof overhangs). B. Tentative Tract Mao SUBTT17277: The applicant is proposing to subdroide five existing bwldmgs for condominium purposes, thereby allowing individual ownership of units. The condommwm map will allow the creation of 52 units for purchase The proposed subdivision is for interior air space only, and will not create any new real property lines or add any square footage The condominium subdivision will not be conditioned to underground utilities since the language in Planning Commission Resolution No. 87-96 regarding the undergrounding of utilities indicates that all "developments° shall be responsible for the undergrounding of utilities. Since the proposed condominium subdivision is for the subdivision of airspace only for the existing bwldmgs and will not create any new square footage, the Engineering Department has indicated that the condo map does not meet the definition of a development. Likewise, exterior upgrading or repair of the existing development is also exempt per Section 7 of Resolution No. 87-96. C Desion Review Committee: The condommwm subdivision was reviewed on May 3, 2005 The Committee (McPhail, Stewart, and Coleman) recommended approval. D Gradmo Review Committee: The condominium subdrnsion was reviewed by the Grading Committee on May 3, 2005. The Committee recommended approval E Technical Review Committee. The Technical Review Committee reviewed the project on May 3, 2005, and recommended approval subject to the Standard Conditions outlined in the attached Resolution of Approval. F Environmental Assessment: The proposed Tentative Tract Map SUBTT17277 is for the subdivision of air space only and is categorically exempt from the regwrements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to State CEQA Gwdelmes Section 15315 (Class 5 Exemption -Minor Land Divisions). The proposed subdivision of air space is in conformance with the General Plan and Development District in which the project is located and does not require any variances. In addition, all access and services to the project are available. The property has not been a part of a larger parcel that was subdivided within the previous 2 years, and does not contain an average slope greater than 20 percent 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 radws of the project site ~a r~ 'u PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SUBTT17277 - G & L COMMERCIAL, LLC June 22,2005 Page 3 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval through the adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with conditions Respectfully submitted, Bra Bu er City Planner BB:DG/ge Attachments: Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Draft Res - Site Utilization Map - Site Plan - Building Elevations for Minor Development Review DRC2004-01251 (Reference Only) - Tentative Tract Map SUBTT17277 - Design Revew Comments and Action Agenda Dated May 3, 2005 elution of Approval for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT17277 ~3 ---~---~ ~~- ~ ~ i i ~ ~;~ ~ i ~ I eg i ~ ~ i /i ~ i ~ i i ~ i !! i ~ i i i ~ ~ i i ~ i 5 ~M1. r i y 1 I I I I I -'-" ....~..,~s i ~ _ ____ - -- ti q i ~ ~ e ~ t r____~ __. ~ ~ ~ e___, ____ ,~ µIW WIl{+7 larUW Wl1~ ~e! a i ~ 4 i a a i i i i ~ ____ ~r I I i 9~ ~ S ~I a I i ~ i p i i i A ~ yq ~ i e i i ' i I + I~ ~ ~I ° I ~ i i e i i ~~ i i ° i 9 ____~ ~ r~pp1 ~ ~ i p ! ' ~! ' i C§! ~ ~ - ___ 1 c ~I H I ~. ~ ~ I IC ~ I a ' h mmrri ~ :~ f ~ , l ~- i c nmmrr ~_______., _ i r________ ___ i ~y ~-- - - ~ r' ` l___t' ' ' I j I II I I ________ _-- I ~ I~] ... Imrmml mmrr ~ i~ r ~`_-°' ~ ii, h Q i `__-__----'----'~ QNWllll1111f14N111WU11f14 -l QI~-" ___-_____ _ ______ ...e ----- -_~a ~--'- _-_ . ss - - _ _ __ _,~ - - \ e i g ~-~ } i mil- i (--Z i i ~ 4 i --Z ~2 ~ r--~ e e ~_ -- ~ ~ f r r-r` Ts e, i ~ --~ ' p .f~i "y . i , ... e i \ L` rf C e` f~ e I r--~. _ . r-~ r-+ B ~ .~ 9y I 6 ----y i ____ ly i~ e i. ____~ I„ ---"~ I: 1 ' a ____S' I= I .__ J to- IN ' -- --- ~ __- .___ f i J ~ ~J 4~ ~ s ~ r~ ~ ° __ I i ~ _ [J i E I i i i ; ~, SlV13O QJ4 STlUL'Jn' SMALVN d Cl ~ s~Ena .,.,..., a~ ..o ~m,~ .a...e,~ ~ , i ~` e ~ ti; ,.,, „ . s 7T `~L10A53 TYEI ~®wm~ A woe w~.uawc ..e..~. ~.o.-,e e.... r.... e.......aw ''y .i va ~. 6 7y l9 9 Vivid S53dSE1B OHJNV!! ~y Q ~ `JNIH33NIrJN3 OO~VNOE3 ~ P E ~€ o ~ o ~ 3€ ~ : :~x :3 i~ :$ E ~{ i :s z€ 8 ~1 ~ ~~ e ~~ ~~ E 8 ~ E aE aE ' r: ~ 00 ~e ~ 1i [ B ## t~ ~~ ~ i~ r ` ci ~ ~ a! Ir i \ rs a, 5! a 3 E ~ ! ~3r 1~ ~9[ rllSri e e16 ~ . 8 ~~ ~ ~ ,1. ~ F: ~ $ yr 8 ~6 i . a ue B • tr E til € i ~9 i! 0 1 E EE ~ # ~~ ~ B € ^ € I E i .~i~ ~~ 1, d. ~ ~ ~ _ lE v B a~ _ ° m ____ ___ ~ m ~ E , ~~ _ Q3 a~ g: 8 ~ m ~ ~ B , . ~ ~ ~ ~ B ~ ~ ,, a ~ ~ e ;,E ,~E . ~i . IE IE i•!i ,: ,. T e 11 E Ii! IIE m ~ m B !i[ jE ilE ji i 8 ~~2! `I~ E!1 d ^ EIS! i~~ il 61 , . , . t 3 or ao ~ E! ~ !f ~o ~ r! ~ ~t ~! ~t $ a ~ J ~ ~~ ~~ 4 i ^~ 71A i~ ~ ~ 01 ~ S ~ ~~ e~ ~ ~Q 4 ~ i ~~Ct~~AST G-~ ___ a~ ~ JMAI/A SiY1~U lNY we~-~I~M ~•~' ~ ~ B 4 ~6 _ 'Ntlld HOOD! ~ONO709 . ~ vN' • ~,~ '~ ' ' ~ ~o ' ~ ~ ` _ _ ..am . ...2 7l'1'i31.Y15~9Yaltl ~ooor.lwmoe*ruvuu ...e.M 1 ea i 9 ~ vzvu SS~ilS(re OFi7Ntltl , p • ~ rJN0.i33N1`JN3 OOlVN09 ~~ ~ ~ a I ~ a • } • § ~ I • i • ~ ~ eeu ~~ ~e i~~ 9 3 ~ Q eg t a ! I ~ s ® ~ i ~ ~ ~ , ae ~ C Y y i3@ :tg - / I' ~ / ; ~ ~0 ~~ v ~ ~ I ~ _ r 1 ~ "€ __-_____-__ _~ ~ E ~ ~ \ ~ ~ i= ; r Ef e ~ r• a ~ ~ i€ y i U v 9 •` - ~ i ~ ~~ ~{ a r ~ yt P€ Y ~ N y e / \ ~ y [ I~ ~i l \ 1 \ ~ ~ 1 ~ / v i - ~ ~ ~ s ~ 9 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I g{ ~ t ~ ~~4 ZZ F ~ F F a€ _ ~~ Q e ~a 9, ~ ~ ~ ' ~1 1 tl ~ a . , ~ i€' . !~ ~; ~ U ~~ ~t ~ g~ ~ - - -- ~ ~? O ' ~ ~ i m _ ~~; i a ~ ~° €t~ ~ ! 4 ~!€ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~e 3 E g i '° !~ !' 13 f I~ ~€ ~e ~ ~ ~! a ~ . €~ :~ 3 a~ ~. a !~9 ~~ ; .~ !~4 ! s,. e. e i slat ~.7Ct~yg~T ~= 2 n,~ ~ ______ :: ~ -, ~ y '' ~ e~ 4 ~a~l ~ ~ ° ~ • ~ ~ h' Y~ p ~Vee a 2 ~ pp ~ t~ pia ~ ~ ! V i 1 ~! tl 1 _ ~_ _ ~.7~ ~ G ° 7TH STREET ~! 1 ~ ~ a k e C~ 'e u ;v F~ ~~ n~IaQ ,~ !~I I ~~IK ~I II ; ~ -». ~ # ~ ~ ~ ~ I x...,~ ~~t t e ~ o e ~ II I ~ ,~e 1 ;k •~ ~I;g ~ ~!3 ~ III ~ 9 I ~ lain ~~ ill II I ~ E '` ~ 1 at~ r l i w ~ ~~ I,li~"~° ~~ $ Y[Yjaj ~r~ I y~~ _, n Y I QjI ~ ~ ~ 1 _-J 'd ~ f ~ F 3 a I ~~~ li ~ ~ a~~4 ~ P, e ~ b- ~~ ~ ~ I~ ;lc~ _ ~ ~ ~~ `Ili d e 9 rai I° .+. ~ ! ~ @~ p, '9eal ~l III ~7i ``{ ; e as t/e I . ! ~~5~ l~ig ° ~t3s ea o ~ 140 ~~~6 ~ §~~ 9 -- ~ ~~ ~ , ~ l l { a6~ ~;s; ~$9tQi~a~ ~It~~tla~lal~ ~l~ s~9s ~ ~~ ~ I I ~ll II !~ ~ ~ Isla t ~~$I i e `t ' ~~t ~~& ~~ a9t !~ d ~ ~ o ~' q . tl gg p _ ~~~ ~ ~~i y ~~~ ~i~ ° ~~~~ ~1~ l~@ ~~i ~ SIT+7~T~~ yi87 1 !~lwe ~ ! / / etl et; et ~4 7 e L 6~'a ~ 6`~e~ §~~t Itt ~ ~Eil ~a! ~~~ ~QI ~:~! f 9~B~1 !~:! lel i ®a ~9 V I I tW V I i I I V I ~ I 1 ~~ ~ ~y 119 $9 V II / ~L srv n 4 J//// A Nr en save Yttw renwrvam n1 ~~_ __ I v '° ~" f/ 107 ~~I~-~ -- y ~ & ~,o Y 4 V U U ~ ~ U U V U 4 U U ~ f;p' y i I f~ e I ~I ~ btl a e ! i W ~B ~ ~I 1~1 +, m y ~~ al I~i / d ° I~~ ~ i ,I~ ( d 9~[~ e m 0 s ~ r ~4 m 4r /t } Qtl~l ~~ • - - tl R [ [ [ I ~ ~ b i ~! I~ ~q !~ I w E `~ _~s ~ 83 k o- 4 I~ ~° ~-~ >c-Z ~~ ~~ ~p~~~ bi~V~~ aaaoa ~' o 9 01 a ~p1e~~l~~sss~~~;g~ 9at~¢9@tt1~9~E~3921 t[tltlill elii~~::::_ ~"°- s ! F1107 ep5 qq3 1p i~tlilee t~l~t~~;!! 6 ~;lillrEt4E9tlls~9~1~ YeeBteReev[[ilieal[ n -G----~ ~-~ ~'~ i~! _ W a-- -. r. ~ A^ ~~ --- _~_--- y - e m r- - .-_ _ ~ - °"" -- ~--r' -~' liN3AY '07 YBlN~NY mom. =. f~~ ~{+ Gh mv.n r---~ __ tl~Q~11tL~n ~--~t~ r---~ _ I I t i i -, i I i J ~~Q L I I ~_JCt~ZRzT ~P~~ CONSENT ITEM DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:10 p.m. Donald Granger May 3, 2005 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT17277 - G & L COMMERCIAL, LLC - A request for a single parcel subdivision for Industnal Condommwm Purposes in the General Industnal Distract (Subarea 4), located at 9201-9299 Archibald Avenue - APN: 0209-211-14. Related File: Development Review DRC2004-01251. This protect is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to State CEQA Gwdelmes Section 15301 (Class 1 Exemption -Existing Pastilles). Backoround: The applicant is proposing to subdivide five existing buildings for condominium purposes, thereby, allowing individual ownership of units. The proposed subdivision is for interior air space only, and will not create any new, real property Imes. The applicant is concurrently processing an administrative Minor Development Review DRC2004-01251 that proposes an exterior modernization of the storefronts of the buildings. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee recommend approval of the condominium map to the Planning Commission. Deslan Review Committee Action Members Present: Fletcher, Stewart, Coleman Staff Planner: Donald Granger The Committee recommended approval. • RESOLUTION NO 05-44 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT17277, A SINGLE PARCEL SUBDIVISION FOR 521NDUSTRIAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS PURPOSES IN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (SUBAREA 4), LOCATEDAT9201 - 9299 ARCHIBALDAVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF-APN: 0209-211-14 A Recitals 1 G & L Commercial, LLC filed an application for the approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT17277, as descnbed m the title of this Resolution Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Tentative Tract Map request is referred to as "the application." 2 On June 22, 2005, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public heanng on the application and concluded said heanng on that date All legal prerequisites pnor 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 Gty of Rancho Cucamonga as follows. 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Rectals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission dunng the above-referenced public heanng on June 22, 2005, including wntten and oral staff reports, together vwth public testimony, this Commission hereby speGfically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located on the east side of Archibald Avenue, with a street frontage of 350 feet and lot depth of 619 feet, and is presently improved with six industnal buildings; and --- b. The properties to the north, east, and south of the subject site consist of industnal and commercial buldings and are zoned General Industnal (Subarea 4), the property to the west is zoned Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre), and c. The proposed protect consists of a single parcel subdivision of air space for industnal condommwm purposes of 52 units, and d. The proposed use, together v~nth the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detnmental to the public health, safety, or welfare or matenally intunous to properties or improvements in the vicinity, and e. The application, in contunction with Minor Development Review DRC2004-01251, provides extenor arohitectural enhancement and opportunities for mdrvidual ownership for six buildings constructed pnor the incorporation of the Gty of Rancho Cucamonga pia PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO 05-44 SUBTT17277 - G & L COMMERCIAL, LLC June 22, 2005 Page 2 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public heanng and upon the specific findings of fads set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows a. Tentative Tract Map SUBTT17277 is consistent v~nth the General Plan, Development Code, and any applicable speGfic plans; and b. The design or improvements of Tentative Trail Map SUBTT17277 is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and any applicable speGfic plans, and c. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; and d The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to humans and vnldlife or their habitat, and e. Tentative Tract Map SUBTT17277 is not likely to cause senous public health problems; and f The design of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT17277 will not conflict with any easement acgwred by the public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. 4. The Planning Commission hereby determines that the project identified in this Resolution is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Ad (CEQA) of 1970, as amended, and the Gwdelmes promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15315 of the State CEQA Guidelines (Class 15 Exemption -Minor Land Dms~ons). The application consists of the subdivision of one parcel for industnal condominium purposes in an urbanized area zoned for industnal use, no variances or exceptions are regwred, all services and access to the probed site to local standards are available, the property was not subdivided m the past two years; and the property does not have an average slope greater than 20 percent. 5. Based upon the findings and contusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subbed to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Planning Department 1) Approval is for the subdivision of air space for industnal condominum purposes to create 52 units 2) Reuprocal maintenance agreement ensunng point maintenance of all landscape areas, common areas, doves, and parking areas shall be recorded prior, or concurrent with, the final trail map Encineenng Department 1) Along Archibald Avenue, install two 16,000 Lumen HPSV streetlights, install R26(s) "NO STOPPING" signs, and replace ewsting pipe dram located near the south property line vrnth a curbside drain outlet perCdy • Standard No. 107-C. Also, provide new street trees, minimum .[3 /3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO 05-44 SUBTT17277 - G & L COMMERCIAL, LLC . June 22, 2005 Page 3 15-gallon size or larger, installed per City Standards in accordance with the City's Street Tree Program. a) Protect all existing public improvements inGuding curb, gutter, curvilinear sidewalk, drive approaches, street tree, etc , or replace as required. 2) Provide reciprocal access easement at both the north and south dnve aisle in favor of adtacent properties Upon future redevelopment of adjacent property, staff vwll require the redevelopment to utilize the reciprocal access. 3) A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropnate Landscape and Lighting Distncts shall be filed with the City Engineer pnor to final map approval or issuance of Building Permits, whichever occurs first Formation costs shall be borne by the developer 6 The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY Rich Macias, Chairman ATTEST Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of June, by the following vote-to-wit AYES: COMMISSIONERS NOES COMMISSIONERS ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS • ~~T COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT #: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT17277 SUBJECT: CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION APPLICANT: G & L COMMERCIAL, LLC LOCATION: 9201-9299 ARCHIBALD AVENUE ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Completion Date A. General Requirements 1 The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, ds ~.~~ agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the attematNe, to relingwsh such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorneys fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be requved by a court to pay as a result of such action The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at ds own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition 2. Copies of the signed Plannmg Commission Resolution of Approval No 05-44, Standard shall be included on the plans (full size) The sheet(s) are for mformation only to all Conditions ~~_ , parties mvolved in the construction/grading actiwties and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect B. Time Limits This tentative tract map or tentative parcel map shall expire, unless extended by the Planning 1 ~~_ . Commission, unless a complete final map is filed with the City Engineer within 3 years from the date of the approval C. Site Development 1 The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include ~~- site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Department, the conditions contained herein, Development Code regulations. SC-1-OS 1 8~5 Project No SUBTT17277 Completion Date 2. Pnor to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions ~~_ . of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 3. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Bwlding Code and ~~_ State Fve Marshal regulations have been complied with Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Budding and Safety Department to show compliance The bwldings shall be inspected for compliance pnor to occupancy. 4. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for ~_/ consistency pnor to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, budding, etc.) or pnor to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes fvst 5. Approval of this request shall not waroe compliance wdh 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 6 All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property ~~ owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the Cdy Proof of this landscape maintenance shall be submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and approved prior to the issuance of budding permits - D. Landscaping 1. Existing trees regwred to be preserved in place shall be protected with a construction barrier in ~~ accordance with the Muniapal 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 th d o s recommendations regarding preservation, transplanting, and trimming me 2. Landscaping and irrgation systems regwred to be installed within the public nght-of-way on the ~~_ perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE SAFETY DEPARTMENT, FIRE PROTECTION PLANNING SERVICES AT, (909) 477-2770, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: SEE ATTACHED SC-1-OS 2 ~~~ ~~,,,,,~ , Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection i '_ District ~= i Fire Construction Services STANDARD CONDITIONS 4/12/05 Wolh/Perez LLC 9201 Archibald SUBTT17277 & DRC2004-01251 THE FOLLOWING STANDARD CONDITIONS APPLY TO THIS PROJECT. FSG1 Public and Private Water Supply Design guidelines for Fire Hydrants• The following provides design gwdelines for the spaang and location of fire hydrants: a. The maximum distance between fire hydrants incommercial/industrial projects is 300-feet. No portion of the exterior wall shall be located more than 150-feet from an approved fire hydrant. For cul-de-sacs, the distance shall not exceed 100-feet. b. The preferred locations for fire hydrants are. At the entrance(s) to a commercial, industrial or residential project from the public roadways. u. At intersections. ni. On the right side of the street, whenever practical and possible. ro. As required by the Fire Safety Division to meet operational needs of the Fire Distract. v. A minimum of forty-feet (40') from any building. c. If any portion of a facility or building is located more than 150-feet from a public fire hydrant measured on an approved route around the exterior of the facility or bwldmg, additional private or public fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying the required fire flow shall be provided. d. Provide one fire hydrant for each 1000 gpm of required fire flow or fraction thereof. FSC-4 Requirement for an Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems Rancho Cucamonga Fire District Ordinance 15, the 2001 California Fire Code and/or any other applicable standards require an approved automatic fire sprinkler system to be installed in: Commeraal or industrial structures greater than 7,500 square feet. 13~'i 2. Group °A" Occupanaes 3. `E° Occupanaes with an occupant load of 50 or more persons 4 All structures that do not meet Fire District access regwrements (see Fire Access). 5. When regwred fire flow cannot be provided due to inadequate volume or pressure. 6. When the building access does not meet the regwrements of the 2001 California Budding Code and the RCFPD Fire Department Access -Fire Lane Standard #9-7 7. When any applicable code or standard requires the structure to be spnnklered. FSC-5 Flre Alarm System The California Budding Code, the RCFPD Fire Alarm Standard #10-6 and/or the California Fire Code require a listed fire sprinkler monitoring Central Station Fire Alarm system for automatic fire sprinklers. Plan check approval and a building permit are regwred Prior to the installation of the fire alarm system. Plans and specifications shall be submitted to Fire Construction Services in accordance with RCFPD Fire Alarm Standard #10-6. FSC-6 Fire District Site Access Is regwred per the approved plans PMT2005-01013 Fire District access roadways include public roads; streets and highways, as well as private roads, streets drive aisles and/or designated fire lanes. Please reference the RCFPD Fire Department Access Roadways Std #97. 1. Location of Access: All portions of the structures 1S` story exterior wall shall be located within 150-feet of Fire District vehicle access, measure on an approved route around the exterior of the bulding. Landscaped areas, unpaved changes in elevation, gates and fences are deemed obstructions. 2. Specifications for private Fire District access roadways per the RCFPD Standards - are: a. The minimum unobstructed width is 26-feet. b The maximum inside turn radws shall be 24-feet. c The minimum outside turn radius shall be 50-feet. d The minimum radws for cul-de-sacs is 45-feet. e. The minimum vertical clearance is 14-feet, 6-inches f. At any private entry median, the minimum width of traffic lanes shall be 20-feet on each side. g. The angle of departure and approach shall not exceed 9-degrees or 20 percent. h. The maximum grade of the drroing surface shall not exceed 12%. i Support a minimum load of 70,000 pounds gross vehicle weight (GVW) 2 ~~S j. Trees and shrubs planted adjacent to the fire lane shall be kept trimmed to a minimum of 14-feet, 6-inches from the ground up. Vegetation shall not be allowed to obstruct Fire Department apparatus. 3. Access Doorways. Approved doorways, accessible without the use of a ladder, shall be provided as follows: a. In buildings without high-pled storage, access shall be provided in accordance with the 2001 California Budding Code, Fire and/or any other applicable standards. b In buildings with high-pled storage access doors shall be provided in each 100 lineal feet or major fraction thereof, of the exterior wall that faces the required access roadways. When railways are installed provisions shall be made to maintain Fire District access to all requred openings. 4 Access Walkways: Hardscaped access walkways shall be provided from the fire apparatus access road to all required budding exterior openings 5. CommerciaUlndustrial Gates: Any gate installed across a Fire Department access road shall be in accordance with Fire District Standard #9-2. The following design regwrements apply: a. The gate shall be motorized and slide open horizontally or swing inward. b All gates must open at the rate of one second for each one-foot of required width. c When fully open, the minimum width shall be 20-feet. d. Gates are not required to be motorized Fire Lane Identification: Red curbing and/or signage shall identify the fire lanes. A site plan illustrating the proposed delineation that meets the minimum Fire District standards shall be included in the architectural plans submitted to B&S for approval. 7. Approved Fire Department Access: Any approved mitigation measures must be clearly noted on the site plan. A copy of the approved Alternatroe Method application, rf applicable, must be reproduced on the architectural plans submitted to B&S for plan review. FSC-10 Occupancy and Hazard Control Permits Listed are those Fire Code permits commonly associated with the business operations and/or budding construction. Plan check submittal is required with the permit application for approval of the permit, field inspection is regwred prior to permit issuance. General Use Permit shall be regwred for any activity or operation not specifically described below, which in the judgment of the Fire Chief is likely to produce conditions that may be hazardous to life or property. • Aerosol Products Magnesium Working • Application of Flammable Finishes Motor Vehicle Fuel-Dispensing Operation • Automobile Wrecking Yards Open Burning • Battery Systems Organic Coating • Candles and open flames in public assemblies Ovens 3 C3/ 9 ~1 l_J • Cellulose Nitrate • Compressed Gases • Cryogerncs • Dry Cleaning Plants • Dust-Produang Processes and Operations • Explosive or Blasting Agents Flammable and Combustible Ligwds • Frwt Ripening Plants • Hazardous Materials • High-Pile Combustible Storage (HPS) • Liquefied Petroleum Gases • LPG or Gas Fuel Vehicles in Assembly Buildings Powder Coating Public Assembly Pyrotechnical Speaal Effects Radioactive Materials Refrigeration Systems Repair Garages Rubbish Handling Operations Spraying or Dipping Operations Tents, Canopies and/or Air Supported Structures Tire Storage Welding and Cutting Operations Wood Products/LumberYarils FSC-11 Hazardous Materials -Submittal to the County of San Bernardino The San Bernardrno County Fire Department shall review your Business Emergency/Contingency Plan for compliance with minimum standards. Contact the San Bernardino County Fire, Hazardous Materials Division at (909) 387-4631 for forms and assistance. The County Fire Department is the CaUEPA Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) for the City of Rancho Cucamonga. If the facility is a NEW business, a Certificate of Occupancy issued by Budding & Safety will not be finalized until the San Bernardino County Fire Department reviews your Business Emergency/Contingency Plan. California Government Code, Section 65850 2 prohibits the City from issuing a final Certificate of Occupancy unless the applicant has met or is meeting speafic hazardous materials disclosure regwrements. A Risk Management Program (RMP) may also be required if regulation substances are to be used or stored at the new facility 2. Any business that operates on rented or leased prooerty which is regwred to submit a Plan, is also regwred to submit a notice to the owner of the property in writing stating that the business is subject to the Business Emergency/Contingency Plan mandates and has complied with the provisions. The tenant must provide a copy of the Plan to the property owner within five (5) working days, if requested by the owner. FSC-12 Hazardous Materials -Submittal to Fire Construction Services Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction of buildings and/or the installation of egwpment designed to store, use or dispense hazardous materials in accordance with the 2001 California Budding, Fire, Mechanical, Plumbing, Electrical Codes, RCFPD Ordinances FD15 and FD39 and other implemented and/or adopted standards FSC-13 Alternate Method Application Fire Construction Services staff and the Fire Marshal will review all requests for alternate method, when submitted. The request must be submitted on the Fire District °Application for Alternate Method" form along with supporting documents and payment of the $92 revew fee. 4 ~ ^^ FCS-14 Map Recordation Reciprocal Access Agreement The plan as submitted indicate that the regwred Fire Department access: a. Is shared by multiple owners, or b. Is located on common space under the control of an owner's assocation. Please provide a permanent access agreement granting irrevocable use of the property to the Fire District. The agreement shall include a statement that no obstruction, gate, fence, budding or other structure shall be placed within the dedicated access without Fire District approval. The recorded agreement shall include a copy of the site plan. The agreement shall be presented to Fire Construction Services for review and approval, prior to recordation. The agreement shall be recorded with the Recorder's Office, County of San Bernardino. 2. Reciprocal Water Covenant and Agreement: The plans as submitted indicate that a required private fire mains or appurtenances a. Is located on common space under the control of an owner's association; or b. is shared by multiple owners. Please provde a permanent maintenance and service agreement between the owner for the private water mains, fire hydrants and fire protection egwpment essential to the water supply. The agreement shall meet the form and content approved by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Distract. The agreement shall be submitted to Fire Construction Services for revew and approval, prior to recordation The agreement shall be recorded within the Recorder's Office, County of San Bernardino. Chronological Summary of RCFPD Standard Conditions PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT -Please complete the following prior to the issuance of any building permits: Private Water Supply (Fire) Systems. The applicant shall submit construction plans, specifications, flow test data and calculations for the private water main system for review and approval by the Fire District. Plans and installation shall comply with Fire Distract Standards. Approval of the on-site (private) fire underground and water plans is regwred prior to any budding permit issuance for any structure on the site. Private on-site combination domestic and fire supply system must be designed in accordance with RCFPD Standards # 9-4, #10-2 and #10-4. The Building & Safety Division and Fire Construction Services wdl perform plan checks and inspections. All private on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed and operable prior to delivering any combustible framing materials to the site. Fire construction Services will inspect the installation, witness hydrant flushing and grant a clearance before lumber is dropped. Public Water Supply (Domestic/Fire) Systems. The applicant shall submit a plan showing the locations of all new public fue hydrants for the review and approval by the Fire Distract and CCWD. On the plan, show all existing fire hydrants within a 600-foot 5~! radds of the protect. Please reference the RCFPD Water Plan Submittal Procedure Standard. All regwred public fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed and operable prior to delivering any combustible framing materials to the site. CCWD personnel shall inspect the installation and witness the hydrant flushing. Fire Construction Services shall inspect the site after acceptance of the public water system by CCWD Fire Construction Services must grant a clearance before lumber is dropped. 3. Construction Access The access roads must be paved in accordance with all the requirements of the RCFPD Fire Lane Standard #9-7. All temporary utilities over access roads must be installed at least 14' 6° above the finished surface of the road. 4. Fire Flow: A current fire flow letter from CCWD must be received. The applicant is responsible for obtaining the fire flow information from CCWD and submitting the letter to Fire Construction Services. 5. Easements and Reciprocal Agreements• All easements and agreements must be recorded with the County of San Bernardino. PRIOR TO THE RELEASE OF TEMPORARY POWER The bwlding construction must be substantially completed in accordance with Fire Construction Services' "Temporary Power Release Checklist and Procedures". PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY OR FINAL INSPECTION -Please complete the following: . 1. Hydrant Markers. All fire hydrants shall have a blue reflective pavement marker indicating the fire hydrant location on the street or driveway in accordance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Standard Plan 134, 'Installation of Reflective Hydrant Markers". On private property, the markers shall be mstalled at the centerline of the fire access road, at each hydrant location. Private Fire Hydrants• For the purpose of final acceptance, a licensed sprinkler contractor, in the presence of Fire Construction Services, shall conduct a test of the most hydraulically remote on-site fire hydrants. The underground fire line contractor, developer and/or owner are responsible for hiring the company to perform the test. A final test report shall be submitted to Fire Construction Services verifying the fire flow available. The fire flow available must meet or exceed the regwred fire flow in accordance with the California Fire Code. 3. Fire Sprinkler System. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the fire sprinkler system(s) shall be tested and accepted by Fire Construction Services. 4 Fire Sprinkler Monitoring. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the fire sprinkler monitoring system must be tested and accepted by Fire Construction Services. The fire sprinkler monitoring system shall be installed, tested and operational immediately following the completion of the fire sprinkler system (subtect to the release of power). 5. Fire Suppression Systems and/or other special hazard protection systems shall be inspected, tested and accepted by Fire Construction Services before occupancy is granted and/or egwpment is placed in service 6. Fire Alarm System Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the fire alarm system shall be mstalled, inspected, tested and accepted by Fire Construction Services. 6~a 7. Access Control Gates. Pnor to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, vehicular gates must be inspected, tested and accepted in accordance with RCFPD Standards #9-1 or #9-2 by Fire Construction Services. 8. Fire Access Roadways: Pnor to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, the fire • access roadways must be installed in accordance with the approved plans and acceptable to Fire Construction Services. The CC&R's, the reciprocal agreement and/or other approved documents shall be recorded and contain an approved fire access roadway map with provisions that prohibit parking, specify the method of enforcement and identifies who is responsible for the regwred annual inspections and the maintenance of all required fire access roadways 9. Address: Pnor to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, commeraaVindustnal and multi-family buildings shall post the address with minimum 8-inch numbers on contrasting background, visible from the street and electrically illuminated dunng penods of darkness. When the budding setback exceeds 200 feet from the public street, an additional non- dluminated 6-inch minimum number address shall be provided at the property entrance. Larger address numbers will be required on buildings located on wide streets or built with large setbacks inmulti-tenant commercial and industnal buildings. The suite designation numbers and/or letters shall be provided on the front and back of all swtes 10. Hazardous Materials: Pnor to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant must demonstrate (in writing from the County) that the faality has met or is meeting the Risk Management Plan (RMP) or Business Emergency/Contingency Plan with the San Bernardino County Fire Department, Hazardous Matenals/Emergency Response and Enforcement Division. The applicant must also obtain inspection and acceptance by Fire Construction Services. 11 Confidential Business Occupancy Information: The applicant shall complete the • Rancho Cucamonga Fire Distract "Confidential Business Occupancy Information" form This form provides contact information for ire Distract use in the event of an emergency at the subject budding or property. This form must be presented to the Fire Construction Services Inspector. 12. Mapping Site Plan. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, a 8'Fz° x 11" or 11" x 17° site plan of the site in accordance with RCFPD Standard #13-1 shall be revised by the applicant to reflect the actual location of all devices and budding features as required in the standard. The site plan must be reviewed and accepted by the Fire Inspector 7 aa3 RANCHO C O C A M O N G A Staff' Report DATE June 22, 2005 TO. Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner gy: Michael Diaz, Senior Planner SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CUP88-45 AND ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT EP91-03 - MARGARITA BEACH - A public heanng to examine the business operation to ensure that it is being operated in a manner consistent with conditions of approval or in a manner which is not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially in~unous to properties in the vicinity. The Planning Commission will consider modification or revocation of the approved Conditional Use Permd and Entertainment Permit. (Continued from May 11, 2005) BACKGROUND Conditional Use Permd 88-45 was originally approved in 1988 for Siam Garden Restaurant (Planning Commission Resolution No 88-242 -Exhibit A). In 1991, Fred and Urai Nelson filed an application to expand the size of the restaurant and bar and to allow live entertainment under the business name of Skipper's Bar and Grill. The Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit 88-45 Modification and Entertainment Permit 91-03 on October 23, 1991 (Planning Commission Resolution No 88-242A -Exhibit B) In 1996, the Entertainment Penrnt was transferred to Margantaville, and the name was changed to Margarita Beach in 2004 egardingaproblems5assocat d wthpMargartaeBeachouThe matte9waseef rreldCo theuPlanrnng Commission for a rewew of the issues at hand. businesshoperat0ionshat Margarta BeachSlAt that Imeeting,rthe Commission took t stimony fromlthe public (21 speakers) regarding the impacts the business has had on their neighborhood to determine if a full public heanng was warranted Based on the testimony presented, the Commission found that owner,clocalnr sdentsPand City staff shoved meettoodiscusslhowethe9ssueseaasedarega dung the business could be resolved. On April 19, 2005, City staff met with the business owner and local residents to discuss the issues . Representatives from the Police Department provided a breakdown of the calls for service and responded to questions During the meeting it was determined that further dialogue was necessary between the parties to arrive at a mutually acceptable plan of action Planning staff suggested the neighborhood meet on their own and prepare a set of their recommendations on the operation of the business for consideration by the applicant and the City ITEM C PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP88-45 AND EP91-03 -MARGARITA BEACH June 22, 2005 Page 2 At the suggestion of the Police Department, the residents were encouraged to re-establish a neighborhood watch program as a proactive means for reporting and addressing neighborhood issues as they occur. The residents held a pnvate meeting on April 26, 2005 Since then, Neighborhood Watch signs have been installed. On April 25, 2005, following the pnvate meeting of the residents, the City was provided with a list of recommendations on how the business should be operated to address the concerns of the neighborhood (Exhibit C) On May 3, 2005, one resident provided a letter and information that he found on the Internet and in a magazine that he believes shows a discrepancy between the current business and the described use of the original Conditional Use Permit and Entertainment Permit (Exhibit D). Because of several scheduling conflicts, the Planning Commission postponed the public hearing until June 22, 2005. ANALYSIS' Evaluation of Maior Issues. The mator issues identified by the public can be narrowed down to those regarding excessive noise, overflow of parking, and loitering within the adjacent neighborhood. The owner of Margarita Beach has pledged to work with the residents and has begun to improve his efforts at operating his business in a manner that avoids negative impacts to the adtacent neighborhood. For example, there are more security guards on duty, patrons are directed to park within the shopping center lot and discouraged from parking on streets within the adjacent neighborhood on the west side of Ramona Avenue In addition, the operator indicates that the center and adjacent neighborhood is checked for trash and debris following the activities each evening. Staff has also checked the neighborhood on a number of mornings and can verify that the area is free of major debris and is generally clean. In regard to calls for service, the Police Department provided a breakdown of over 400 calls recorded for the subtect business or shopping center address which occurred from January 2002 to mid-February, 2005. Of the total number of calls, more than half were self-initiated by the police while on routine patrols Some of incidents that occurred within the neighborhood could not be adequately verified, while others appeared to have had viable alternate explanations that did not directly involve Margarita Beach. Only a small number of calls per year could be directly attributed to problems at the Margarita Beach establishment, most of which were for disturbances that occurred wnthin the establishment or the adjoining parking lot, and not within the adjacent neighborhood During the months of February and March 2005, 25 calls for service were recorded. The Police initiated 21 of these calls as part their regular patrol activities Since then (March 22 to June 7), the Police reported 6 calls for service (4 vitiated by the Police) at Margarita Beach, and none for surrounding neighborhoods that were related to the establishment Nature of the Business A second issue raised by one of the neighbors is whether the operation of the Margarita Beach establishment is consistent with the nature of the business for which the Conditional Use Permit was originally issued in 1988 As indicated above, the original Conditional Use Permit and Entertainment Permit were originally permitted for a use that was pnmanly a • restaurant/bar with incidental Irve entertainment Section B 2(d) of Resolution 88-242, specifically states that 'The application contemplates the addition of cocktails to the existing restaurant menu of ca PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT • CUP88-45 AND EP91-03 -MARGARITA BEACH June 22, 2005 Page 3 oriental cwsine and beer/wine " While the current operation of Margarita Beach retains the restaurant use, the advertising for the business appears to be largely focused on entertainment as the primary activity Staff agrees the marketing direction of the current business is not the same as the marketing of the original applicant. However, staff does not believe the Commission should establish marketing criteria or conditions outside of those already covered in the City's Sign Ordinance Moreover, staff does not find that the business is operating as an adult business as defined by the City's Adult Entertainment Business ordinance The business operator has been notified of the ordinance and the City's expectation that he comply with its provisions Based on the above information, staff does not find sufficient grounds for revocet~on of the Conditional Use Permit or Entertainment Permit at this time Proposed Chances to Conditions of Approval All of the conditions of approval contained in Resolution No 88-242A will continue to apply However, while there has been improvement in the operation of the business, staff believes that new conditions should be added to ensure that the business operator and the public understand what is expected The recommended conditions listed below are based on an evaluation of the existing conditions of approval, and the recommendations from the residents and staff. Consideration was groen to those recommendations that would be easily understood and enforceable As a courtesy, staff provided the applicant and representatives from the neighborhood a copy of the draft conditions listed below for their feedback. Some of the draft conditions were modified to reflect their respective comments/concerns including a change in the length of time frame for reviewing the business (6 months reduced to two 3-month reviews), a change in the requirement for security guards, and a requirement to direct overFlow parking The goal of this last regwrement is to avoid overFlow parking beyond that which can be contained in the front parking lot on the south side of the business and commercial center. The proposed new conditions, as modified, are as follows• No adult entertainment as defined by the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, Section 17.04 090 shall be permitted Uniformed security personnel shall be provided within the parking area at all times during evening business hours (9.00 p.m to 2 00 a m) to control parking and monitor crowd behavior A minimum of one member of the security team shall be continually present at all times When the front parking lot reaches 75 percent capacity, the number of security personnel outside the establishment shall be increased to a minimum of two persons patrolling the parking lot and one person on Ramona Avenue directing patrons away from parking within the adtacent residential neighborhood. The driveway entries/exits on Ramona Avenue shall be closed each business day no later than 1 00 a m to direct patrons leaving the site to exit on Foothill Boulevard, subtect to approval by the City's Traffic Engineer. • The business operator and/or its employees shall not direct patrons to park in the rear parking areas on the north side of the building, in any of the adjacent residential streets, in any of the adtacent residential streets, or in other off-site locations W PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP88-45 AND EP91-03 -MARGARITA BEACH June 22, 2005 Page 4 The City Planner shall monitor the operation of the business with a progress report being brought back to the Commission for two successive 3-month reviews, beginning on the date of this Commission action The report shall indicate whether the business establishment has been operating m compliance with all conditions of approval and applicable City ordinances. A follow up progress report shall be provided to the Commission one year from the date of the last 3-month rewew. Failure by the operator to comply with all the conditions of approval, as amended, at any time, or because of continued complaints from the public regarding excessive problems directly attnbutable to the operation of the establishment, shall be cause for the possible revocation of the Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission The business operator shall work with the property owner to establish a Business Watch program for the commercial center to address issues related to cnme prevention and personal safety. CORRESPONDENCE: The original meeting date was advertised m the Inland Valley Dady Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 300-foot radws of the project site pnor to the Apnl 27, 2005 meeting date At that meeting, the Commission continued the heanng to May 11, 2005, where it was once again continued to June 22, 2005. The neighborhood was subsequently notified of this meeting date. • RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing to . discuss the issues raised by the public, assess the efforts of the operator at responding to the issues, and approve the proposed resolution containing the added conditions of approval. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:MPD/ma Attachments: Exhibit A -Planning Commission Resolution No. 88-242 Exhibit B -Planning Commission Resolution No. 88-242A Exhibit C -Recommendations from Residents dated April 25, 2005 Exhibit D -Letter from Jim Olson dated May 3, 2005 (distnbuted under separate cover) Draft Resolution of Approval for Modification of Conditional Use Permit CUP88-45 C'~ RESOLUTION N0. 88-242 A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 88-45 FOR THE SALE OF HARD LIQUOR FOR ON-SITE CONSUMPTION IN AN EXISTING 2,160 SQUARE FEET RESTAURANT ON 4.05 ACRES OF LAND IN THE N RTHEASTC ORNER OFLFOOTHILLPBOULEVARD EAND ORAMONA AVENUE IN THE COMMUNITY COMQ4ERCIAL DISTRICT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. - APN: 1077-621-34 A. Recitals. (i) Siam Garden Restaurant has filed an application for the issuance of the Conditional Use Permit No. 88-45 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as °the application". (ii) On the 14th of December, 1988,_the Planning Commssion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. (iii) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on December 14, 1988, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application applies to property located at the frontagetof 632e22 feetoandhilot depthvof 280n96 feet and isnpresentjyaimproved with a Commercial/Reta11 Center; and (b) The application is for the incidental sales of alcoholic beverages as nrenu items in conjunction with the sales of food. (c) The property to the north of the subject site is parkaetheapropertyrtoet a easthissconmercialatandtthe propertyfto theiwest is commercial. C5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION N0. sts-z4z CUP 88-45 - SIAM GARDEN RESTAURANT December 14, 1988 Page 2 (d) The application contemplates the addition of cocktails to the existing restaurant menu of oriental cuisine and beer wine. 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 paragraph 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) That 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) That the pro ~{cable s theretoe~willwinot Abe conditions app detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. (c) apply abler provisions cofpthes DevelopmentfCode and the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. • 4. This Commission hereby finds and certifies that the protect has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Commission hereby issues a Negative Declaration. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraph 1. 2, 3 and 4 above. this Commission hereby approves the application sub3ect to each and every condition set forth below. Planning Division 1. This approval shall apply to the serving of alcoholic beverages only. 2. sections of the Foothill Specifict Plan~,e allp appticableh City Ordinances, Foothill Fire District requirements and Public Health codes. 3, requireiairevision to the Conditionalr UseaPermit. operation will 4. Comprehe ive Sigo Ordinances andn applicable Uniform Signi Program and shall require review and approval by the Planning Division. • C Lo PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION N0. 88-242 CUP 88-45 - SIAM GARDEN RESTAURANT December 14, 1988 Page 3 5. The serving of alcoholic beverages must be in confunction with restaurant usage and the availability of full listed menu items. The sale and serving of alcoholic beverages shall cease when such menu items are not available to customers. 6. The serving of alcohol to conjunction with restaurant usage may operate between the hours of 11:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 1988. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY ATTEST: I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and C{LyloflRancho Cucamonge,s at a regularpmeeting ofetheaPlanni gmmConenission held on the 14th day of December, 1988, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, MC NIEL, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: EMERICK C~ RESOLUTION NO. 88-242A A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 88-45 FOR TED; EXPANSION OF THE RESTAURANT AND BAR FROM 2O~60PERATION40 ANDUTO PERMIT MODIFICATION OF THE HOURS _ gpg LOCATEDA WHIN IA CONMMERCIAL CENTER CIS ~HEACOMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (SUBAREA 3) OF THS FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN LOCATED AT 9950 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, SUITES R & S, AND HARING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1077-621-34. p, Recitals. (i) Fred and Urai Nelson have filed an application for a modification to Conditional Use Permit No. 88-45 ae described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the modification to the Conditional Use Permit request ie referred to as "the application." (ii) On the 23rd day of October 1991, and continued to November 13, 1991, 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. (iii) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. g, Reso_ lu~• NOW, THEREFORE, it ie 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 hearings on October 23, 1991, and Novublic 13, 1991, including written and oral staff reports, together with p testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application applies to property located at 9950 feethand is press tly improved with one multiftenant commercialtbu lding;f and8 (b) The property to the north of the subject site is apartments, the property to the south of the site consists of a mroyerthoto park, the property to the east ie a commercial building, and the p P Y . the west is a service station. CS PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 88-242A CUP 88-45 - SKIPPER'S BAR & GRILL November 13, 1991 Page 2 (c) The application applies to the expansion of an existing restaurant, "Siam Garden," to be renamed "Skipper's Grill and Bar," and the serving of alcoholic beverages from 11:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. (d) The application restaurant and bar from 2,160 to 3,240 bar, stage and dance floor. contemplates the expansion of the square feet including construction of a (e) The application proposes to conduct live entertainment, consisting of small band, disc jockey, and comedians, from 8:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m., seven days a week. g. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) That the proposed vee ie in accord eBhofhtheedistri fain the objectives of the Development Code, and the purpo which the site ie located. (b) That the proposed vee, together with the conditions welfarebor mat rially injurio eetoepropertieator improvement se in thesvicinityr (c) That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development code and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. 4, Hased upon the findings and conrovesothesapplication subjectpto 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby app each and every condition set forth below: Conditions• 1) The serving of alcoholic beverages must be in conjunction with restaurant usage and the availability of full listed menu items. The sale and serving of alcoholic beverages shall cease when ouch menu items are not available to customers. 2) The serving of alcohol in conjunction with restaurant usage may operate between the hours of 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 a.m. 3) All doors shall remain closed during s . entertainment for noise attenuation purpose The rear (north) doors shall be used only for emergencies from 8:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. C-I PI,pNNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 88-242A CUP 88-45 - SKIPPER'S BAR ~ GRILL November 13, 1991 Page 3 4) All customers shall use the front (south) entrance/exit, and use of the rear (north) parking lot shall be limited to employees. 5) All entertainment activities shall not create any noise that would exceed an exterior noise level of 60 dB during the hours of 10:00 p.m• to 7:00 a.m. and 65 dB during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 6) Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Foothill Boulevard specific Plan, all applicable City Ordinances, Foothill Fire District requirements, and Public Health codes. 7) Any modification, expansion, or other change in operation will require a revision to the Conditional Use Permit. 8) All eignage shall be designed in conformance with the Comprehensive SPgno r~diandCeahall applicable Uniform Sign g the Planning require review and approval by Division. 9) The dance floor maximum square footage shall not exceed 150 square feet. 10) If operation of the facility causes adverse effects upon adjacent businesses or operations, the Conditional Use Permit shall be brought before the Planning Co[maiaeion for consideration and possible termination of the use. 11) Occupancy of the facility shall not commCOde until such time ae all Unifia n8ilhave been and Uniform Fire Code regu complied with. Prior to occupancy, plane shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Division to show compliance. The building shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. 5, The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. CID PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 88-242A CUP 88-45 - SRIPPEA'S BAR & GRILL November 13, 1991 Page 4 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 1991. PLANNING CO~SSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ~ ~ /_ \ r n BY: ATTEST: ~~ I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of November 1991, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNZEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, VALLETTE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Cll e CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA To: Brad Buller, City Planner for Rancho Ctiicamonga APR 2 5 2005 CC: Planning Commission Members From: Residents surrounding Margarita Beach RECEIVED -PLANNING Date: Apri125, 2005 Re: Recommendation from residents as follow up to community policing meeting, April 19, 2005 • Stop all Promotions. No Radio or Internet Mazketing. No longer allow cheep drinks, i.e. - 2 dollar you-call-its, 50 cent drag beers. Advertising should only be done in newspaper, so that the public can have accesses to all publications. Currently all advertised promotions are done on radio and Internet web sites. • No Drink promotions! • Hire professional licensed security service, since the current security guards have MIMMAL training. Minimum of three security guards on east and west side of the facilities, (i.e. -Ramon Market, and USA Carpet) Also security in parking lot to prevent any illegal drinking, and whatever security is required inside the business. If bar patrons do not comply with security request, the police will be called to handle the situation. • Do not allow customers to park behind the building. If the customers do, it is the security's responsibility to call the police or direct customer to designated parking area (in the front of the building). • Customers can ONLY park in front of the business. Any one walking in from offsite will be refused entry and told to retrieve car and park in lot. Once parking lot is full no other customers will be allowed in Margarita Beach. No matter what occupancy level is, the level in the parking lot is the real occupancy-since there should be no off-site pazking. The problem with the lot being full creates overflow of Margarita Beach Customers to surrounding Neighborhoods. "Lot Full Signs" should be posted if the parking lot is full, if customers leave, and then the lot could be opened again until the lot is full. • For businesses that are in the center with Margarita Beach operating at the same hours (i.e. -Ramona Market and Sushi Baz) should be able to receive signs for their "customer parking only" in front of their business. • ARer closing, quickly and quietly security will disperse all Margarita Beach customers from parking lot. No loitering, noise, fighting, loud music, or yelling from customers while leaving the lot. Have customers be considerate of s neighbors, no squealing of tires ar retying of motors. If necessary, a police presence will be needed from 1:30-tam to disperse cars. • After closing, security will patrol all neighborhoods to verify all Margarita Beach customers have left the area. (We have had problems with customers in neighborhoods after hours.) • Portable signs, on the north and south corners of Estacia Ct, which would state "NO MARGARITA BEACH PARKING". Signs to be set by security personnel and removed after closing. • Doors must be closed at all times, to prevent music from traveling to Mobile Home Park. If door needs to be open, music will be turned OFF. Recommend soundproafmg walls and windows of building to prevent base blasting across the street. • Landlord must attend the public hearing on May 11~' to describe lease requirements and whether any complaints have come from other business tenants in the center about Margarita Beach. • C13 Signatures of Residents, Submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga . planning Commission, Regarding requirements for Margarita Beach to implement for the security and the peace and quiet of surrounding residents. n. ~_,..,,..o ;K, ref r) 1 $ OS -~~ c X137 ~,~T ~~ • Name/Print ^~ 1-. ~/~'~ Address Signature ~rl`~ ~: C-5 LETTER FROM JIM OLSON DATED MAY 3, 2005 DISTRIBUTED UNDER SEPARATE COVER EXHIBIT D Cif RESOLUTION NO.05-45 A RESOLUTION OFTHE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.88-45 FOR A RESTAURANT AND BAR W ITH LIVE ENTERTAINMENT LOCATED WITHIN COMMERCIAL CENTER IN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (SUBAREA 3) OF THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED AT 9950 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, SUITES R 8 S; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN' 1077-621-34. A. Recitals 1. Conditional Use Permit 88-45 was approved in 1988 for Siam Garden Restaurant by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution 88-242. 2. In 1991, the Plamm~g Commission approved a modification of Conditional Use Permit 88-45 and Entertainment Permit 91-03 on October 23, 1991, by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 88-242A to expand the size of the restaurant and bar and to allow live entertainment under the business name of Skipper's Bar and Grill. 3. In 1996, the Entertainment Permit was transferred to Margantaville. In 2004, the . business name was changed to Marganta Beach. 4. At the February 2, 2005, City Council meeting, 13 residents spoke on issues associated with the Marganta Beach business, and the matter was referred to the Plamm~g Commission for a review of the issues presented 5. On March 9, 2005, the Plamm~g Commission held an evidentiary hearing to consider whether to set a public heanng for a formal review of business operations at Marganta Beach. 6. Based on the testimony presented during the evidentiary heanng, the Plamm~g Commission found that a public hearing was appropriate and directed that before said public hearing the business owner, local residents, and City staff meet and discuss how the issues raised regarding the business could be resolved. 7. On April 19, 2005, City staff met with the business owner and local residents to discuss the issues. Representatives from the Police Department provided a breakdown of the calls for service and responded to questions 8. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public heanng on April 27, and continued to May 11, and June 22, 2005 B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Plamm~g Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. The Plamm~g Commission hereby speafically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct Ci ~' PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 05-45 CUPSS-45 -MARGARITA BEACH June 22, 2005 Page 2 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission dunng the above-referenced public heanng on April 27, May 11, and June 22, 2005, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, the Planning Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located at 9950 Foothill Boulevard with a street frontage of 632 feet and lot depth of 278 feet and is presently improved with amulti-tenant commercial budding; and b. The property to the north of the subject site consists of apartments, the propertyto the south of the site consists of a mobile home park, the property to the east is a commeraal budding, and the property to the west is a service station, and c. The application applies to a 3,440 square foot leased space that includes a restaurant and bar, dance floor, the serving of alcoholic beverages, and live entertainment, and is open between the hours of 11:00 a.m. to 2.00 a.m. daily; and 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the Commission dunng the above-referenced public heanng, and upon the speafic findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, the Planning Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: • a. The proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and . b. The proposed use, together with the original conditions applicable thereto, as amended to add new Conditions 12 through 17, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vianity; and c. The proposed use, complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code and the Foothill Boulevard Districts 4. The Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that the project identified in this Resolution is categorically exempt from the regwrements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15301 of the State CEQA Guidelines 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: Planning Conditions 1) The serving of alcoholic beverages must be in conjunction with restaurant usage and the availability of full listed menu dems The sale and serving of alcoholic beverages shall cease when such menu items are not available to customers 2) The serving of alcohol in conjunction with restaurant usage may occur between the hours of 11.00 a.m. to 2.00 a.m. CIg PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 05-45 CUP88-45 -MARGARITA BEACH June 22, 2005 Page 3 3) All doors shall remain closed dunng entertainment for noise attenuation purposes. The rear (north) doors shall be used only for emergenaes from 8:00 p.m. to 2.00 a.m. 4) All customers shall use the front (south) entrance/exit, and use of the rear (north) parking lot shall be limited to employees. 5) All entertainment activities shall not create any noise that would exceed an exterior noise level of 60 d8 dunng the hours of 10.00 p m. to 7 00 a.m. and 65 dB dunng the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10.00 p.m. 6) Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Foothill Boulevard Districts, all applicable City Ordinances, Foothill Fire Distract requirements, and Public Health codes. 7) Any modification, expansion, or other change in operation will regwre a revision to this Conditional Use Permd 8) All signage shall be designed in conformance with the Comprehensive Sign Ordinance and applicable Uniform Sign Program and shall regwre • review and approval by the Planning Department 9) The dance floor maximum square footage shall not exceed 150 square feet. 10) If the operation of the facility causes adverse effects upon adjacent businesses or operations, the Conditional Use Permit shall be brought before the Planning Commission for consideration and possible termination of the use 11) Occupancy of the faality shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Fire Code regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection Distract and the Building and Safety Department to show compliance. The building shall be inspected for compliance pnor to occupancy. 12) No adult entertainment, as defined by the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 17.04.090, shall be permitted 13) Uniformed security personnel shall be provided within the parking area at all times during evening business hours (9.00 p.m to 2:00 a.m) to control parking and monitor crowd behavior. A minimum of one member of the security team shall be continually present at all times. When the front parking lot reaches 75 percent capacity, the number of security personnel outside the establishment shall be increased to a minimum of 2 persons patrolling the parking lot and one person on Ramona Avenue directing patrons away from parking within the adjacent residential neighborhood C(~ PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 05-45 CUP88-45 -MARGARITA BEACH June 22,2005 Page 4 14) The dnveway entnes/exits on Ramona Avenue shall be closed each business day no later than 1:00 a m. to direct patrons leawng the site to exit on Foothill Boulevard, subject to approval by the City's Traffic Engineer 15) The business operator and/or its employees shall not direct patrons to park m the rear parking areas on the north side of the bwldmg, m any of the adfacent residential streets, or other off-site locations. 16) The City Planner shall monitor the operation of the business with a progress report being brought back to the commission for two successive 3-month reviews, beginning on the date of this Commission action. The report shall indicate whether the business establishment has been operating m compliance with all conditions of approval and applicable City ordinances. A follow up progress report shall be provided to the Commission one year from the date of the last 3-month review. Failure by the operator to comply with all the conditions of approval, as amended, at any time, or because of continued complaints from the public regarding excessive problems directly attnbutable to the operation of the establishment, shall be cause forthe possible revocation of the Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commisson. 17) The business operator shall work with the properly owner to establish a i Business Watch program forthe commeraal centerto address issues related to came prevention and personal safety 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2005. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY• Rich Maaas, Chairman ATTEST• Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify thatthe foregoing Resolution was dulyand 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 22nd day of June 2005, by the following vote-to-wit: cap i Planning Commission Meeting of 6 ~~- OS RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION SIGN-UP SHEET Please print your name, address, and city and indicate the item you have spoken regarding Thank you 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 s 10 11 12 13 14 15 NAME ~Q,ut ~r~ ~- ~-o~.~ J~ ~~12 ~ ~ ~~ ~ro~ ADDRESS ,~1~-.s sus ~~~~~~ 9s ~~ ~ ~r~l 1I C~.cs Ca~.~lZo~ ~~L~ Pas,T~ ~4Qe~ ~vY~~ hsl~ey Ssd 2 G L'ambr~ ~g c~c \L~\ SC~morS'. fib`-~-~~'~n ~~yy~~ ~~ . ~= UZ~_ v Q~os'{mss ~ a~.~~ A- ~-r- ~~ l ~ !~ ~ !~j-~ ~'~ ~01~~ P~~~~~ 80 ~ ~a~ ~> ~Sv e ~i8G5~3~'-r/~ ~ 16 \~rC1/~ I~Yd(I5,.5Lw~ 17 ~ ~~ ~~ is ~e,'ss is 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 clTv SN ~-~- ~. _ ~~ ~~ ~~. ~ ~~ ~~ C ~~ n~ K- nn~ I`-C. ITEM ~_ C C C, I