HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995/01/25 - Agenda Packet CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
WEDNESDAY JANUARY 25, 1995 7:00 P.M.
RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER
COUNCIL CHAMBER
10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
I. Pledge of Allegiance
II. Roll Call
Chairman Barker Commissioner Melther __
Vice Chairman McNiel __ Commissioner Tolstoy __
Commissioner Lumpp
IlL Announeements
PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION TO CHARLES J.
BUOUET. II
IV. Approval of Minutes
Adjourned meeting of December 28, 1994
Adjourned meet'rag of January 11, 1995
V. Public Hearings
The following items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice
their opinion of the related project. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and
address the Commission by stating your name and address. All such opinions shall be
limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. Please sign i.n, ta~er speaking.
A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
94-39 - CUCAMONGA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT - A request for master
plan approval of the Cucamonga County Water District headquarters,
consisting of four buildings to be used as administrative offices, maintenance
warehouse, vehicle maintenance, and office for fueling station located at 7900
Center Avenue in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 17) of the Industrial
Area Specific Plan - APN: 1077-401-09 through 21, 23, 24, and 34. Staff
recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration.
B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-26 - MASI PARTNERS.- The
development of an ice/roller rink in Buildings 18 and 19; a multi-screen theater
in Building 27; revisions to previously approved Building 1; new elevations for
Buildings 25 and 26; and a parking study addressing required parking for the
ice/roller rink, located on 27 acres of land at the southwest comer of Foothill
Boulevard and Rochester Avenue (the site of previously approved Conditional
Use Permit 91-24) in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) of the Industrial
Area Specific Plan - APN: 227-011-10, 19, 21, and 26 through 28. (Continued
liom January 11, 1995)
C. MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-24 - MASI
pARTNERS - A request to amend specific conditions of approval relating to
the project's development and infrastructure phasing, design review processing,
waiver of $10,000 historic preservation mitigation contribution, and design of
the trash enclosure for a 27 acre center located at the southwest comer of
Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue in the Industrial Park District
(Subarea 7) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan - APN: 227-011-10, 19, 21,
and 26 through 28.
VI. Public Comments
This is the time andplace for the general public to address the Commission. Items to
be discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda.
VII. Commission Business
D. WORKSHOP DISCUSSION ITEMS - Oral report
E. SIGNS - Oral report
VIII. Adjournment
The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11:00
P.M. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the
co.sent of the Commission.
l, Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
hereby certi~ that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on
January 19, 1995, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section
54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga.
VICINITY MAP
"jr CITY HALL
CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
/ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA '
STAFF IlKPORT
DATE: January 25, 1995
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Beverly E. Luttrell, AICP, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-39-
CUCAMONGA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT - A request for master plan approval
of the Cucamonga County water District headquarters, consisting of four buildings
to be used as administrative offices, maintenance warehouse, vehicle maintenance,
and office for fueling station located at 7900 Center Avenue in the Industrial Park
District (Subarea 17) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. - APN: 1077-401-09
through 16. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North - Flood Control Basin; Open Space
South - Light Industrial Building; Subarea 17, Industrial Park District
East - Deer Creek Flood Control Channel and Vacant; Subarea 17, Induslrial Park District
West Single family residential; Low Residential DisUict (2-4 dwelling units per acre)
B. General Plan Designations:
Project site - Industrial Park
North - Flood Control
South - Industrial Park
East - Flood Control
West - Low Density Residential
C. Site Characteristics: The site is currently vacant, but is improved with streets, curb and gutter.
The site is surrounded on the north and east by flood control facilities and by existing single
family dwellings to the west on the other side of Center Avenue. The property is currently
bounded by a chain link fence on the west, north, east, and a portion of the south.
Item A
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 94-39 - CCWD
January 25, 1995
Page 2
Number of Number of
Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces
of Use Footage Ratio Required Provided
Bld~,. A
Administrative/Office 22,000 1/250 88 88
Warehouse/Maintenance 27,000 1/1000 20 20
1/2000 4 4
Bldg. D
Office for fueling station 378 1/250 __2 __2
TOTAL: 114 114 *
· Note that a total of 228 spaces has been provided throughout the project site.
A. General: The District is currently proposing a master plan on the 10.74 acre site so that they
may consolidate their administrative and maintenance facilities onto one site. The Cucamonga
County Water District currently operates on San Bemardino Road, west of Archibald Avenue,
and is in need of a larger site. The current application is for a master plan only, with specific
Design Review applications retttming at a later date for each of the proposed buildings.
Cucamonga County Water District has indicated that the master plan shown is conceptual only.
Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 94-04 is associated with this project and was
reviewed by the Commission on January 11, 1995, and will be reviewed by the City Council
in February.
B. Design Review Committee: The Design Review Committee reviewed the application on
January 17, 1995. The Committee recommendations will be provided in staffs oral report and
are reflected in the attached Resolution of Approval.
C. T~chnical Review Committee: The Technical Review Committee reviewed and recommended
approval of the application on January 18, 1995, subject to the conditions noted in the
Resolution of Approval.
D. ' ' · A neighborhood meeting was conducted on December 5, 1994.
Notices were sent to residents within a 600 foot radius. One resident attended the meeting and
was concerned primarily that the project might generate added traffic in the neighborhood.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 94-39 - CCWD
January 25, 1995
Page 3
E. Environmental Assessment: Part I of the Initial Study has been completed by the applicant.
Staff has completed Part II of the Environmental Checklist and has found no significant
impacts on the environment as a result of the project. If the Planning Commission concurs
with these findings, then issuance of a Negative Declaration would be appropriate.
FACTS FOR FINDING: The project is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and
the Industrial Area Specific Plan. The project will not be detrimental to adjacent properties or cause
significant adverse environmental impacts. In addition, the proposed use and site plan, together with
the recommended conditions of approval, are in compliance with all applicable provisions of the
Development Code and City standards.
O P DEN E: This item has been advertised as a public heating in the Inland Valley Daily
Bulletin newspaper, the property has been posted, and notices have been sent to all property owners
within 600 feet of the project.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use
Permit 94-39 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval and issuance of a Negative
Declaration.
City Planner
BB:BL:mlg
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Vicinity Map
Exhibit "B" - Site Utilization Map
Exhibit "C" - Floor Plan
Exhibit "D" - Neighborhood Meeting Minutes
Resolution of Approval with Conditions
Project: ('-Ulp ~ ~" ~1'
CITY OF R AMONGA ' : , ,
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 6, 1994
TO: Brad Buller,City Planner
FROM: Beverly Luttrell, AICp, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: CUP 94-39 CCWD
On December 5, 1994 1 attended a Neighborhood Meeting hosted by the CCWD at Dona Memed
Elementary School regarding their master plan proposal and ISP amendment in Subarea 17, on
Center Ave. The project was presented by the architect and the General Director of CCWD ( Tom
Shollenberger) and his special assistant ( Sandy Olson).
The brief overview explained that the master plan consisted of a maintenance and administration
building, as well as a fueling station that would utilize compressed namra.1 gas. It was indicated that
Phase One would consist of the office portion with other phases occurring hi the future.
Ninety five notices were sent out to residents within a 600 foot radius. Only one resident (Steve
Jesson) attended the meeting. He had the following concerns:
1. Mr. Jesson lives on Ashford and was concerned with additional traffic being dumped on
Center
and that the street would deteriorate with the heavy truck traffic. He questioned why the
entrance could not be on Haven Ave.
2. Foothill and Center is not signalized and is already a dangerous intersection.
.3. Potential conflict with school children who walk to school and use the Church and Center Ave.
Intersection.
4. Ashford, Hemlock and Norwalk Streets do not have sidewallr~ and employees will cut through
these neighborhoods and endanger the children.
5. If the project has to be built he would rather that it happen all at once rather than in phases, so that
the construction period would not be prolonged over time.
6. He requested that they look into providing a light at Foothill and Center and wide~ the Church
and Center Avenue intersections.
7. Would it be possible to funnel all traffic to the south and to gate the project.
CCWD responded that the lots in question are already designated as industrial and if they were to
develop individually they could produce even more traffic than the 75 employees of CCWD. The
CCWD proposal is much less intensive than what might happen otherwise and the volume of traffic
will probably be less. The largest trucks are 5 ton, and they only have three of these. The majority
of their fleet is small 1/2 to 3/4 ton pick up trucks.
They indicated that employees would have no reason to shorecut through residential neighborhoods
and that they would be directed to not do so. They also indicated that the Traffic Engineering
Division would not allow them to have an entrance off of Haven Ave. since this is already a high
speed, heavily traveled street.
They explained that the public will be visiting the Administration building to pay water bills and that
it would be difficult to funnel all traffic to the south and to gate off the entrance. They noted that
they wanted to be good neighbors, are currently located in a residential area on a two acre parcel and
have received no complaints from adjacent residents.
c.c.: Maria Perez
Paul Rougeau
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT NO. 94-39, A REQUEST FOR MASTER PLAN
APPROVAL OF THE CUCAMONGA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
HEADQUARTERS, CONSISTING OF FOUR BUILDINGS TO BE USED
AS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES, MAINTENANCE WAREHOUSE,
VEHICLE MAINTENANCE, AND OFFICE FOR FUELING STATION
LOCATED AT 7900 CENTER AVENUE IN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK
DISTRICT (SUBAREA 17) OF THE INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC
PLAN, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN:
1077-401-09 THROUGH 16.
A. Recitals.
1. Cucamonga County Water District has filed an application for the issuance of Conditional
Use Permit No. 94-39, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the
subject Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application."
2. On the 25th day of January 1995, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing
on that date.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing on January 25, 1995, 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 7900 Center Avenue with a street
frontage of 280 feet along Center Avenue and lot depth of approximately 1200 feet and is presently
improved with streets, curb, and gutter.
b. The property to the north of the subject site is a flood control basin, the property
to the south is improved with a light industrial building, the property to the east is developed with
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. ~'
CUP 94-39 - CCWD
January 25, 1995
Page 2
the Deer Creek Flood ConU'ol Channel, and the property to the west is improved with single family
residential units; and
c. The proposed development would consist of an administrative/office building and
a vehicle storage and service area, which would be compatible with other uses located within
Subarea 17; and
d. The residential areas to the west of the project site will be buffered by the
construction of a masonry screen wall and;
e. Master plan approval is contingent upon City Council approval of Industrial Area
Specific Plan Amendment 94-04.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs I and 2
above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. That the proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the
Development Code and Industrial Area Specific Plan, and the purposes of the district in which the
site is located.
b. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
c. That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the
Development Code and the Industrial Area Specific Plan.
4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration,
together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the
application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will
have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration based upon the
findings as follows:
a. That the Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the Califomia
Environmental Quality act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated
thereunder; that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the
independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and
considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the application.
b. That based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into the
proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 94-39 - CCWD
January 25, 1995
Page 3
c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code
of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole,
the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed
project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which
wildlife depends. Further, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration,
the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission during the
public heating, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth
in Section 753.5(c- 1 -d) of Title 14 of the Califomia Code of Regulations.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this
Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below,
and in the Standard Conditions attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference:
Plann' Division
1 ) Approval of this application is contingent upon City Council approval
of Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 94-04.
2) Approval is granted for a conceptual master plan only. Each proposed
building shall be subject to submittal of request(s) for
Design/Development Review approval at a later date.
3) Evergreen trees shall be required at a rate of one per 30 linear feet at
property line boundaries.
4) Radius at curb remms shall be increased for all driveways which heavy
trucks will use, such as the fueling station and the driveway on the west
side of the Maintenance Building.
5) An outdoor employee eating area with tables and chairs shall be
provided.
6) An 8-foot high decorative screen wall shall be required around the
perimeter of the project site in order to screen the facility from the
street, single family residences, and Haven Avenue.
7)Dense landscaping with evergreen trees shall be required along the
north property line to screen the vehicle storage area from public view.
8) When submitted for Design Review approval, the architectural design
and scale of the buildings shall be sensitive to the residential
neighborhood to the west.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 94-39 - CCWD
January 25, 1995
Page 4
9) Approval shall expire, unless extended by the City Planner, if building
permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 24
months from the date of approval.
10) Upon submittal ofa Design/Development Review application for any
of the buildings, a viewshed analysis shall also be submitted. The
applicant shall submit, at a minimum, two cross-sections, one trending
east/west, the other north/south. The purpose is to indicate what will
be seen from Haven Avenue and Church Street. Any objectionable
views, particularly of maintenance vehicles and storage areas, shall be
screened from public view.
Engineering Division
1 ) The appropriate documentation for the abandonment of the portion of
private street shall be processed prior to the issuance of building
permits. Also, additional private street right-of-way for the knuckle
shall be obtained.
2) The design of the knuckle shall be as approved by the City Engineer.
3) Ifa substantial percentage of the site drains towards the intersection of
Center Avenue and Foothill Boulevard, a drainage study and possible
mitigation may be required.
4) In accordance with City lighting standards, 5800 lumen street lights
shall be installed along (private street) frontage.
5) Prior to the issuance of building permits, a non-refundable deposit shall
be paid to the City, covering the estimated cost of operating all street
lights during the first six months of operation.
6) A street name sign shall be installed at the northeast comer of Center
Avenue and Ashford Street.
7) A traffic analysis study shall be completed and appropriate mitigation
provided as indicated therein to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
8) If sidewalk is installed along the private street to Center Avenue and on
Center Avenue, the sidewalk will conform to City Standards as
approved by the City Engineer. Any additional dedication necessary
shall be obtained by the developer.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 94-39 - CCWD
January 25, 1995
Page 5
6. The Secretary of the Planning Commission shall certify to the adoption of this
Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 25TH DAY OF JANUARY 1995.
BY:
E. David Barker, Chairman
ATTEST:
Brad Buller, Secretary
I, Brad Buller, Secretary for 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 25th day of January 1995.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
DEPARTMENT OF
Ran~h~'~enga
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STANDARD CONDITIONS
P.o EcT#:-
APPLICANT: ltl..P., (D O
ocAT,oN: 7 6r r/Av
Those items checked are Condffions of ~proval.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 989-1861, FOR COMPLIANCE
WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
A. TIme LImits Cemoledo~ Date
1.Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, if building permits are
not issued or approved use has not Commenced within 24 months from the date of approval.
2. Development/Design Review shaft be approved prior to / / __J /
4. The deve opersha commence, panicipate in, and~nsummateorcausetobecommenced,
pa~icipated in, or consummated, a Mello-Roos Community Facilities Distri~ (CFD) for the
Rancho Cucamonga Fire Prolection Distri~ to finance construction an~or maintenance ol
a fire station to sere the development. The station shall be located, designed, and built to
all specifications of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Prote~ion Distri~, and shall become the
Districrs property u~n ~letion. The equipmere shall be selected by the Distri~ in
accordance with ~s needs. In any building of a station, the developer shall comply with all
applicable laws and regulations. The CFD shall be lormed by the District and the developer
by the time recordation of the final map o~urs.
5. Prior Io recordalion of the final map or the issuance of building permils, whichever comes
first, the applicant shall consent to, or pafficipate in, the establishment of a Mello-Roos
Community Facilities District for lhe const~ction and maintenance of necessa~ school
facililies. However, if any school district has previously established such a Community
Facil~ies District, the appli~nl shall. in the alternative, consent Io t~e annexation of the
proje~ site into the territo~ of such existing Distri~ prior to the recordation of the final map
or the issuance ol building permits. whichever ~mes first. Further, if the affected school
districl has not formed a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District within ~elve months from
the date of approval of the project and prior to the recordation of the final map or issuance
of building permits lot said project, this condition shall be deemed null and void.
Comoletion Dale:
This condition shall be waived if the City receives notice that the applicant and all affected
school districts have entered into an agreement to privately accommodate any and all school
impacts as a result of this project.
6. Prior to recordation of the final map or prior to issuance of building permits when no map is .~/ /
involved, written certification from the affected water district that adequate sewer and water
facilities are or will be available to serve the proposed project shall be submitted to the
Department of Community Development. Such letter must have been issued by the water
district wit hin 90 days prior to fi hal map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to issuance
of permits in the case of all other residential projects.
B, Site Development
V"/ 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which ~ /
include site plans, architectural elevations, extedor materials and colors, landscaping, sign
program. and grading on ,,,e ,n ,he ....,hcontained herein.
Deve,opmen, Code regu,a,lons. and
Specific Plan.i.,;
""~ia..~6
2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all ~ /
Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
3. OccuPancYofthefacilityshallnotcommenceuntilsuchtimeasallUniformBuildingCodeand _..J /
State Fire Marshall's regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall
be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety
Division to show compliance. The building shall be inspected for compliance prior to
occupancy.
4. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be .__/ /
submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits.
5. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation. and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for ---J /
consistency pdorto issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal. encroachment,
building, etc.), or prior to final map approval in the case ol a custom lot subdivision, or
approved use has commenced. whichever comes first.
6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development __/ /
Code, all olher applicable City Ordinances. and applicable Community Plans or Specific
Plans in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance.
7. A detailed on-site lighting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and .--/ /
Sherltf's Department (989-6611 ) pdor Io the issuance of building permits. Such plan shall
indicate style, illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely
affect adjacent properties.
8. If no centralized trash receptacles are provided, all trash pick-up shall be for individual units .__/ /
with all receptacles shielded from public view.
V/ 9. Trash receptacle(s) are required and shall meet City standards. The final design, locations, / /
and the number of trash receptacles shall be subject to City Planner review and approval
prior to issuance of building permits.
V/f 10. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall / /.__,
be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of
concrete or masonry walls, herruing, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City
Planner.
11. 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. '
V//12. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, __/ /
including proper illumination.
13. A detailed plan indicating trail widths, maximum slopes, physical conditions. fencing, and _._/ /
weed control, in accordance with City Master Trail drawings. shall be submitted for City
Planner review and approval prior to approval and recordalton of the Final Tract Map and prior
to approval of street improvement and grading plans. Developer shall upgrade and construct
all trails, including fencing and drainage devices, in conjunction with street improvements.
14. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shall not prohibit the keeping of equine .__/ /
animals where zoning requirements for the keeping of said animals have been met. Individual
lot owners in subdivisions shall have the option of keeping said animals without the necessity
of appealing to boards of directors or homeowners' associations for amendments to the
CC&Rs.
15. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Articles of Incorporation of the .J /
Homeowners' Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering
Divisions and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Map or
prior to the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. A recorded copy shall be
provided to the City Engineer.
16 A parkways, open areas,and landscaping shall be permanently maintained bytheproperty .__/ /
owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this
landscape maintenance shall be submitted for CRy Planner and City Engineer review and
approval prior to issuance of building permits.
17. Solar access easements shall be dedicated for the purpose of assuming that each lot or --J /
dwelling unit shall have the right to receive sunlight across adjacent lots or units for use of
a solar energy system. The easements may be contained in a Declaration of Restrictions for
the subdivision which shall be recorded concurrently with the recordalton ol the final map or
issuance of permits, whichever comes first. The easements shall prohibit the casting of
shadows by vegetation. structures, fixtures or any other object, except for utility wires and
~// similar objects. pursuant to Development Code Section 17.08.060-G-2.
18. The project contains a designated Historical Landmark. The site shall be developed and J /
maintained in accordance with the Historic Landmark Alteration Permit No.
· Any further modifications to the site including, but not limited to. extedor alterations and/or
inter or a terations which affect the exteriorof the buildings or structures. removal of landmark
trees, demolition. relocation. reconstruction of buildings or structures. or changes to the site,
shall require a modification to the Historic Landmark Alteration Permit subject to Historic
Preservation Commission review and approval.
C. Building Design
1. An alternative energy system is required to provide domestic hot water for all dwelling unRs -_-/ /
and for heating any swimming pool or spa, unless other alternative energy systems are
demonstrated to be of equivalent capacity and efficiency. All swimming pools installed at the
time of initial development shall be supplemented with solar heating. Details shall be
included in the building plans and shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval
prior to the issuance of building permits.
2. All dwellings shall have the front, side and rear elevations upgraded with architectural --J /
treatment. detailing and increased delineation of surtace treatment subject to City Planner
review and approval prior to issuance ol building permits.
; ' I', i. ', ,
3. Standard patio cover plans for use by the Homeowners' Association shall be submitted for __/ /
City Planner and Building Official review and approval prior to issuance of building permits.
V//4. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or __/ /
projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and
streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be architecturally
integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
Details shall be included in building plans.
D. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans)
1. All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet and shall / /
contain a 12-inch walk adjacent to the parking stall (including curb).
2. Textured pedestrian pathways and textured pavement across circulation aisles shall be / /
provided throughout the, development to connect dwellings/u nits/buildings with open spaces/
plazas/recreational uses.
3. All parking spaces shall, be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, / /
entrances, and exits shall be striped per City standards.
4. All units shall be provided with garage door openers if driveways are less than 18 leet in / /
depth from back of sidewalk.
5. TheC~venants~C~nditi~nsandRestrictionsshal~restdctthes~~rage~frecreati~na~vehic~es / /
on this site unless they are the principal source of transportation for the owner and prohibit
parking on interior circulation aisles other than in designated visitor parking areas.
6. Plans for any security gates shall be submitted for the City Planner, City Engineer, and /
Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District review and approval prior to issuance of building
permits.
E. Landscaping (for publicly maintained landscape areas, refer to Section N.)
V/ 1. ,A de. tailed landscape and irrigalion plan, including slope planting and model home landscap- /_._J
~ng in the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape
architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval priorto the issuance of building
permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision.
2. Existing trees required to be preserved in place shall be protected with a construction barrier / /
in accordancewith the Municipal Code Section 19.08.110, and so noted onthe 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. 'l'ne applicant shall follow all of the arborisrs
recommendations regarding presen/ation. transplanting and tdmming methods.
3. Aminimumof treespergrossacre,compdsedofthefollowingsizes,shallbeprovided / /
within the project: % - 48- inch box or larger, % - 36- inch box or larger,
__ % - 24- inch box or larger, % - 15-gallon, and __ % - 5 gallon.
4. A minimum of % of trees planted within the project shall be specimen size trees - / /
24-inch box or larger.
V/ 5. Within parking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-gallon tree for every three / /.
parking stalls, sufficient to shade 50% of the parking area at solar noon on August 21.
6. Trees Shall be planted in areas of public view adjaceht to and along structures at a rate of One Completion
tree per 30 linear feet of building. J /
7. All private slope banks 5 feet or less in vertical height and of 5:1 orgreater slope, but less than.__/ /
2:1 slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for
erosion control· Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation
system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy·
8. AIIprivateslopesinexcessof5feet,butlessthanSfeet inverticalheightandof2:lorgreater ----/ /
slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as
follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, 1 -gallon or larger
size shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope
banks in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one
5-gallon or larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be
planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this
section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to
occupancy·
9. For single family residential development, all slope planting and irrigation shall be continu- / /
ously maintained in a healthy and thriving conditto n by the developer until each individual unit
is sold and occupied by the buyer· Prior to re leasing occupancy for those u nits, an inspection
shall be conducted by the Planning Division to determine that they are in satisfactory
condition.
10. For multi-family residential and non-residential development, property owners are respon- / /
sible 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 a healthy and thriving condition, and shall receive
regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing, and trimming· Any damaged, dead, diseased, or
decaying plant material shall be replaced within 30 days from the date of damage.
11. Front yard landscaping shall be required per the Development Code and/or I /
· This requirement shall be in addition to the required
street trees and slope planting·
~f 12. The linal design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be __J /
included in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to City Planner review and
approval and coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be
required by the Engineering Division.
13. Special landscape features such as mounding, alluvial rock. specimen size trees, meander- .--.J /
ing sidewalks (with horizontal change), and intensilied landscaping, is required along
14. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on .__/ /
the perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer·
15. AII wallsshallbeprovidedwithdecorativetreatment. lflocated in public maintenance areas, J /
the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division.
16. Tree maintenance criteria shall be developed and submitted for City Planner review and J /
approval prior to issuance of building permits. These criteda shall encourage the natural
growth characteristics ol the selected tree species·
17. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of _._/ /
Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucarnonga Municipal Code.
1. Thesignsindicatedonlhesubmittedplansareconceptualonlyandnotapartofthisapproval. / /
Any signs proposed for this development shall comply with the Sign Ordinance and shall
r.equire separate application and approval by the Planning Division priorto installation of any
mgns.
2. A Uniform Sign Program for this development shall be submitted for City Planner review and __/ /
approval pdor to issuance of building permits.
3. Directory monument sign(s) shall be provided for apartment, condominium, or townhomes __/ /
prior to occupancy and shall require separate application and approval by the Planning
Division prior to issuance of building permits.
G. Environmental
1. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Fourth Street Rock / /
Crusher project in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a
cash deposit on any property.
2. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the City Adopted / /
Special Studies Zone forthe Red Hill Fault, in a standard format as determined by the City
Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property.
3. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Foothill Freeway / /
project in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash
deposit on any property.
4. A final acoustical report shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the / /.__
issuance of building permits. The final report shall discuss the level of interior noise
attenuationto below45CNEL, the building materials and constructiontechniquesprovided,
and if appropriate, verity the adequacy of the mitigation measures. The building plans will be
checked for conformance with the mitigation measures contained in the final report.
H. Other Agencies
V/' 1. EmergencysecondaryaccessshallbeprovidedinaccordancewithRanchoCucamongaFire / /
Protection District Standards.
V/ 2. Emergencyaccessshallbeprovided,maintenancelreeandclear, a minimumof26feetwide / /
at all times during construction in accordance with Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection
District requirements.
V/3. Prior to issuance of building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be / /
submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District that temporary water supply for
fire protection is available, pending completion of required fire protection system.
4. The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and / /
location of mail boxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead
structure for mail boxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mail boxes and the
design of the overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior
to lhe issuance of building permits.
5. For projects using septic tank facilities, written certification of acceptability, including all J /-
supportive information, shall be obtained from the San Bernardino County Department of
Environmental Health and submitted to the Building Official prior to the issuance of Septic
Tank Permits, and prior to issuance of building permits.
CemDleuon Date:
APPLICANTS SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 989-1863, FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
Site Development
,/
1. The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechani- ---/ /
cat Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, and all other applicable codes,
ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of issuance of relative permits. Please
contact the Building and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and
applicable handouts.
2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition ---J /
to existing unit(s), the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees
may include, but are not limited to: City Beautification Fee Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Systems
Development Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, and School Fees.
V/ 3. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new commercial or industrial development or .._/ /
addition to an existing development, the applicant shall pay development fees at the
established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: Systems Development Fee,
Drainage Fee, School Fees, Permit and Plan Checking Fees.
4. Streetaddressessha~~bepr~videdbytheBuiIding~fficia~~affertrac~/parce~maprec~rdati~n .__/ /
and prior to issuance of building permits.
J. Existing Structures
1. Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for the property line clearances ___/ /
considering use, area, and fire-resisliveness of existing buildings.
2. Existing buildings shall be made to comply with correct building and zoning regulations for ---/ /
the intended use or the building shall be demolished.
3. Existing sewage disposal facilities shall be removed, tilled and/or capped to comply with the .__/ /
Uniform Plumbing Code and Uniform Building Code.
4. Underground on-site utilities are to be located and shown on building plans submitted for .._/ /
building permit application.
K. Grading
1. Grading ol the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City ---/ /
Grading Standards. and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in
substantial conformance with the approved grading plan.
2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualilied engineer licensed by the State of California to ~ /
perform such work.
3. The development is located within the soil erosion control boundaries; a Soil Disturbance .__/ /
Permit is required. Please contact San Bernardino County Department of Agriculture at (714)
31~7-2111 for permit application. Documentation of such permit shall be submitted to the City
prior to the issuance ol rough grading permit.
4. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at ---/ /
the time of application for grading plan check.
5. The~ina~gradingp~anssha~~bec~mpietedandappr~vedpri~rt~issuance~~bui~dingpermits. __./ /
Completion Dat~:
6. As a custom-lol subdivision. the lollowing requirements shall be met:
a. Surely shall be Ix)sled and an agreemenl executed guaranleeing complelion of all on-site ---/ /
drainage tac]l]fies necessary for dewatering all parcels to the satisfaction ot fhe Building
and Safely Division priorlo final map approval and priorto the issuance of grading permils.
b. Appropriate easements for safe disposal of drainage water that are conducted onto --J /
or over adjacent parcats, are to be delineated and recorded to the satisfaction of the
Building and Safety Division prior to issuance of grading and building permits.
c. On-site drainage improvements, necessary for alewatering and protecting the subdivided -..--/ /
properties, are to be installed pdor to issuance of building permits for construction upon
any parcel that may be subject to drainage flows entering, leaving, or within a parcel
relative to which a building permit is requested.
d. Final grading plans for each parcel are to be submitted to the Building and Safety --J /
Division for approval prior to issuance of bu tiding and grading permits. (This may be on an
incremental or composite basis.)
e. All slope banks in excess of 5 feet in vertical height shall be seeded with native grasses .--/ /
or planted with ground cover for erosion control upon completion of grading or some other
alternative method of erosion control shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Building
Official. In addition a permanent irrigation system shall be provided. This requirement
does not release the applicant/developer from compliance with the slope planting
requirements of Section 17.08.040 I of the Development Code.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 989-1862, FOR COMPLIANCE
WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
L. Dedication and Vehicular Access
1. Rights-of-way and easements shall be dedicated to the City for all interior public streets, / /
community trails, public paseos, public landscape areas, street frees, and public drainage
facilities as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. Private easements for non-public
facilities (cross-lot drainage, local feeder trails, etc. ) shall be reserved as shown on the plans
and/or tentative map.
2. Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets ----/ /
(measured from street centerline):
total feet on
total feet on
total feet on
total leer on
3. An irrevocable offer of dedication for -foot wide roadway easement shall be made ----/ /
for all private streets or ddves.
4. Non-vehicular access shall be dedicated to the City for the following streets: .__/ /
V/5. Reciprocalaccesseasements shall be provided ensuring access to all parcels by CC&Rs J /
or by deeds and shall be recorded concurrently with the map or pdor to the issuance ol
buildincJ permits. where ,o map is involved. rrOj~, Af'N'.5 tc>73 '-4ol -I I
Completion Date:
6. Private drainage easements forcross-lot drainage shall be provided and shall be delineated
or noted on the final map. -----/ /
7. The final map shall clearly delineate a 1 O-foot minimum building restriction area on the __/ /
neighboring lot adjoining the zero lot line wall and contain the following language:
"l/We hereby dedicate to the City of Rancho Cucamonga the right to prohibit the
construction of (residential) buildings (or other structures) within those areas designated
on the map as building restriction areas."
A maintenance agreement shall also be granted from each lot to the adjacent lot through the
CC&R's.
8. All existing easements lying within future rights-of-way shall be quitclaimed or delineated on .--/ /
the final map.
9. Easements for public ,Sidewalks and'or street trees placed outside the public right-of-way J /
shall be dedicated to the City wherever they encroach onto private property.
10. Additional street right-of-way shall be dedicated along right turn lanes, to provide a minimum __J /
of 7 feet measured from the face of curbs. If curb adjacent sidewalk is used along the right
turn lane, a parallel street tree maintenance easement shall be provided.
11. The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property interests _..J /
necessary to construct the required public improvements, and if he/she should fail to do so,
the developer shall, at least 120 days prior to submittal of the final map for approval, enter
into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Code Section
66462 at such time as the City acqu ires the property interests required for the improvements.
Such agreement shall provide for payment by the developer ol all costs incurred by the City
to acquire the off-site property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security
for a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an
appraisal report obtained by the developer. at developers cost. The appraiser shall have
been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal.
M. Street Improvements
1. All public improvements (interior streets, drainage facilities, community trails, paseos, .__/ /
landscaped areas, etc.) shown on the plans and/or tentafive map shall be constructed to
City Standards. Interior street improvements shall include, but are not limited to, Curt3 and
gutter, AC pavement. drive approaches. sidewalks, street lights, and street trees.
2. A minimum of 26- foot wide pavement, within a 40 -foot wide dedicated right-of-way shall be __/ /
constructed for all half-section streets.
V//3. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: .__/ /
STREET NAME CURB& A,C. SIDE- DRIVE STREET STREET COMM MEDIAN BIK~
GUTTER PVMT WALK APPR. LIGHTS TREES TRAIL ISLAND ~ctAiL OTHER
Notes: (a) Median island! includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement Completion Dale:
reConStrUCtion and overlays will be determined during plan check. (c) If so marked, side-
walk shall be curvilinear per STD. 304. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu of construction fee shall
be provided for this item.
V//4. Improvement plans and construction:
a. Street improvement plans including street trees and street lights, prepared by a regis- ---J /
tered Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security
shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and
the City Attorney guaranteeing completion ol the public and/or private street improve-
ments, prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs
first.
b. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a .--/ /
construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineers Office in addition to any
other permits required.
c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic, street name signing, and interconnect conduit __/ /
shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
d. Signal conduit with puif boxes shall be installed on any new construction or reconstruction .__/ /
of major, secondary or collector streets which intersect with other major, secondary or
collector streets for future traffic signals. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the
street at 3 feet outside of BC R, ECR or any other locations approved by the City Engineer.
Notes: __/ /
(1) All pull boxes shall be No. 6 unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer.
(2) Conduit shall be 3-inch galvanized steel with pullrope.
e. Wheel chair ramps shall be installed on all four corners of intersections per City '--J /
Standards or as directed by the City Engineer.
f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with ---/ /
adequate detours during construction. A street closure permit may be required. A cash
deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be
refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
g. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be _._/ /
installed to City Standards, except for single family lots.
h. Handicap access ramp design shall be as specified by the City Engineer. .__/ /
i. StreetnamesshallheapprovedbytheCityPlannerpriortosubmittalforfirstplancheck. J /
V/' 5. street improvement plans per city Standards for all private streets shall be provided for .._./ /
review and approval by the City Engineer. Prior to any work being performed on the pri-
rate streets, fees shall be paid and construction permits shall be obtained from the City
Engineer's Office in addilion to any other permits required.
6. Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in __/ /
accordance with the City's street tree program.
Protect
Comt~leuon Date:
7. Intersection line of site designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformante with
adopted policy. _J /
a. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted lot all project intersections, ----J /
including driveways. Walls, signs, and slopes shall be located outside the lines of sight.
Landscaping and other obstructions within the lines of sight shall be approved by the City
Engineer.
b. Local residential street intersections shall have their noticeability improved, usually by _.J___/
moving the 2 +/- closest street trees on each side away from the street and placed in a street
tree easement.
8. A permit shall be obtained from CALTRANS for any work within the following right-ot-way: J /
9. All public improvements on the following streets shall be operationally complete prior to the J /
issuance of building permits:
N. Public Maintenance Areas
1. A separate set of landscape and irrigation plans per Engineering Public Works Standards ---J /
shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to final map approval
or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. The following landscape parkways.
medians, paseos, easements, trails, or other areas are required to be annexed into the
Landscape Maintenance District:
2. A signed consent and waiver fonm to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting .~/ /
Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer phor to final map approval or issuance of building
permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer.
3. All required public landscaping and irrigation systems shall be continuously maintained by the __/ /
developer until accepted by the City.
4. Parkway landscaping on the following street(s) shall conform to the results of the respective J /
Beautification Master Plan:
O. Drainage and Flood Control
1. The project (or portions thereof) is located within a Flood Hazard Zone; therefore, flood ---/ /
protection measures shall be provided as certified by a registered Civil Engineer and
approved by the City Engineer.
2. I1 shall be the developers responsibility to have lhe current FIRM Zone __/ /
designation removed from the project area, The developers engineer shall prepare all
necessary reports, plans, and hydrologic/hydraulic calculations. A Conditional Letter
of Map Revision (CLOMR) shall be obtained from FEMA prior to final map approval or
issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first, A Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) shall
be issued by FEMA prior to occupancy or improvement acceptance, whichever occurs first.
__ 3. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior I0 final / /
map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. All drainage
facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer,
SC- 12/93 II of 12 A(~J[''~
V/t4. A permit from the County Flood Control District is required for work within its right-of-way. Com~,ledo,~ Date:
/ /
5. Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe
measured from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk. /___J
6. Public storm drain easements shall be graded to convey ovedlows in the event of a /----/
blockage in a sump catch basin on the public street.
P. Utilities
1. Provide separate utility sen/ices to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, .__/ /
gas. electric power, telephone, and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility
Standards. Easements shall be provided as required.
V//2.The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. ..._/ /
3. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the ----/ /
Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District,
and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of
compliance from the CCWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits,
whichever occurs first.
Q, General Requirements and Approvals
V/1. The separate parcels contained within the pro ect poundaries shall be le ally combin.ed into
one parcel prior fo iss.ance of bu.ding permits) pros
~2. An easement for a joint use driveway shall be provided prior to final map approval or issuance of bu iding permit whichever o~urs first for: APN
3. Prior to approval of the final map a de~s~ shall be ~sted with the City ~vering the
estimated cost of ap~nioning the assessments under Assessment District
among the newly created pamels.
4. Etiwand~San Sevaine Area Regional Mainline, Se~nda~ Regional, and Master Plan
Drainage Fees shall be paid prior to final map approval or prior to building perm~ issuance
no map is involved.
/5. Per its shal be obtained from the following a encies for woffi within their right-of-way:
6. A signed consent and waiver form to join an~or fo~ the Law Enforcement Com~n~y
Facil~ies Distri~ shall be filed wffh the C~y Engineer prior to final map approval or the
issuance of building permits, whichever o~urs first. Fo~ation costs shall be ~me by the
Developer.
7. Prior to finalization of any development phase. sufficient improvement plans shall be com-
pieted beyond the phase ~u ndaries to assure seconda~ access and drainage protection to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Phase boundaries shall corres~nd to lot lines shown
on the approved tentative map.
12/93 12 of 12
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ' ~
STAFF REPORT
DATE: January 25, 1995
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad BulleL City Planner
BY: Beverly E. Luttrell, AICP, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-26 - MASI PARTNERS - The development of
an ice/roller rink in Buildings 18 and 19; a multi-screen theater in Building 27;
revisions to previously approved Building 1; new elevations for Buildings 25 and 26;
and a parking study addressing required parking for the ice/roller rink, located on 27
acres of land at the southwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue
(the site of previously approved Conditional Use Permit 91-24) in the Industrial Park
District (Subarea 7) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan - APN: 227-011-10, 19, 21,
and 26 through 28.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Surrounding Land Use and Zonine:
North - Vacant; Terra Vista Planned Community; MOC (Mixed, Office, Commercial,
Residential)
South - Sports Complex; Subarea 7 (Industrial Park), Industrial Area Specific Plan
East - Aggazzotti Winery; Subarea 8 (Industrial Park), Industrial Area Specific Plan
West Vacant; Subarea 7 (Industrial Park), Industrial Area Specific Plan
B. General Plan Designations:
Project Site - Industrial Park
North - Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre)
South - Industrial Park
East Industrial Park
West Industrial Park
C. Site Characteristics: The site is approximately 27 acres in size and slopes approximately 2
percent from north to south. The site is currently vacant except for a building which was a
former warehouse for the previous winery operation.
D. Parking Calculations: See specific conditions of approval regarding the ice/roller rink.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 94-26 - MASI PARTNERS
January 25, 1995
Page 2
ANALYSIS:
A. BackgrOund: Conditional Use Permit 91-24 was approved by the City Council on September
2, 1992. That application included the Master Site Plan and a mix of 32 industrial, multi-
tenant, and restaurant uses. Additionally, Development Review 93-19 was approved by the
Planning Commission on January 12, 1994. That approval was specifically for Buildings 5,
14, 15, and 16.
This application has several components which are outlined in the September 14, 1994,
Planning Commission workshop report. It should also be clearly noted that Building 16 has
been deleted with this application in order to accommodate the required parking for the
proposed Theater building (27).
B. Desb,n Review Committee: Because of the complexity of the project, the proposal was
reviewed at a Planning Commission Workshop, rather than the standard Design Review
Committee. The first Planning Commission Workshop was held on September 14, 1994. The
staff report is included as Exhibit "B" and the minutes from the meeting have been included
as Exhibit "C." In summary, because of the unresolved site plan, parking, and architectural
issues that the applicant was unable to address at the meeting, he requested that the
Commission reconsider the project at a later date. The architecture for the remaining buildings
(1, 25, and 26) was found to be acceptable to the Commission. The applicant was directed to
return with revisions to the architecture which were to include a redesign of the front elevation,
particularly the entry statement. They were also directed to address concerns of the
Engineering Division regarding the potential forjaywalking across Sebastian Way, and parking
for the ice/roller rink.
The second Planning Commission Workshop was held on December 28, 1994. The staff report
is included as Exhibit "D" and the minutes of the meeting have been included as Exhibit "E."
At that meeting, the items discussed focused primarily around the location of the ice/roller rink
in relation to the parking and the architecture of the ice/roller rink, as well as colors and
materials for this building. The architect was not present at that meeting, so it was difficult for
the project applicant to address the specific concems of the Commission in a meaningful way,
particularly since the plans submitted were inconsistent with one another and the applicant
attempted to sketch, at the meeting, recommend changes to the bUilding plans, specifically the
ice rink entry way. The Commission agreed to hold a brief meeting regarding the unreSolved
issues at their January 11, 1995, hearing in order to give the architect the opportunity to
address the concerns.
The third Planning Commission meeting was held on January 11, 1995. No staff report was
prepared for this meeting, since new plans were only submitted on January 10, the day before
the meeting. Because the plans submitted did not reflect the changes discussed at the
December 28 workshop and new plans were introduced at the meeting, the Planning
Commission determined that the remaining issues could not be resolved within the allotted
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 94-26 - MASI PARTNERS
January 25, 1995
Page 3
time frame set for this matter. The Commission then moved to conduct a special workshop for
the project at the end of their regularly scheduled meeting. Minutes of this workshop were not
available to be included in this report. However, the meeting was recorded by tape and
available to the Commission upon request.
At the January 11, 1995, special Planning Commission Workshop, in addition to the revisions
to the ice/roller rink, plan modifications reflected changes to the interior seating capacity of
the theater building, the exterior elevations of the theater building, and the site plan and
elevations to Building 1 (Jiffy Lube). The Commission was not prepared to review these most
recent changes. Again, a material sample board was not available at the meeting.
In order to accommodate the applicant's time frame, and their desire to obtain entitlements at
the January 25, 1995, Planning Commission hearing, the Commission indicated that it could
support approval of the project in concept in terms of uses and general site plan design and
deferred final site plan and architectural review to a future Planning Commission workshop,
prior to the issuance of building permits.
C. Technical Review Committee: The Technical Review Committee reviewed the project on
September 26, 1994, and approved it with certain conditions. Three items have not been
addressed yet which have been included as conditions of approval. These issues deal with the
submittal of a revised parking study, screening of roof-mounted equipment, and submittal of
a security plan.
D. Environmental Assessment: Staff has determined that the Negative Declaration previously
issued for CUP 91-24 on the same site is sufficient for this Conditional Use Permit.
FACTS FOR F1ND~G: In order for the Planning Commission to approve the project, the following
facts for findings must be made:
A. The proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code
and the Industrial Area Specific Plan, and the purpose of the district in which the site is
located.
B. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to
the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in
the vicinity.
C. The proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code
and Industrial Area Specific Plan.
C DEN E: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in the Inlan~
Bulletin newspaper, the project has been posted, and notices were sent to all property owners within
300 feet of the project site.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 94-26 - MASI PARTNERS
January 25, 1995
Page 4
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use
Permit 94-26 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval.
Respectfully submitted,
Brad Buller
City Planner
BB:BL:gs
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letter from Applicant
Exhibit "B" - September 14, 1994 Planning Commission Workshop Report
Exhibit "C" - Minutes from September 14, 1994 Workshop
Exhibit"D"- December 28,1994 Planning Commission Workshop Report
Exhibit "E" - Minutes from December 28, 1994 Workshop
Resolution of Approval
AUG 9 1994 RI
To: Dan Coleman
Beverly Luttrell
Planning Department
City of Rancho CUuamonga
From: Jack Masi
Masi Commerce Center Partners
Date: August 5, 1994
Theatre & Ice/Roller Skating Facility Options -
CUP Requests, Floor Area and Parking Tabulations
Dear Mr. coleman and Ms. Luttrell:
The following is an accompanying note to our CUP applications for
the theatre and recreation center options as well as a request for
administrative approval of a design change for building 1.
A, RHQUBHT FOR CUP'S
We are requesting CUP's for the following:
a) Usepermit for a movie theatre in building 27. The
theatre is designed to accommodate seven to eight
screens with seating for 1,250 patrons. The
theatre lobby will have a concession area for the
inuidental sale of food, drinks and other concession
items, an area for the incidental sale of souvenirs
and an area for elec~ronic games (limited to 30 in
number and available to tenant's customers and not
the general public). The schematic floor plan of
the interior layout has been provided. Note that
buildlng 16 has been removed so as to provide
additional parking for ~he theatre. The theatre is
parked according to city code (see attached parking
analysis).
b) A CUP for an alternative site plan and building
design elevations reflecting changes due to the
removal of building 16 and modifications to the
south elevations of buildings 27 arid 11 to reflect
the proposed theatre use.
We request that the CUP for the ~heatre use as
the CUP for the related site plan and design changes
be considered as an alternative option, specifically
the "theatre Optionw, to the currently approved
scheme (that is, either alterllative can be built).
Coleman, Luttrell/Masi
Auglist 5, 1994
Page 2
Theatre Option - continued
The parking tabulations for ~he revised retail/entertainment
center with theatre (defined as that area bounded by Foothill
Boulevard, Rochester AvenUe and Masi Drive) are attached.
2) Commercial/RecreatiOn Center OPtion=
We are requesting CUP's for the following:
a) A use permit for an ice/roller skating facility for
buildings 18/19. Note that the facility can be
built in two phases, buildlng 18 followed by
building 19o
b) A use permit for indoor bettin cages for building
'26. Please note that the facility was origi~lly
'app~oved for a 12,000 s.f. space in building 16;
however, building 16_ has been removed under the
theatre option. The indoor batting cage facility
will have the same program as the previously
approvedCUP; only the location of the facility has
changed. The parking provided on lot 26 is more
than what was required under the previous ~ for
the indoor batting cages.
c) A CUP for an alternative site plan and design
elevations for the buildings south of Masi Drive.
We request that the CUP~s for the recreation uses
and the cur for the related site plan and design
changes be considered as an alternative option,
specifically the "commerclal/recreation option", to
the currently approved scheme (that is, either
a~ternative can be built).
d) A waiver of the current parking requiremen~ for the
ice/roller skating facility and adoption of the
parking standards t hath ave been recommended in the
Justin Farmer TransportationEngineers parking study
for this project. Two consecutive studies,
required by the planning division earlier in the
year, have already been provided to you.
The parking ~abulations for V31is recreation component are
attached. Please note that we have not yet proposed a
partlcular conunerciel/recrea=lonal use for building 25.
06-~-1~ 8~;t4~M F~UI/I Tr,e Scanol~lo CornpanW TO 1e0~58~6499
Coleman, Luttrell/Masi
August 5, 1994
Page 3
aDMZMZBTNATZVB A?PROVaL 01 DBBZ~MODIFZCATION TO BUILDING 1
Building I on lot i is currently approved as a quick lube with
three drive through bays. We propose to modify the building
so as to be more like an auto service building with doors on
only one side. The modified bUilding is consistent with the
architecture of the other auto court buildings; it is almost
a duplicate of building 8. The circulation to lot I has not
changed; no other buildings in the auto court are affected.
Adequate parking is provided as ~er cede (see auto court
parking tabulations attached).
If you have any questions, please call Mike Scandiffio at (818)
846-2070.
Sincerely,
~er Partners
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT ' =
DATE: September 14, 1994 ~
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Co=unission
FROM: Brad Bullet, City Planner
BY: Beverly Luttrell, AICP, ASsociate Planner
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-26 - MASI PARTNEP~ - The development of
an ice/roller rink in Buildings 18 and 19; a multi-screen theater
in Building 27; revisions to previously approved Building 1; new
elevations for Buildings 25 and 26; and a parking study addressing
required parking for the ice/roller rink located on 27 acres of
land at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester
Avenue ( the site of previously approved Conditional Use Permit
91-24 ) in the Industrial Park District ( Subarea 7 ) of the
Industrial Area Specific Plan - APN: 229-011-10, 19, 21, and 26
through 28.
ABSTRACT: This workshop is a design review of proposed modifications to the
previously approved Conditional Use Permit 91-24 and Development Review 93-19.
The proposed revisions will be reviewed by the Grading and Technical Review
Conu~ittees on September 20 and 21, respectively, prior to being forwarded to
the Planning Comission for approval.
BACKGROUND: Conditional Use Permit 91-24 was approved by the City Council on
September 2, 1992. This application included the Master Site Plan and a mix.
of 32 industrial, multi-tenant, and restaurant uses. Additionally,
Development Review 93-19 was approved by the Planning Cor~nission on
January 12, 1994. This approval was specifically for Buildings 5, 14, 15, and
16.
ANALYSIS: The current proposal has several components which should be
reviewed by the Planning Comission:
A. Buildings 18 and 19/Ice/Roller Rink:
1. The location of the ice/roller rink in relationship to the parking
for this facility is of concern to the Planning and Engineering
Divisions. Consider changing the location of the main entrance to
two entrances on the east and west sides of the building. If this is
not feasible then consider reducing the depth of the building and
providing a specific drop-off area in front of the main entrance. If
this is not possible, the Engineering Division has suggested
installation of a fence or wall behind the sidewalk on the south side
of the street to mitigate jaywalking and/or drop-offs and pick-ups at
the front Of the building.
PLANNING CO~4ISSION WORKSHOP
CUP 94-26 - MASI PARTNERS
September 14, 1994
Page 2
2. The speckled slump stone base on the ice/roller rink building should
be changed to a richer material; possibly the tile material which has
been used elsewhere on the project site. Also, a transition should
be provided between the secondary material and the primary
material. (See Building 25 for example.)
3. Consider raising the height and using more of the secondary accent
material at the ice rink entry to create a stronger entry statement
and better transition from parapet height of Building 19.
4. The south elevation Of the ice/roller rink should be modified by
deleting or reducing the width of some of the accent material on the
lower portion of the building and placing it along the upper portion
of the building so that it will be more visible.
5. Indicate if the windows Of the ice rink are proposed to be vision
glass or spandrel glass.
6. Along the north elevation of the ice/roller rink, the depth of the
area appears to be inadequate and the element looks "planted on."
7. What is the timing of the Phase 1 and Phase 2 portions of the
ice/roller rink? If a blank wall is left in the interim, some type
of landscape screening shall be provided until Phase 2 is completed.
B. Site Plan/Parking:
1. A parking study was reviewed for the original ice/roller rink
submittal. Revisions must be made to the study which address the
larger size of this facility. The revised parking study for the
expanded and relocated ice/roller rink has not been submitted.
2. The location of the handicapped stalls on the north (back) side of
the theater building does not appear to meet Title 24 ADA
accessibility requirements and they are not conveniently located to
the entrance.
C. Buildin~ l:
The number of service bays has been increased to eight. A dense row
of shrubs and trees should be planted in the planter area east of the
parking stalls in order to screen views into the work area.
D. General:
1. Generally, the architecture of the proposed buildings is consistent
with the architecture which has already bean approved for the
center. However, a detail of the rectangular element above the
entries should be provided. It is not clear how deep the recess is,
if it is to be painted another color, or if it is a tile element.
pLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP
CUP 94-26 - MASI pARTNERS
September 14, 1994
Page 3
RECO~4ENDATION: Staff recommends that the item be approved with the noted
modifications and forwarded to the Planning Con~nission for final approval.
Respectfully submitted,
BB:BL:Sp
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Adjourned Meeting
September 14, 1994
Chairman Barker called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Commission to order at 11:30 p.m. The meeting was held in the DeAnza
Room at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho
Cucamonga, California.
The meeting was called to order at 11:30 p.m. The meeting was held in the
DeAnza Room at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho
Cucamonga, California.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Barker, Heinz Lumpp, John Melcher
ABSENT: Larry McNiel, Peter Tolstoy
STAFF PPaSENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil
Engineer; Beverly Luttrell, Associate Planner;
OWNER/DEVELOpER: John DeFrenza, Mike Scandiffio, Masi Partners
NEW BUSINESS
A. CONDITIONAL USE PEP34IT 94-26 MASI pARTNER.e. - The development of an
ice/roller rink in the Buildings 18 and 19; a multi-screen theatre in
Building 27; revisions to previously approved Building 1; new elevations
for Buildings 25 and 26; and a parking study addressing required parking
for the ice/roller rink, located on 27 acres of land at the southwest
corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue (the site of previously
approved Conditional Use Permit 91-24) in the Industrial Park District
(Subarea 7) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan - APN: 229-011-10, 19,
21, and 26 through 28.
Beverly Euttrell, Associate Planner, gave an overview of the project and
highlighted the main issues which were noted in the staff report.
John DeFrenza, Masi Partners, confirmed they understood that relocating
already approved conditional use permit applications to other buildings on the
site will require modification. Be commented the parking study will be
addressed at a later date. He stated a single entrance is required for the
ice/roller rink and the separate entrances suggested by the Planning Division
are not feasible. He felt the fence requested by the Engineering DiviSion may
not stop jaywalkers, but he expressed a willingness to provi'de the fence if
directed to do so. He suggested an alternative would be to provide a
pedestrian crossing across Sebastian Drive with signal lights and a marked
crosswalk. Be stated they would also like to explore the possibility of a
walkway to the Sports Complex. He also reported their team had consulted with
VSC in Pasadena regarding utilization of the two rinks. He indicated that the
roller surface would be first to be completed with the ice rink surface to
follow. Seating capacity will be up to 2,500 in bleachers. He acknowledged
the 10-parking space shortfall for the roller rink parking and agreed to
adjust the parking layout to pick up the additional 10 spaces.
Commissioner Melcher commented that he thought the applicant was trying to
design "fixes" for asite plan that does not work any more.
Mr. DeFrenza stated the ice roller rink is to be constructed of insulated
metal panels. He stated it is essentially a Butler building with a stucco
finish. He also noted that they may have to approach the City about a
non-buildable easement on the Adult Sports Complex in order to build the
building as proposed.
Brad Buller, City Planner, suggested that the applicant make contact with the
Park Development staff and the City Council soon regarding the possible need
for a non-buildable easement.
Mr. DeFrenza indicated that he would submit material samples. He requested
that any discussion of the architecture be postponed', since the ice/roller
rink will have to be redesigned anyway to accommodate concerns with the
Orientation of the entry.
The theater and the on-site parking distribution for the theater use was
discussed. Mr. DeFrenza indicated that 1/3 of the required parking for the
theater is located to the north of the building (away from the entrance) and
2/3 is located to the south of the building (adjacent to the main entrance).
The Commission determined this layout of parking was acceptable for the
theater but noted that the parking layout, count, and orientation for the
rcller rink was still an issue.
It was the consensus of the Commission that the architecture for all the other
buildings was acceptable as submitted excluding the roller rink building.
The applicant was directed to return with revisions to the architecture of the
ice/roller rink which should include a redesign and relocation Of the entry
and changes to the front of the building to possibly include a fence to deter
jaywalkers. The revisions shall be reviewed at a Planning Commission workshop
prior to a final Planning Commission hearing. Revised plans shall be
submitted two weeks prior to the workshop date~
ADJOURNMEN__T:
/
The workshop adjourned at 12:50 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Secretary
PC Adjourned Minutes -2- september 14, '1994
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA '
STAFF REPORT
DATE: December 28, 1994
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Bullet, City Planner
BY: Beverly Luttrell, AICP, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-26 - MASI PARTNERS - Review of site plan,
elevations, colors, and materials for development of an ice/roller rink in Buildings 18
and 19 as part of Conditional Use Permit 94-26, located on 27 acres of land at the
southwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue (the site of previously
approved Conditional Use Permit 91-24) in the Industzial Park District (Subarea 7) of
the Industrial Area Specific Plan.
ABSTRACT: The purpose of this workshop is to review modifications that have been made to
particular aspects of the above noted Conditional Use Permit. After review at the workshop, the
project will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for review and final approval at a public
hearing.
BACKGROUND: Conditional Use Permit 94-26 was reviewed at a Planning Commission
workshop on September 14, 1994. The staff report from the workshop, as well as the minutes from
the meeting, have been included as attachments. Following is a listing of concerns raised by the
Planning Commission at the last workshop, as well as the applicant's responses and staffs comments
to those responses.
A. Location of the ice/roller rink in'relationship to the parking.
Response: The entrance to the ice/roller rink has been moved further to the east. The distance
to the easterly parking area is now 180 feet, rather than 350 feet as originally proposed. The
City Engineer recommends that entrance be moved an additional 100 feet further east.
Additionally, a passenger drop off has been proposed. The Engineering Division will accept
a drop off bay, but suggests that it be lengthened 100 feet in conjunction with the entrance
relocation.
B. Possible fence to be located in front of the enmmce to the ice rink in order to deter jaywalkers.
Response: The fence option has not been included on the revised plans. The City Engineer has
agreed not to require a fence behind the sidewalk on the south side of Sebastian Way if the
developer moves the Ice Rink entrance 100 feet further east than is shown on the site plan
received December 13, 1994. This would partially mitigate the Engineering Division's concerns
regarding pedestrian jaywalking, but the Commission might wish to consider barrier
landscaping on the north side of Sebastian Way to further alleviate the problem.
PLANNING COMMISmON STAFF REPORT
CUP 94-26 - MASI PARTNERS
December 28, 1994
Page 2
C. Screening of service bays for Building One.
Response The number of service bays has been decreased to six and they have been screened
with a row of landscaping.
ARCHITECTURAL ISSU'F..g: During the last workshop, at the applicant's request, all architectural
concerns associated with the ice/roller building were postponed with the agreement that they would
be resolved at a later date. Following is a reiteration of staffs initial concerns regarding the
architecture of the ice/roller building:
A. The speckled slump stone base should be changed to a richer material; possibly the tile that is
used elsewhere in the project. A transition should be provided between the secondary material
and the primary material.
Response: The slump stone material has been upgraded to a natural stone, however, no
material sample boards have been supplied at this time. Some type of transition has been
provided between secondary and primary materials, but it is not clear what it is.
B. Consider raising thc height and using more of the seconda5, accent material at the ice rink entry
to create a stronger entry statement and better transition from the parapet.
Response: The amount of the enriched secondary building material has been severely
decreased by completely eliminating the natural stone on the south elevation end only
providing it at the comers of the cast and west elevations. The entrance has not been raised to
provide a stronger entry statement.
C. The south clcvation of the ice/roller rink should be modified by deleting or reducing the width
of some of the accent materials on the lower portion of the building and placing it along the
upper portion of the building so that it will be more visible.
Response: As noted above, the secondary material ha~ been completely removed from the
south elevation, however, it has not been replaced or rclocated on the upper pertion of the
building.
D. Indicate if the windows of the ice rink are proposed to be vision glass or spandrcl glass.
Response: Spandrcl glazing will be provided, although no materials sample board has been
provided. There was some discussion on the possibility o~thc building's south elevation being
used for murals facing the sports complex. This is still a possibility.
E. Along the north elevation of the ice/roller rink, the depth of the architectural reliefs appears to
be inadequate and the element looks "planted on."
Response: Nothing has been done to resolve this concern.
PLANNING COMMIS~,,,_IN STAFF REPORT
CUP 94-26 - MASI PARTNERS
December 28, 1994
Page 3
F. Timing of Phase 1 and Phase 2 improvements.
Response: The applicant has not submitted any revised phasing plans.
Pronosed Building Materials: The ice/roller building will be consu'ucted of metal insulated panels.
A sample has been provided and will be available at the meeting for the Commission's review. The
panels are interlocking and come from the factory already stuccoed. Seams will be visible, with an
I/8 inch metal suip connecting the panels vertically. The horizontal joints can be controlled in terms
of the width and could appear as a reveal line.
Site Plan/Parking:
A. A parking study was reviewed and commented on for the original ice/roller proposal. The basic
premise and methodololD' of this study was accepted by staff. The revised rink has increased
in size. Revisions to the study to allow for the increase in size were faxed to the Planning
Division on the aidemoon of December 15. Staff has not had the opportunity to review the
adequacy of the study.
B. Handicapped stalls have still been pwvided on the north side of the Theater Building (25) which
is not conveniently located to the enWance on the south side.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that all of the noted issues be addressed by the
Commission and direction given to staff and the applicant.
Respectfully submitted,
~r,r Planner
BB:BL:gs
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - September 14, 1994, Planning Commission Staff Report
Exhibit "B"- September 14, 1994, Planning Commission Minutes
DRAFT
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-26 - MASI PARTNERS Review of site plan,
elevations, colors, and materials for development of an ice/roller rink in
Buildings 18 and 19 as part of Conditional Use Permit 94-26, located on 27
acres of land at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester
Avenue (the site of previously approved Conditional Use Permit 91-24) in the
Industrial Park District (Subarea 7} of the Industrial Area Specific Plan.
Brad Buller, City Planner, presented the staff report.
Mike Scandiffio, representing Masi Partners, explained the applicant's proposal
and offered to modify the plans to address the concerns of staff and any the
Planning Commission may express tonight. He suggested moving the entry further
east by expanding a new front walkway corridor that would have a minimum
dimension of 12 feet wide and using decorative wrought iron fencing between the
columns of the entry walkway to ensure that users of the facility enter from the
east parking lot.
The question of adequate parking was discussed.
Mr. Buller explained that the latest parking analysis had not been reviewed by
staff since it had only been submitted on December 15, but noted that the basic
premise and methodology of the study were accepted earlier. He did question the
possible need for a variance for the new parking shown along the Rochester
frontage.
The Planning Commission also raised concern about the ability of the City to
ensure that the use of the building does not exceed the maximum occupancy load
for which parking is provided.
Mr. Buller explained the difficulty for staff in monitoring the interior use of
a building but reminded the Commission that if a violation or parking problem
does occur, consideration of revocation of the project's conditional use permit
might be required.
After considerable discussion on the site plan, architecture, color, and
materials for the ice/roller rink building, the Planning Commission agreed to
have a brief hearing of this matter on the January 11 agenda. At that meeting,
the applicant will present revised plans reflective of tonight's discussion.
Further, at the applicant's request, the item will be scheduled for final action
at the January 25 regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. Because of
the short time frame for turn around of drawings, the Commission said a staff
report will not be necessary for the January 11 hearing, but simply requested
that the applicant submit revised plans prior to the meeting.
LI E
There were no public comments at this time.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT NO. 94-26, THE DEVELOpMEIi/T OF AN ICE/ROLLER
RINK IN THE BUILDINGS 18 AND 19; A MULTI-SCREEN THEATER IN
BUILDING 27; REVISIONS TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BUILDING 1;
AND NEW ELEVATIONS FOR BUILDINGS 25 AND 26; LOCATED ON
27 ACRES OF LAND AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF FOOTHILL
BOULEVARD AND ROCHESTER AVENUE (THE SITE OF PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-24) IN THE INDUSTRIAL
PARK DISTRICT (SUBAREA 7) OF THE INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC
PLAN, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN:
229-011-10, 19, 21, AND 26 THROUGH 28.
A. Recitals.
1. Masi Commerce Center Parmers have filed an application for the issuance of Conditional
Use Permit No. 94-26, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the
subject Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application."
2. On the 25th day of January 1995, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing
on that date.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing on January 25, 1995, 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 southwest come~ of Rochester
Avenue and Foothill Boulevard with a street frontage of 1,250 feet along Foothill Boulevard and lot
depth of approximately 950 feet along Rochester Avenue and is presently vacant.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 94-26 - MASI
January 25, 1995
Page 2
b. The property to the north of the subject site is vacant, the property to the south
consists of the Sports Complex, the property to the east is developed with the Aggazzotti Winery,
and the property to the west is vacant; and
c. The property is designated "Industrial Park" by the Industrial Area Specific Plan.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2
above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. That the proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the
Development Code and the Industrial Area Specific Plan, and the purposes of the district in which
the site is located.
b. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
c. That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the
Development Code and the Industrial Area Specific Plan.
4. The Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that the project identified above
in this Resolution is exempt fi'om the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970, as mended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15016 (b)(3) 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, Division:
1) This approval is strictly for the uses being provided in Building 18/19
(Ice/Roller Rink) and Building 27 (multi-screen theater), as well as a
conceptual site plan which indicates the general size and location and
location of associated parking areas. The general size and location of
Buildings 1, 25, and 26 are also approved with this Conditional Use
Permit.
2) All building, landscape, average landscape, and parking setback
standards shall be met unless a variance application is submitted.
3) The architectural design, footprint, and revised elevations for Building
18/19 (Ice/Roller Rink) shall be reviewed and approved at a full
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 94-26 - MASI
January 25, 1995
Page 3
Planning Commission workshop prior to the issuance of building
permits for this building. Fully detailed and complete plans shall be
submitted to the Planning Division at least three weeks prior to any
requested date for a workshop. The building footprint and elevations
shall be drafted at a scale of 1:16. The submittal package shall consist
of a site plan, landscape plan, floor plan, elevations of all sides, cross
sections showing how all roof equipment is to be screened from view,
especially from the stadium, and a material sample board and color
chart.
4) Revisions to the front elevation of Building 18/19 shall address the
need for and design of a drop off bay and whether or not any type of
barrier fencing is proposed in front of this building. If a drop off bay
is provided, the building setback shall measure 25 feet from the
ultimate curb face of the drop off bay.
5) If a metal insulated building is proposed for Building 18/19, the
applicant shall provide a list of existing buildings constructed of the
exact same type of material that may be viewed by staff and the
Commission prior to any workshop.
6) A revision to the parking study for the original ice rink proposal shall
be completed by a licensed, qualified traffic engineer. This study shall
address the increase in size of the two rinks and any proposals for
special events which the applicant is contemplating. This study shall
be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to scheduling any
Planning Commission workshops for Building 18/19. This study shall
be submitted at least one week prior to scheduling for a Planning
Commission workshop for Building 18/19.
7) The revised site plan and revised elevations for Building 27 (theater)
shall be reviewed and approved at a full Planning Commission
workshop prior to the issuance of building permits for this building.
Fully detailed and complete plans shall be submitted to the Planning
Division at least three weeks prior to any requested date for a
workshop. This submittal package shall consist of site plan, landscape
plan, floor plan, elevations of all sides, and a material sample board and
color chart.
g) The architectural design, for Building 1 (Jiffy Lube) was deemed
acceptable at a Planning Cornmission workshop on September 14,
1994. Plans in substantial conformance to these shall be submitted for
plan check review prior to issuance of any building permits for this
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 94-26 - MASI
January 25, 1995
Page 4
building. Any deviation to the approved site plan or architecture shall
require review and approval by the City Planner prior to issuance of
building permits.
9) The architectural design for Buildings 25 and 26 were deemed
acceptable at a Planning Commission workshop on September 14,
1994. Plans in substantial conformance to these shall be submitted for
plan check review prior to issuance of any building permits for these
buildings. Any deviation to the approved site plan or architecture shall
require review and approval by the City Planner prior to issuance of
building permits.
10) All parking spaces fronting Rochester Avenue shall be screened
through the use of berming, low walls, evergreen shrub hedgerows, or
a combination thereof, to the satisfaction of the Planning Division.
On-site landscape plans indicating this shall be reviewed and approved
by the City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits.
11) All pertinent conditions of approval contained in City Council
Resolution 92-240 shall apply unless specifically modified above.
Engineering: Division
1) The separate parcels contained within the project boundaries shall be
legally combined such that each building will be located on a single lot,
prior to the issuance of building permits.
2) The foundations of buildings along the south property line shall not
encroach on the City Sports Park property to the south.
3) Prior to the release of occupancy for buildings along the south property
line, all repairs and/or replacement of any Sports Park facilities
damaged by the construction shall be completed and/or retribution shall
be provided.
4) If the Redevelopmerit Agency/City Council consents, then a
maintenance agreement and/or easement for the south property line
wall of any building along the south property line shall be prepared to
the satisfaction of the City Attorney and City Engineer, prior to
building permit issuance. Otherwise, construction of said building(s)
shall comply with codes regarding property line setback.
5) Revise the street improvement plans to reflect all drive approach
removals and relocations.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 94-26 - MASI
January 25, 1995
Page 5
6) The ice rink entrance, fencing between the entrance and the street,
and/or pedestrian access shall be designed to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer and City Planner to promote the use of the easterly parking lot
by the public,
7) If a drop-off bay is constructed, it's design shall be as approved by the
City Engineer and included on the street improvement plans.
Additional right-of-way will be required to provide a minimum of 7
feet measured from the face of curbs.
8) The overflow path west of the ice rink shall be redesigned to fit within
a paved parking lot and the interim spillway shall be replaced with an
ultimate design to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, as
recommended in the Overflow Spillway Analysis attached to the
approved final drainage study. Determine a Q100 pond elevation for
the revised site plan which includes buildings and calculate the
minimum finished floor elevation required for buildings adjacent to the
overflow path.
6. The Secretary for the Planning Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 25TH DAY OF JANUARY 1995.
BY:
E. David Barker, Chairman
ATTEST:
Brad Buller, Secretary
I, Brad Builer, Secretary for 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
Planner Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission held on the 251h day of January 1995.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCA!MONGA '
STAFF REPORT
DATE: January 25, 1995
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Beverly E. Luttrell, AICP, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-24 - MASI PARTNERS -
A request to amend specific conditions of approval relating to the project's
development and infrastructure phasing, design review processing, waiver of $ I 0,000
historic preservation mitigation contribution, and design of the trash enclosure for a
27 acre center located at the southwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester
Avenue in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan
- APN: 227-011-10, 19, 21, and 26 through 28.
BACKGROUND
The original Conditional Use Permit 91-24 was reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission
on July 22, 1992. That Conditional Use Permit was approved with a number of conditions which
were appealed to the City Council on August 19, 1992 by the applicant. The Conditional Use Permit
was finally approved by the City Council on September 2, 1992. Final conditions of approval
required by the City Council have been included as Exhibit "B."
ANALYSIS
The applicant in his proposal (See Exhibit "A") is requesting that eight of the conditions of approval
noted in Resolution 92-240 (Exhibit "B") be modified. Below, staff will note the existing condition
as approved in 1992 and the applicant's request and conclude with staffs response to each requested
modification.
Condition No. 2: A diagram providing color locations for the mylar/canvas canopies shall be
submitted for review and approval by the Design Review Committee prior to the issuance of
building permits.
Applicant's Request: The applicant requests that the colors of the awnings bc subject to
review and approval by the City Planner, rather than the Design Review Committee, prior to
the issuance of building permits.
ITHvl C
'1 ' i
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 91-24 - MASI
January 25, 1995
Page 2
Staff Response: This issue was originally discussed at the Design Review Committee meeting
of May 7, 1992. The design of the canopy element was of concem to the Committee (McNiel,
Kroutil) and they felt it needed to be explained graphically and at a larger scale. They
expressed serious reservations about using fabric/mylar awnings in this nigh wind area. At the
June 4, 1992, Design Review Committee meeting, the Committee (Cnitiea, McNiel, Kroutil)
required the additional review of colors of the awnings. Further details were presented to the
Design Review Committee (McNiel, Chitiea, Kroutil) on June 18, 1992, and it approved the
mylar/canvas canopy element in the thickest gauge available. The Committee was still
concerned with the color schemes and felt that they should be carefully thought out. The
Committee then simply requested that a diagram providing color locations be submitted for
review and approval by the Committee. It also suggested keying the awning color to the type
of use being proposed.
Although previous Design Review Committees have, on several occasions, reviewed this
matter and still required that the colors be reviewed and approved by the Committee, it is
staffs opinion that final approval could be deferred to the City Planner. Staff feels confident
that we can work with the applicant on a final color selection that will be in keeping with the
approved architecture and building colors.
Staff recommends Condition No. 2 be modified as follows:
2. A diagram providing color locations for the mylar/canvas canopies shall be submitted for
review and approval by the City Planner prior to issuance of building permits.
Condition No. 7: A revised concept plan for the eommissloned public art and the interpre~ve
public displays shall be reviewed by the full Planning Commission. The revised concept plan
shall graphically depict how the Vintner's Walk, commissioned art, and public displays will
be developed and maintained and how they will function as a whole. Final detailed plans shall
be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to issuance of any permits.
Installation of the Vintner's Walk harriscape and landscaping shall be completed concurrently
with Foothill Boulevard improvements, prior to the release of occupancy of any buildings in
Phase I. Installation of the Vintner's Walk trellises, vines, interpretive panels, and public art
shall be completed prior to the release of occupancy of buildings in Phase IL
In the event permits have been issued and Phase II is substantially under construction prior
to the occupancy of any building in Phase I, harriscape and landscaping improvements may
be deferred to be completed prior to the release of occupancy of any building in Phase II.
Applieant's Request: The applicant requests that the last line of the first paragraph of the
condition be reworded as follows: "Final detailed plans for the public art and public displays
shall be reviewed by City Planner prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy for Building
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 91-24 - MASI
January 25, 1995
Page 3
5 (Old Spaghetti Factory) and Building 6 (Deany's)." Additionally they request that the second
paragraph be reworded as follows: "Installation of public art and Vintner's Walk features
(seatwall, plaques, public displays, and trellis) to be completed prior to issuance of certificates
of occupancy for buildings 5 and 6."
The applicant is concemed that these improvements will be subject to vandalism if buildings
5 and 6 are not there to provide some visual security.
Staff Response: This particular condition relates to the timing of installation of public art and
the Vintner's Walk along Foothill Boulevard. The statement 2(f) within the Findings of the
Resolution of Approval states that: "...The timing of the installation of the Vintner's Walk
hardscape and landscaping should be completed concurrently with Foothill Boulevard
improvements for the safety of pedestrians, but installation of the pipe trellis, vines,
interpretive panels, and public art could be deferred to the time of later construction." It was
clearly the intent of this condition to require hardscape and landscaping features concurrently
with Foothill Boulevard street improvements and prior to release of occupancy of any
buildings in Phase I. Improvements required to be constructed with Foothill Boulevard
improvements would then include paving treatment on the ground plane, curbs, and
landscaping. This is required for public safety reasons and is typical for all projects within
the City. Therefore, staff believes that the timing of the sidewalk ground plane and
landscaping should still be completed concurrently with Foothill Boulevard improvements and
prior to occupancy of any building within Phase I which includes the Auto Court, Building 3
(Jack in the Box), and Building 4 (restaurant).
In reviewing the minutes of the August 19, 1992, City Council meeting, it was clearly the
intent of the Council at the time that the more elaborate improvements including the pipe
trellis, artwork, interpretive panels, and seatwall be completed prior to release of occupancy
of any buildings within Phase II. Phase II includes Buildings 5 (Old Spaghetti Factory), 6
(Denny's), and 7 (Commemial/Retail). The applicant is now requesting that these
improvements be deferred until certificates of occupancy are issued for both Buildings 5 and
6. Staff believes it could be appropriate to relate installation of ameuities prior to occupancy
for either Building 5 or 6, whichever is constructed first.
Staff recommends that Condition No. 7 be modified as follows (bold for new text, overstrike
for deleted text):
7. A revised concept plan for the commissioned public art and the interpretive public
displays shall be reviewed by the full Planning Commission. The revised concept plan
shall graphically depict how the Vintner's Walk, commissioned art, and public displays
will be developed and maintained and how they will function as a whole. Final detailed
plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner ~rlc, r tc~ 133uai~cc c~f a.'iy ~clrc,,ik,
prior to occupancy for either Building 5 or 6, whichever occurs first.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 91-24 - MASI
January 25, 1995
Page 4
Installation of the Vintner's Walk hardscape and landscaping shall be completed
concurrently with Foothill Boulevard improvements, prior to the release of occupancy of
any buildings in Phase I. Installation of the Vintner's Walk trellises, vines, interpretive
panels, and public art shall be completed prior to the release of occupancy of buildinf, a
in P~azc II either Building 5 or 6, whichever occurs first.
In the event permits have been issued and Phase II is substantially under construction
prior to the occupancy of any building in Phase I, hardscape and landscaping
improvements may be deferred to be completed prior to the release of occupancy of any
building in Phase II.
Condition No. 8: The developer shall contribute $10,000 to the Chaffey-Gareia House Barn
project, which will be used to develop a museum/cultural center depicting and exhibiting the
agricultural heritage of the area. The City Council may, upon the input of the Historic
Preservation Commission, allocate funds to another similar type of preservation project
including, but not necessarily limited to, the Historic Preservation Site and Land-Banking
fund, depending upon the timing of the compliance with this mitigation. This contribution
shall be provided prior to the issuance of building permits of any phase of the Masi Commerce
Center.
Applicant's Request: The applicant requests that this requirement be waived since they
believe the historic Vintner's Walk goes far beyond what was required by the Historic
Preservation Commission. They plan to use the money for another piece of artwork that will
compliment the Vintner's statue.
StaffResponse: This particular condition was originally placed on this project by the Historic
Preservation Commission on September 5, 1991, when the La Fourcade Store was reviewed
as a potential Historic Point oflnterest. This measure was intended to partially mitigate the
demolition of the La Fourcade Store. The condition at that time required a $25,000
contribution to the Chaffey Garcia House Barn project. At the September 18, 1991, City
Council hearing on the designation, the applicant's representative, Mike Scandiffio, requested
that the monetary contribution be reduced to $10,000, and that they be allowed to spend the
money on site, rather than on the barn project. The City Council, after much discussion,
reduced the monetary contribution from $25,000 to $10,000 but still required that it be spent
on the Chaffey Garcia Barn project. An element of flexibility was added to the resolution that
would permit the City Council discretion to allocate these funds to another similar type of
preservation project, including but not necessarily limited to, the Historic Preservation Site and
Land-Banking Fund, should they receive input from the Historic Preservation Commission.
This Historic Preservation Commission condition, as modified by the City Council on
September 18, 1991, was again appealed to the City Council on August 19, 1992. At that time,
the applicant requested that the $10,000 contribution be utilized for public art within their own
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 91-24 - MASI
January 25, 1995
Page 5
site. At that hearing, then Mayor Stout indicated that they had already reduced the amount and
it was the intention of the Council when the reduction was made to allow the developer to put
the $15,000 difference into their project. He felt that their request was already granted when
Council reviewed it previously. The City Council upheld the condition at the final reading of
the Resolution on September 2, 1992. In addition to this, it should be noted that a similar
condition was placed on the Foothill Marketplace project. However, the monetary contribution
required of that particular project was $100,000, which has already been paid by that
developer. Considering the long history regarding this condition and the fact that the applicant
has already attempted to appeal it to the City Council on more than one occasion, staff does
not support this requested modification.
Staff recommends that Condition No. 8 not be modified.
Condition No. 9: Landscaping along the entirety of Masi Drive from the sidewalk out to the
curb face shall be completed prior to occupancy of the last building for Phase I.
Applicant's Request: The applicant requests that the condition be reworded as follows:
"Landscaping along the south side of Sebastian Way, starting from below Building 10, shall
be provided only when the buildings south of Sebastian Way are constructed."
Staff Response: The Engineering Division has required that all street improvements along
Masi Drive/Sebastian Way be completed with Phase I. Phase I includes not only the Auto
Court, but also Building 3 (Jack in the Box) and Building 4 (Restaurant) as well. In order to
have a complete and attractive streetscape along the street which bisects the project site, the
Planning Commission felt it appropriate to require landscaping in conjunction with these street
improvements. This condition is consistent with conditions which have been placed on Tetra
Vista Town Center, Terra Vista Town Center Square, Foothill Marketplace, and Bixby
Business Park.
Staff recommends that Condition No. 9 not be modified.
Condition No. 15: There shall be provision for the following design features in the trash
enclosure to the satisfaction of the City Planner:
a) Architecturally integrated into the design of the center.
b) Separate pedestrian access that does not require opening the main doors, to include self-
closing pedestrian door.
c) Large enough to accommodate two trash bins.
d) Roll-up doors.
e) Trash bins with counter-weighted lids.
f) Architecturally treated overhead shade trellis.
g) Chain link screen on top to prevent trash from blowing out of enclosure and designed to
be hidden from view.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 91-24 - MASI
January 25, 1995
Page 6
Applicant's Request: The applicant requests that b, d, e, f, and g of this condition be
eliminated. They would like it replaced with the standard city trash enclosure requirement.
They are willing to provide the trellis in the retail/entertainment component of the project (that
portion of the project bounded by Masi Drive, Rochester Ave. and Foothill Blvd.)
Staff Response: This requirement for upgrading of trash enclosures is in addition to the
standard drawing for trash enclosures which the Planning Commission utilizes. It is a standard
which is applied consistently to all commercial projects throughout the City. It is staffs
opinion that there is no justification to eliminate it in this isolated case.
Staff recommends that condition No. 15 not be modified.
Condition No. 16: A uniform bardscape and street furniture treatment, inehding trash
receptacles, free-standing pored plants, bike racks, light bollards, benches, etc., shall be
utilized for the project and shall be designed to be compatible with the architectural style.
Detailed designs shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of
building permits.
Applicant's Request: The applicant r~quests the elimination of the bike racks, the
freestanding potted plants, and the light bollards.
Staff Response: This condition was placed on the project in order to create a uniform and
aesthetically cohesive design scheme throughout the project. A similar condition was placed
on the Foothill Marketplace, Terra Vista Village, Tenca Vista Town Center, and Tenca Vista
Town Center Square, as well as all industrial parks approved within the City. There is no
justification or precedent to delete or modify the condition in this isolated case.
Staff recommends that Condition No. 16 not be modified.
Condition No. 20: A Uniform Sign Program shall be reviewed and approved by the City
Planner prior to the issuance of building permits.
Applicant's Request: The applicant requests that the Uniform Sign Program be reviewed and
approved by the City Planner prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building.
They also request that it not be required that the monument sign program be approved prior
to any issuance of building permits or certificates of occupancy.
Staff Response: This condition was originally written so that the Planning Commission
would review the sign program prior to issuance of building permits. The condition was
appealed to the City Council on August 19, 1992. At that heating, the Council felt that it
would be appropriate for approval of the Sign Program to rest with the City Planner. To defer
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 91-24 - MASI
January 25, 1995
Page 7
review and approval of a Uniform Sign Program to the time of occupancy potentially raises
a conflict and timing issue ifa tenant is ready to occupy a space and the applicant is still in the
process of obtaining approval of the overall sign program. This condition is consistently
applied to all projects and is always tied to the issuance of building permits. There is no
justification or precedent to defer this approval to such a late date, when typically tenants are
extremely anxious to receive occupancy and begin business operations.
Typically, monument signage is included within a Uniform Sign Program application. If the
applicant does not wish to receive approval of any monument signs, then staff has no problem
in deleting monument signs from the Uniform Sign Program. However, the applicant must
be cautioned that at the point in time when they desire any type of monument signage, an
amendment to the Uniform Sign Program must be filed, reviewed, and approved prior to
erection of any monumentation. The applicant should also be aware that the fee for
amendment to an approved Uniform Sign Program is currently $590.
Staff recommends that Condition No. 20 not be modified.
Condition No. 18: All future building pads shall be temporarily seeded and irrigated for
erosion control. Detailed plans shall be included in the landscape and irrigation plans to be
submitted for City Planner approval prior to issuance of building permits.
Applicant's Request: The applicant requests that the second sentence of this condition bc
deleted. They feel that review and approval by the Building and Safety Division is adequate.
Staff Response: Planning Division staff is comfortable with allowing the Building and Safety
Division to bc responsible for review of the erosion control plan.
Staff recommends that Condition No. 18 bc modified as follows:
18. All future building pads shall be temporarily seeded and irrigated for erosion control.
Erosion control plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Building and Safety division
prior to issuance of building permits.
A T FOR F G: In order for the Planning Commission to approve the modifications to the
above noted conditions, the following facts for findings must be made:
A. The proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code
and the Industrial Area Specific Plan, and the purposes of the district in which the site is
located.
B. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to
the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in
the vicinity.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 91-24 - MASI
January 25, 1995
Page 8
C. The proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code
and Industrial Area Specific Plan.
CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public heating in the Inland Valley Daily
Bulletin newspaper, the project has been posted, and notices were sent to all property owners within
300 feet of the project site.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the
modifications to Conditional Use Permit 91-24 through adoption of the attached Resolution of
Approval.
Respectfully submitted,
City Planner
BB:BL:gs
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - .Letter from Applicant
Exhibit "B" - City Council Resolution 92-240
Exhibit "C" - Minutes of August 19, 1992, City Council meeting
Resolution of Approval
TO: BRAD BULLER, CITY PLANNER
PLANNING DIVISION
FROM: JACK MASI ~NG DIVISION
AsI cOMMERCE CENTER P RTNERS . DEC 2 9 1994
DATE: DECEMBER 29, 1994
Dear Brad:
Please find attached the request for modifications of conditions
of CUP 91-24 and the CUP request for the Indoor Batting Cages.
The request for modification of conditions has been revised and
supersedes the letter request dated December 21, 1994.
We would like to process these items as part of CUP 94-26. I
understand that the Planning Commission hearing for CUP 94-26 will
be rescheduled to January 25, 1995,as per !the Planning Com3aission
action taken on this application at the Planning Commission
workshop meeting last night. I understand that these additional
items can be voted on at that meeting as well.
Please call me if there is any problem or misunderstanding in
regard to what I have stated above. My telephone number is (909)
882-4592. Thank you for your continued help in expediting this
project.
Sincerely,
Jack Masi
To: Brad Buller, City Planner
Planning Department
City of Rancho Cucamonga
From: Jack Masi
Masi Commerce Center Partners
Date: December 28, 1994 (Revised)
Re: Modifications to Certain Conditions - CUP 91-24
Dear Brad:
As part of our current CUP application (94-26), we request that
certain modifications to CUP 91-24, Planning Division Requirements,
be made. Specifically:
Item 2: A diagram providing color locations for the mylar/canvas
canopies shall be submitted for review and approval by
the design review committee prior to issuance of building
permits.
Request: Waive this requirement. Canvas colors to be
reviewed by City Planner prior to issuance of
building permit.
Item 7: Vintner's Walk - Last Two Lines:
Final detailed plans shall be reviewed and approved by
the City Planner prior to the issuance of any permits.
Installation of the public art and the Vintner's Walkway
shall be completed concurrently with Foothill Boulevard
improvements.
Request: Final detailed plans for the public art and
public displays shall be reviewed by City
Planner prior to issuance of certificate of
occupancy for buildings 5 and 6.
Installation of public art and Vintner's
Walkway features (seatwall, vintner plaques,
public displays and trellis) to be completed
prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy
for buildings 5 and 6. (These improvements
will be subject to vandalism if buildings 5 and
6 are not there to provide some visual
security.)
Letter to Brad Buller - Modifications to Certain Conaitions (CUP
91-24) - December 28, 1994
Page 2
Item 8: The developer shall contribute $10,000 to the Chaffey-
Garcia House barn project ..... This contribution shall be
provided prior to the issuance of building permits of any
phase of the Masi Plaza Center.
Request: We want this condition waived due to the fact
that the historic Vintner's Walkway goes far
beyond what was required by the Historic
Preservation Commission. We will use the
money for another piece of artwork that will
compliment the vintner's statue.
Item 9: Landscaping along the entirety of Masi Drive from the
sidewalk out to the curb face shall be completed prior
to occupancy of the last building of phase I.
Request: Landscaping along the south side of Masi Drive,
starting from below building 10, shall be
provided only when the buildings south of Masi
Drive are constructed.
Item 15: Trash Enclosures
b) Separate pedestrian access that does not require
opening the main doors, to include self-closing
pedestrian door.
d) Roll-up doors.
e) Trash bins with counter-weighted lids.
f) Architecturally treated overhead shade trellis.
g) Chain link screen on top to prevent trash from
blowing out of enclosure and designed to be hidden
from view.
Request: Eliminate b, d, e, f and g. Replace with
standard city trash enclosure requirements.
We are willing, however, to provide the trellis
in the retail/entertainment component of the
project (that part of the project bounded by
Masi Drive, Rochester Ave. and Foothill Blvd).
Item 16: A uniform hardscape and street furniture treatment,
including trash receptacles, free-standing potted plants,
bike racks, light bollards, benches, etc.~ shall be
designed to be compatible with the architectural style.
Detailed designs shall be submitted for City Planner
review and approval prior to issuance of building
permits.
Request: Eliminate requirement for bike racks,
freestanding potted plants and light bollards.
Letter to Brad Buller - Modifications to Certain Conditions (CUP
91-24) - December 28, 1994
Page 3
Item 20: A uniform sign program shall be reviewed and approved at
Planning Commission workshop prior to issuance of
building permits. (This was later amended on appeal to
City Council stating that it must be approved by city
planner, rather than at Planning Commission workshop.)
Request: Uniform sign program for building signage
location to be approved by City Planner prior
to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for
any building. It will not be required that
the monument sign program be approved prior to
any issuance of building permits or
certificates of occupancy.
Item 18: All future building pads shall be temporarily seeded and
irrigated for erosion control. Detailed plans shall be
included in the landscape and irrigation plans to be
submitted for City Planner approval prior to issuance of
building permits.
Request: Delete second line, "Detailed plans shall be
..: ..... submitted for City Planner approval
prior to issuance of building permits."
We feel that the Building and Safety Division
review is sufficient.
If you have any questions, please call me at (909) 882-4592.
Sincerely,
JKO~ Masi' ~
Masi Commerce Center Partners
RESOI//f/C~ ~3. 92-240
A. Reci~ ~ ~.
(i) Masi O ...... ~e Ce~ P~ has filed an ap~licatkm f~ the
{~aance Of CCrr]itiCrkll USe hat NO. 91-24 as a~m-~ibed in the title of this
su~it~a_ in cmjumtim with a Tentati~ Paroel M~ (13S45) to subdivide the
s~bject ~u~r~y illto 31 patois.
(ii) C~ the 22nd day of JUly 1992, the Plannin~ n~ic~ of. the
City of Randlo n~...~ ~aauc~a a duly noti~d public heri~ cn the
a~olicatim and concluded said hearir~ c~1 that date. At the ~lus/~m of the
public ~/n~, the Plamir~ n-.-..l~im ak~ed tbe/r reeolutic~ No. 92-99,
(iii) ~ J~ly 31, 1992, the a[~ ~m.ly ~ 1~8 ~u~al of
_~a~a Resoll/tic~ No. 92-99 kM~ed c~ c~lflicts with the followix~ ~alltl~ls of
approval:
(a) Plmmi~ emditim No. 7: FLnal ~,,~al of Vh~U~r's Walk
(b) Plamin~ C~Uitim ~. e: ~mffey~a~]a Barn
(c) PaamiW ex~itim No. 20: ~al ~f Unif~m Sign
(U) mxfz~ri~ c~Uitim ~. 2C~) ~U 2(c): mothlil
(e) mxfn~ri~ oxUitim ~. 2(U): ~im nmim~
r..:..uvemnts; and
(f) ~imerin~ emUitim ~. 9: ~_m ~ Tr~fic Sk/ml
(iv) All le]al ~.H~itee prior to t~e ~:.tim of this A~nlutic~
Reeolutic~ No. 92-2
P~e2
N~q, ~E, it iS hereby fourS, determired, ar~ resolved by the
City Council of the City of Rancho nw~-wrja as follows:
1. ~ Oouncll hereby specifically finds that a]3 of the facts set
forth in the ~ecitals, Part A, of this Resoluticm are true and ccrrect.
s~ecifi~]ly finds as follM:
(a) ~le a~plicati(m a~plies to ~ tf located at the
(c) ~e ~ iS a~k3na~ .Ir~-~t.l Park" by ~e
(e) An L-a~rt-~ Area Specific Plan ~ ~ms ~u~ed by
aloe/Rochester Avenue, ~ -Au~m-ti%~ Service Court" as a ~ltirm~]~y
(f) ~ P~ni~ n~--~mUm iS ~ ~ ~ ex~ undue
tt~ of iSt.,-,- ccretnEtic~.
solutic~ No. 92-240
Pa~e3
(g) ~le $10,000 ua,i,ibuticel to the (haffey-Garcia ,Barn was
Qrigimalqy {~_~2~a_ by the Histuric Preservaticm Ocetnissicm as an
the a~licant at the public hearir~. =
(h) Fine/ aF~u~al of Unif~ Si~ Progr~ for such
~ojects is m~et a~iste with the C~mnissim rather than with staff.
(i) ~he requi~.~nt of the landscaped ~a~n, together with
maintain the safety of perscns travelir~ alcr~] Footbl]] Bculevazd adjacerfc to
the ~u~ad L~uject. Foothill Bculeval~ is a majcr arterial and
and egret=, even at the initial phases of the ~uject, wou/d ~k~e an unsafe
traffic pattern. It is 1:hek._f~ zv~-~w~y for public safety that such
i,.-.,ku~x~ts ke/nstalled at the earliest feasible ~.
(j) ~e e~stin; ZS-i~h Ue (c~=u;~d ~ pie) in
C~) ~he applicant,s req,~c for a reimbEseent a~reemnt
installed at this ~ is ~Ft~usxiate.
facts set forth in ~ I and 2 above, this Council k~.~tby finds and
concludes as folloas:
ecti (a) ~hat the ;ropm~d use is in accord with the General Plan,
(b) ~mt the F~E~eed use, together with the
Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Cuurcil firde that the aZ~licaticn is
P~soluticm No. 92-2~,
Page4
_~solutic~ No. 92-240
~ ~mnse of k,tildln; perunits.
6) h a~31icant shall p~u,Fide a storm base alcfz3
the h~Um p:ztim of the Buildings 4, 7, and
20 ~n t,h~se lccatic~s 'dheL~ gZass et,.erds all
7) A rev/sed ccrrmpt plan fcT the cc~isslcned
shall be revie~d tW ths full Pla~
functicm as a ~bole. Final detailed plans
Phase I. Installation of the V~u~ ~s Walk
~slease of ocxa,tFency of h.~t*iairgJs in l:l-ase TT.
the ~cctxEarcy of any h,'r~iTs:j in Phase I,
e) ~e ~ shall ce~:ztl~xte $10,000 to the
(:%ma~tSStm, all,"~'Ate ft,lr/:b] to a]lo'che~
Resoluti(m No. 92-24U
type of ~rvatim ~oject includixN, but
not nm'"~m,'ily ] ~m~ ~a to, the Historic
Preservation Site and Larrl-Banking fund,
~ upm the ~,.~ng of the ,~.~liance
be l~uvja~a pricr to the ~]ance of bailding
permits of any l~ase of the Masi ~'..', .... ~e
9) Larascapi. g al~g the =~drety of Masi nri~
~fi]a{~g fer Phase 1.
10) A trash enclceure shall be ~u-zided for
;~fi]a4n~/5.
11) ~he trash enc/ceure for ~fi]a{ng 3 (Jack-In-
~he-B~x) shall ~e loca~-~a clceer to the
)rmfi lalng.
Z~) Z~ ~t ~ ~.~tned that the V~t~ry ~
13) ~he ~t~m ~ t:z'mm.'~--.,,L (i.e., ~,
~ a,-'ld gntammli~ ~ ~ leCx:fd'mill
Belleyard Simcific Plan Design 9.~T~-,.-.t. ~me
~ ~rli,~in:/Divisic~s prier to the issuarre
the ~se of hmmm'miqc3, 10~ ~mll., ~ I~hrub
IMzkjmm:Nm, cer a .... 'anaticm ~, to the
satisfactixm of the Pla~ Divisicm.
15) ~bm=,. sh*~m be m~.-dsic~ fez the follcmrin~
a) A~dat__~c!-__---~ ~y inb.~..a into the deeic3n
asolutic~q No. 92-240
c)
bins.
d) ~11~ ~m.
e) ~ b~ ~ ~~ 1~.
f) ~da~ly
16) A
17) ~fi~
20)
Reeolutic~ No. 92-240
1) P~u~isicels shall be m~a, to resolve to the
sa~i~factic~ of the Bui14ir~ Official the
followir~ is~ r~la~ve to ir~-'l'allati~l of
a) Structur~ loads f.~ new w~]l~ (verti~l
b) Bachfill of gape creat~a be~__------n ne~ and
not to ermed the a~ign ~n~hilities of
at ~ t~ of the exist/n~ 1~ w~ll to
km~kft]l.
~i-~ir~ Divisic~:
1) ~he existi~ o~=~a utilities
k~lester A%~me s~11 be m-a--~jr~raed
the first pole off-sita south of the ~koJect's
side of ]~me~ Ave~me s~l 1 be
o~ceite side of ~o~leeter A~rme shall be
of the ul-tlities (electriml, e~ for 66 KV
miraus these (~-~-'- ..... ,,l:Lcaticrs) c~ the
asoluti~n No. 92-240
Page9
project side ~i~ the lenc3th £I~ the center
of Foothill Boulevaz~. to the south ~uject
bcu~t~vy (990~_ feet).
2) Foothill Bculev-ur~ shall be ccr~truc~a as
foll~, subject to m~t i ~icatic~ by and
~uval of r'~lt~ns, with lsnase I:
a) Full i;,~,~-~,_r~s c~ the south side
l%3chester A%~rmae to the west ~a~uject
kcura~y includin~ a c~,tinucus ri~t turn
laIle h~g~innir~ 230 feet %~eet of the
Foothill dri~4ay.
b) A ~ .~ai~n between
single ~rJ.~nt, in-liea f~__ will be
c) ~kiT-tw~ feet of Pm--.--,L c~ the
side of the median.
d) ~a Xe-i.~ ee (c~L~/ated meta~ pipe) in
ri%~,t-of-way %~ a to direct fl~ws to the
ins~-~med to the s~i,~[~ of the Cit]F
e) ~rm'mitkrs to ex~ M ~est of
satisfactim of the City ~ and
f) ~he Developer may request a r~{~-~-~t
~ ~at~n custs, r.~ future
develc~,~ as it ~=curs m the r~th side
l~¢~ki.l.1 ~ ~ be ?ta to ~ City
l~esolutic~ No. 92-240
Page 10
whidlever occurs fix~t. q~e m,n/nt of the
fee shall be ore-ba]~ the cost of the
t~ the length frcn the west ~oject
kz~ra~vy to a ~je~tic~ of the westerly
ri~lt-of-way line fcT "B" Street. If CalTrans
does not allow cum-tl-ucticml of the median in
ccraitic~l 2) b) , the fee 31mlts shall exter~
to a ~xojectic~ of the westerly ri~,t-of~way
line fur ~3cheeter Avelue.
4) R~=~ster AveTmme shall ~e ccr~truc~ea_ per
a~a~ed ~ No. 1431 with .P~ 1,
~=.-Jle~a by ot~-~. In ~z~Itic~, sidewalks,
street trees and a .~ =-h~-~d kus bay/ri~,t turn
lane north of the ~uject driveway sh~]] be
in~ca]/ed. ~he right turn lane sh~l ] begin as
5) An mblic storm ~ arU interior
PhaseI.
6) Public street _~p. cc~ditkF~ shall be
~i~ed as follo~:
a) PrDv/~e an ov~£1~w r~ute fi'~ "A" Street
to the seXch ~uject b~ura~-y and a
fcT thuee flc~s to .-~ through the
revieeU).
b) P~l~e an 0~=£1o~ route ~ Fc~l:bt~
FOCal 11 Bcllleva~ to la/3ntm{ ~,aw
~_.~,.a~ both wAw Sl:zBet and ~ i 11
7) ~be ~ se--mm a~an in FUo~t~ Bcu]avar~
asoluti~No. 92'240
interim undeveluped flc~B rr.'-,. the ruth side
of F~thill Boulevard, ~er the final
study, to the satisfactic~" of the City
public St=Tin dk~n]/1 maims iS 24
8) Om'lst:ruct the eaz'tJ'ien laerm m.~Lh of Foothill
Boulevard, as designed for the S~urts C~a~lex,
9) A traffic signal shall be installed at the
Street with Phase I. ~le developer my
the cost of the signal fr~n future develqT~t
as it ~xmrs c~ the ncrth side of Foothill
signal installatic~ at this ~{~, an in-lieu
fee for ~ I f the cost of the sig~l shall
~ of the fi~=t ~]a{.g in P~ase I.
s~cific P~n Dasi~ sum]-~.t, to
11) An in-lieu fee fcT crm-fcur~h the cost
to the t~m~."~ ~ I-s,l la.lrcJ ~eL"mits fCT ~P~
I. ~e fee L"~"Mt s}~11 ~e ~sse~
12) ~ the U~ffic sk3nal a~ the
13) A ~ sic~lk ~M shall km
features south ~f the FUoth{~ Bx~levar~
the City harmless fur dam~3e to cr
~,... l::riv-ately m~N:ained st~ features.
Resolutieq No. 92-240
14) All drive a~t~ches sh~]] ccmf~m to City
~vds. L~ger r~a~i (up to 20 feet
max~--m) my be used when ~rsitic~/ng f~ a
40-foot width at the right-of-~ay to 1~=~
a~-le widths cml-site, as shown cn the
plans, far "B" Street driveways in parti_,~n~r.
public ~e.=t r~,Lages.
16) No par~m of t~e "V/~aU~r's Walk," inc],~J
Bau/evard right-of-way.
Pray/he barUscape to the cu~b in t~e bus
18) Si~e~/k s~ crn~ ~rive a~x~e~es at the
19) ~he al',~-~'' tr/hfcary to E~ocheeter AM
Stay so that flM w~l mot ~ the
20) ~he sectbin of ~S" Street bet~Mn
200= feet south of Foothill Boulevard Si"uqll be
56 feet ~, to ~_- ...... '-'L,'te four
t.,.,,=aZfic lanes. Provkle a 40 q:h trareit.km
for tt.M~ outer lanes scxfch of tt..3e 4.-,way
Code of Civil Pra3sch=B Sectiota 1094.6.
to.- (a) certi~ to the ~ of this B~oluticn, ard
City Council lvljnutes
August 19, 1992
Page 6
There being no ftn'ther comments, the public hearing was closed.
/
A RESOLUTION OF TI~ CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, A..PPROVING A MODIFICATION TO
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. iS-04, TO CONSTRUCT A 2,500 SQUARE
FOOT BARN ON TH~ CH~4S~ARCIA SITE TO BE USED AS A MUSEUM
VICTORIA PLANNED MMUNITY, LOCATED ON T!~ WEST SIDE OF
b t tW,ad',fDA AVENUE, ORTH OF BASE LD'4E ROAD - APN: 227-513-05
MOT/ON: Moved by Stout` second yBuquettoadolxResolutionNo. 92-229. Mmioncaxriedunanirnousiy, 4.0.
I ('Wright absent).
12. CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-24 AND
PARCEL MAP 13845 - MA~I - An appeal of cerman Engineering and Planning Division Conditions of ,q,v, uval f~
Ccodidonal Use Permit 91-24, ~e development of 32 buildings toeling aiquroximately 268,907 square feet and
comprised of a mix of industrial, multi-tenant` office and restaurant t,~_e, and Tentative Parcel Matp 13845, a
subdivision of 30.2 acres of Land into 31 par.,els in the indusmal Park Disu'ict (Subarea 7) of the lndusn-ial
Specirx: Plan, Iocamd at the souffiwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue - APN: 229-011-10, 19,
21, 2.6, 27, and 28. Staff report presented by Otto IG'oudl, Deputy City Planner, and Belly Miller, Associate
Engineer. (0701-06 APPEAL) (0802-02 CUP)
Mayor Stout stated he was under the impression that the reason stuff reviews signs for projects odier than shopping
centers was because the Planning Commission had delegated that authority to staff, but felt the appellant assumed
th~ opposite was the case.
Otto IG'outil, Deputy City Planning, stated the Planning Commission has the authority to review all the sign
programs, but they have delegated the authority to staff on projects oliter than shopping centers.
Councilmember Alexander asked if staff were to review sign progrants, could the Pining Commission not
selectively pull a project out for review if they did not agree with slats decision.
Mayor Smut stated he thought the Pining Commission has already p,,,,b the decision that they want to review all
of it for ~is project.
Ouo IG'omil, Deputy City Planner, stat~ the Commission usually would not see things handled at suu'f leVel unless
a special request was made to put it on an agenda.
Mayor Stout stated it was his impression the developer wanted to install the tralTtc signal on Foothill at the time of
the development, so why would they have to pay an m-lieu fee.
Betty Miller, Associate Engineer, stated if the developer received permission from C. alrans to install the signal, the
City woald not mquare an in-lieu fee.
,=
City Council M. inut~s
August 19, 1992
Page 7
Mayor Stout stated then the requirement was a contingency in case they did not receive permission to install the
signal. He asked ilr Calrans would have any reason to deny the installation of Ue signal
Joe O'Neil, City Engineer, stated staff was not sure because they ddid not think that area would meet Culltans'
warrants, so he thought there might be some resistance m it. He felt Caltrans would allow the median cut if the
median was built, but would resist the signal a~ this ~ne.
Mayor Stout thought they bed a policy ~at aU median cuts had to be signalized.
Joe O'Neil, City Engineer, stated tha because there was not a north leg yet, it would not be as critical a factor for
Caltrdns.
Councilmember Buquet felt there would not be a problem with Calltans since the developer was pnshmg to beve the
median cut and would be providing the signal. He thought du~t they would allow the signal.
Mayor Stout opened the meeting for public heaz~ng. Addressing the Council wese:
John Mannerino, 9333 Base Line Road #110, representing the Masi family, felt there we~ six issues to be
addressed. He stated that in regards to the consultant, he silted it was Commissioner Melcher's suggestion
that a consultant be hired. He stated that it was clear that his concerns were not on issues such as the
durability of the material, but directed specifically to an artis~c consultant being hired to offer advice as Io
the artistic content of the statutes. He felt in today's economy consideration had to be given to conserve
funds where able, and the developer felt City staff was capable of generating artwork guidelines without
beving to hire another consultant. lie stated in rega,'ds to die sign issue, be stated it was sillTs mitiai
recommendation to the Planning Commission that the sip proFaro be aplxoved by silff but the Planning
Commission indicated that they wanted to review iL lie felt that since this was not a reilii center but a
mixed-use center, then staff should be allowed to review the sign program as pet neehal policy. He felt it
would be handled in a more t~mely manner and that staff was capable of reviewing the sign program. He
st,~ in regard to the Vintner's Walk improvements, they had a concen~ about vandalism if it was installed
prior to the consreaction of the buildings, and that when work began no ~ Two, a large portion of the
improvements would be desuoyed and beve to be done over. He felt the Masi's were well known in the
community and could be counted on to complete the improvements as reqinred after ouns~uction was
compleu~l.
John Mannefion slated they were sealslied with staffs recommendation on the drainage issue. He continued
with listing the developer's concerns in regards to the in-lieu fee for the Iz'alTu: signal sisre this signal is not
required by the Cily and does not appear in the Master Plan for die ~ He sla~,,d the developer has
voluntarily offend to insgall die signal. and diat this signal will benefit the public at large and not just
users of their projecL He smed if the Council requites the fee, he asked that the City might lategraze the
light into the Master Plan so that they would get credit on their ranspo~afion fees.
Todd Brersmet, 103T~ Trademast Sueet #A, Project Engineer fer die Masi's, spoke m reia~as to the median
on Foothill Boulevs'd. He refened to plans Lewis Homes had Madole and A~wi~t,~ prepare that showed a
six inch difference in the grade which is a significant difference from ~e planned median in dieir projecL
He undersued ~ Lewis Homes has posq~oned their plans for consmacl~ng ~ portion of their business
park which would require median consl'ucUon, and fell they should wait until die enlu~ matian was ready to
be consmsczd so their Fordno did nol bevc to be dug up and redone in order to meet the grade dkrfez~nce in
the Lewis secl~on. He atated they have both engineenng and economic concer~s thai if diey conlinoe with
their plans and build the median, it will he inconsistent with die remaining portion of median to be
consructed by Lewis Homes. He sxa~l they would like to request an opLion to place an in-lieu fee for the
consmZCMno Of the median.
City Council Minutes
August 19, 1992
Page 8
Councilmember Buquet asked if the City were to approve postponing the conslruc.ion of the median, would the
developer be wining to block that chiveway access into the project and only allow access from B Stl'eet ~t Rochester.
He felt it was impor,ant because if the median was not there, you would have conflicting n'affic pauems for the
intersection and ~e business center which could cause accidents.
Todd Bremner stated he was net in a position m give an immediate answer to that question, bat pointed out
that this portion of the project was in Phase Two. He felt there may be other means to contzol people from
turning left across traffic into the center and it might be possible to put something up to restrict
John Manoerino slated he has consulted with Ivtr. Masi and he would he willing to install the median when
they install that pa~icula~ driveway, and would be willing to work with staff in order to posl:pone
consauction until Pluse Two. He also wanted m clarify that in regards to construction of the Vinmefs
Walk, their intent was to put in the sidewalk and access facilities for the public, and that their mluest was
to delay installation of the bellis and artwork until consauction was nea~ completion. He .~nf_-d_ the lvlasi's
have always felt this was a public/private project, and they have voluntarily planned improvements above
and beyond the normal required items, and asked that the City be aware of the current economic slate.
There being no ftu'ther comments, the public hearing was closed.
Councilmember Buquet asked what was the timeline for completing Phase One and Fnase Two.
Brad BuHer, City Planner, stated that at the Planning Commission meeting the applicant indicated Phase Two would
follow within three months of Phase One.
Mr. Masi stated they anticipated sun. ing consauction of Phase One in Janua~ of 1993 with completion
scheduled for June or ,fuly. He stated Phase Two was scheduled to begqn in April of 1993, wilt completion
anticipated six months inlet.
Councilmember Buquez asked for ctmification on the comment made about the traffic signal not being n~luired by the
City.
Joe O'Nei3, City Engineer, stated the signal would have been requited ff the developff had mx volonteered to have
one installed.
Mayor Stout staled he would like to go over each of the items under the Analysis section of the staff relxxt and come
to a determinauon, He sued in regards to Item I of the Analysis, Final Aplavval Of the "Vinllter's Walk," he did
not know what it was the consultant was supposed to do. Hc asked what kind of consultant did the CommLuion
have in mind.
Brad Bullet, City Planner, silted the consultant would act in an advisory capacity, having expertise in the setting up
of displays of both art and history and coordinating with all involved in the projec~ to make sure all the different
coml~onents were harmonious,
Councilmember Alexander asked if there was anyone on staff tMt would I~c qualified to do thai.
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated staff did a similar function with the Thomas Winery project, working closely with
the Planning and Histalc Preservation Commissions.
Mayor Stout staed whatever concept the applicant came up with ulumately had to he approved by Ug City, so he
felt they should submit the ~nalized conceptual plans, and if it was not acceptable and they felt they needed a
consultant to help them, they could hire one at that dine.
City Council Minutes
August 19, 1992
Page 9
Councilmember Alexander felt they did not need a consultant. He felt staff and the Cornminions would be able to
work with the applicant on the design.
Councdmember Buquet felt they shotaid do what has been done in the past and let the developer make a pre. sentazic~
before saying they have to have a consultanL
John Mannertoo stated die Council passed a resolution stating the Historic Preservation Commission was
to ~,t~,u~'e the proposed slatues, that the concept and general placement of the statues has been appmve4,
but the Commission would approve the aesthetic nature of the statues.
Mayor Stout stated his intention when they passed that resolution was that the Historic Preservation Commission
should review it to insur~ it was consistent with the goals of preservation within the community, bet not szC.~urily
the aesthetics of the artwork itself. He stated the concept on how it would fit into the public improvements and
d~_ign of the center its~ff should be decided by the Planning Cc~nmissico.
The Council concux~d they should not require the appellant to him a catsultant, and that the Planning Commle-~:~_
should make the final decision with comments f~om the Hismfic ~ntin,I
The Council then discussed the Def~.,-'. of "Vinmer's Walk" Installation. Mayor Stout staled he an~ the
applicant's point of view, bet has seen improvements like this and the t~slance to insalling them when too mush
other consltuetion is allowed. He felt tJ~at since the phasing was going to he so close together a substantial ponitm
could be done during Phase One to the point where it would not overbtmkn the rest of the project if it was not
He felt it was sn'ictly a protection for the City, and did not feel it would hun the appellant since their ptuning
Councilmember Buquet ag~ed that the City has been b~'ned many limes befor~ in the ~ and felt ~ should be a
way to put some type of phasing togethe~ on this project for the improvement& He felt things ~ the landscaping
and curbs and sidewalks needed to go in fight away, bet things like the trellis could be delayed antil consu'uction
szarted on Phase Two.
Brad Bullet, City Planner, clarified if Cotmcil's insm~ction was to defer the construction of lhe Vinmer's Walk and
accompanying a~work to Phase Two if pennis for Phase Two and substantial construction of Plmse Two has begun
One until the Vthmet's Walk was undorconszmc~ion.
Council ccscun~t that would be a ~le t~p_,_-~__
Mayor Smut then tooved to Item No. 3, the Chaffey-Gatt'ia Bath Contribution. He stated they had almlly
this amount to $10,000.00 fn~m the original amount of $25,000.00, and the !~oject was just asp~,,ed mmght to go
out to bid, He smn,d the intention of the Council when the reduction was made was to allow fig developer to put
the $15,000.00 difference thto theit I~oject, so he felt their request was already granasd when Council reviewed it
previously.
Mayor Stout stated that in tegsrds to Item No. 4, Approval of Uniform Sign Program, he did not s~e why the
Planning Commission could not review it since they were the ones who delegaml slaff review in Ilg fu3t place.
Councilmember Buquet statad he did not understand what would he the difference between staff t~view or
Commission review, since sta/f ontmally reviews signs except for z~tail shopping centen.
.Mayor Stout felt with some of the changes that have been appmved in the project, it was slaning to restable a t~ail
cenu~, plus it was Iocal~l on Foothill in a vep/high profile area.
City Council Ivtinutes
August 19, 1992
Page I0
Councilmember Buquet agreed, but felt that staff would be sensirlve to the signage issue since they deal with it on a
regular basis. He stated he would be comfortable with staff reviewing it f'ust, and then the Planning Commission
could review it if they were not happy with staffs decisions.
Councilmember WiLljams asked if the signs had aitt~dy been revicwe<l during the Design Review process.
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated in Design Review they just present illuslrations showing where signs would be
located, but they ate not detailed drawings.
Councilmember Willlares stated she would be confident in staff conducting the review of the sign program.
Councilmember Buquet asked for cla.-i~cation of the difference between a staff review and Planning Commission
review of a sign program.
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated staff usually handles sign reviews over the counter once a program has been
established, but in this instance the Commission has found it is important to see the overall sign program. He
stated it was based on a center by center basis as to what the differences wonld be.
Councilmember ,alexander stated be also felt staff could handle the sign review.
Council con~ to allow staff to handle the sip review..
l~yot Stout then referred to Item No. 5, Foothill Boulevard Median and North Side Pavement Construction. He felt
the median should be installed and the center should not be allowed to open unless diese was a median.
Councilmember Buquet stated a comment had been made about median insta~ to the east of the project, and
s~ even in these hard economic times the City was facing their responsibility and installing the median for safety
reasons, and felt the developer should install the median at this time and have a reimbursement agreement set up so
they could be reimbursed when the north side of Foothill was developed, He felt there would be a lot of traffic
conflicts if they did ant install the median to control traffic.
Mayor Stout stated the City spelt approximately $800,000.00 to imprOve the intersection at Foothill and Rochester,
which normally this project would have paid for if it had developed Imor to the City finding it necessary.to improve
the intersection for safety rens4ms. He stated the City was also improving Rochester to benefit the sports complex,
but it will also benefit this project, so he felt the City has misted this project monetarily. He stated the need for
the median was a safety issue, not one ofansthetics.
Councilmember AJcxander asked if the median would have to be changed when 'the north side of the street was
developed by Lewis ~nce their plans were so different.
Joe O'Neil, City Enginea, stated be did not think that would happen beca,e~ the plans that Lewis.had Madole draw
up arc not approved ptans, so they would be required to match their pinns to the ones submined for this l~tojoct.
Councilmember Buquet stated if the Council allowed them to postpone construction of the medi,~n, he would
strongly recommend they do not allow access into Phase Two from Fonthill BoalevanL
iVlayor Stout stated that in regattts to Item No. 6, the Interim Drainage Improvements, he understtxid that when
Lewis completed dicir project on the north side of Fonthill, the old pipe would he unnncesss7 anyway.
Joe O'Neil, City Engineer, stated that was correct.
City Council Minutes
AugRst19, 1992
Page 11
Councilmember Buquet asked for clarificalion about the rn~intenance. who would be re,~0ortsible for majntaimng it.
Joe O'NeiL City Enginea, stnted it would be the City's responsibility to maintain. He stated the condiu'on was in
there for the developer to do the original wo~ in repairing and cleaning out the old line to a maintainable condition,
and then the City would maintain it unUl the new facililjes were built.
The Council cuncuned to accept sta/fs t~.~mmendat~on on this point.
The Council then diac,,~-~J Item No. 7, Deletion of Traffu: Signal "In-Lieu" Fees.
Councilmember Buquet stated he felt it was just a misunderstanding, that the developer thought they were offering
something above end beyond what the City requLred, but the City would have required that Intersection to be
signalized as a condition of the ptojecL
Mayor Stout asked for clarification on the requast for reimbtu'semenL
Joe O'Neil, City Engineer, stated the question of reimbursement had to do with the fact that this signal was not in
the ~tion fee program, bec~ the systems fee was set up to include sigllab that have a ccmmuniW benefiL
He stated this signal would be slric~y for the benefit of the adjacent property ownen. He staed the systems fee was
carefully set up to conform to the legal guidelines that ate required for a system fee Of this type. He staled the BIA
was involved with the development of this fee, end the City has followed the legal guidelines, and he felt that
inclusion of signals like this would taint the
Mayor Stout asked if it was a requiremeet of the ptojecL can they requite n signaft withoot it being a pan of the City-
wide system without having to pay a reimbursemenL
Joe O'Neil, City Engineer, stated yes. He stated if Caitrans did not allow them to install it at this time, staff is
recommending that the developer put up en In-lieu fee f~t thei~ haft of the signal.
Mayor Stout felt if the developer was allowed to install the signal, it was a moot point, but if they canno~ thee
maybe the City can defer the in-lieu fee and trigger it by some o~er method than issuance of bdiMing pennit~ for
Phase One. Maybe when they apply for occulaancy for Phase O~e.
Councilmember Buquet felt the occupancy of Phase One would be the best appmech. He stated they could n.y to
work with Cain"arts to get a~mvai for the signal
Councilmember Alexandea' s.zk,-d if they could defer the fee until they we~ ready for occupancy for Phase Two, since
that would be when they have the most
Mayor Stout felt it would be a problem if they were to start defemng too many things inert Phase Two, if s~nething
were to happen that they would not be able to complete the whole project, it would be less libly that they would
install the signal He sinled if they did not collect the fee and that area was found to he a sa~et3, hsuTnra, ~ City
would be liable for paying for the signal with no cunuibution flora the developor.
John Mennsrire staled Mr. M~el would like to prop~e a comlx'omise in that Ihe incident that would Isigger
the installation of the Vintoet's Walk and the payment of the in-lieu fee be when they ask for the occupancy
pertnit of the fast building of Phase One.
Mayor Stout stated he could see a problem with that in that the lease for one of the pads might fail through and the
final development would not be completed for a long rime, and that pt~ne,. TwO might be ccenpieted before t~ final
pad of Phase One was complete.
City Council Minutes
August 19, 1992
Page 12
Councilmember Buquet felt they should do evetTthing they can to assist with getting lhe a+,l~uval from Caltrans for
the installation of the signal, and then the fall back position would be that if they cannot get at,t. auval, then Ihey
would take an in-Lieu fee.
Rick Gomez, Communi~ Development Director, suggested they could take the in-Lieu fee prior to the release of the
rust occupancy of Phase One.
The Council concurred with Rick Gomez's suggestion.
The Mayor asked staff to return with a resolution covering all the decisions made tonight. that they coidd not
Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated that since it was an appeal, they wouM need findings for those marten
which they have not changed. and would recommend the Council direct slaff to bring a resolution back on the
Consent Calendar incorporating all of the changes made might,
Councilmember Buquet s~aled ha was unhappy that they spent so much time at this _me~__i_ng dieqssing this item and
then were unable to take final action. He felt staff should have presented al~ resolutioos and options tMt
they could have modified if~, and had it over with.
MOTION: Moved by Alexander, seconded by Willjams to bring back a resolutioll with the modifications on the
Consent C. alendar at the Septembor 2, 1992 meeting. Motion carried 4-0-1 OVright absent).
G. PIIRLIC H~ARING.q
Gi.
REOUIREMENTS FOR TAXICAB SERVICE (Continued from A S, 1992) (1206-06
TRANSPORT)
Mayor Stout stated there was a request to condnue this item s~nce requested as the August 5th
meeting was stiJI bein8 compiled and sup they continue dm next me~__i~8.
Mayor Stout re-opened the public hearing for the Item G1 to Ihe Septembor 2, 1992 meeting.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFOR AMENDING TITLE 8 OF TIlE RANCHO
CUCAMONGA CODE BY ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 8.30
' THEREIN RI~GI..rLATING AND PERMxri tNG
THE OPERATION,
MOTION: Moved by Willlares to cnotinun Item Gi to the September 2, 1992 meeting.
Motion canqed unammously,, (Wright absent).
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-24, A
REQUEST TO AMEND SPECIFIC CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RELATING TO THE PROJECT'S DEVELOPMENT AND
INFRASTRUCTURE PHASING, DESIGN REVIEW PROCESSING,
WAIVER OF $10,000 HISTOR/C PRESERVATION MITIGATION
CONTRIBUTION, AND DESIGN OF THE TRASH ENCLOSURE FOR A
27-ACRE CENTER, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND ROCHESTER AVENUE IN THE
INDUSTRIAL PARK DISTRICT (SUBAREA 7) OF THE INDUSTRIAL
AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, AND MAK/NG FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF - APN: 227-011-10, 19, 21, AND 26 THROUGH 28.
A. Recitals.
1. Masi Commerce Center Partners have filed an application for the issuance of Conditional
Use Permit No. 91-24, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the
subject Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application."
2. On the 251h day of January 1995, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing
on that date.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning
Commission of the City ofRancho Cucamonga as follows:
I. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are tree and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing on January 25, 1995, 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 southwest comer of Rochester
Avenue and Foothill Boulevard with a street ~'ontage of 1,250 feet along Foothill Boulevard and lot
depth of approximately 950 feet along Rochester Avenue and is presently vacant.
i ,
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. ~
CUP 91-24 - MASI
January 25, 1995 ~
Page 2
b. The property to the north of the subject site is vacant, the property to the south
consists of the Sports Complex, the property to the east is developed with the Agga77otti Winery,
and the property to the west is vacant; and
c. The property is designated "Industrial Park" by the Industrial Area Specific Plan.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public heating 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 use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the
Development Code and the Industrial Area Specific Plan, and the purposes of the district in which
the site is located.
b. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
c. That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the
Development Code and the Industrial Area Specific Plan.
4. The Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that the project identified above
in this Resolution is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15016 (b)(3) 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:
1 ) All conditions of approval contained in City Council Resolution 92-240
shall still apply, except Planning Division Conditions No. 2, 7, and 18,
which are revised as shown below:
2) A diagram providing color locations for the mylar/canvas
canopies shall be submitted for review and approval by
the City Planner prior to issuance of building permits.
7) A revised concept plan for the commissioned public art
and the interpretive public displays shall be reviewed by
the full Planning Commission. The revised concept plan
shall graphically depict how the Vintner's Walk,
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 91-24 - MASI
January 25, 1995
Page 3
commissioned art, and public displays will be developed
and maintained and how they will function as a whole.
Final detailed plans shall be reviewed and approved by
the City Planner prior to occupancy for either Building 5
or 6, whichever occurs first.
Installation of the Vintner's Walk hardscape and
landscaping shall be completed concurrently with Foothill
Boulevard improvements, prior to the release of
occupancy of any buildings in Phase I. Installation of the
Vintner's Walk trellises, vines, interpretive panels, and
public art shall be completed prior to the release of
occupancy of either Building 5 or 6, whichever occurs
first.
In the event permits have been issued and Phase II is
substantially under construction prior to the occupancy of
any building in Phase I, hardscape and landscaping
improvements may be deferred to be completed prior to
the release of occupancy of any building in Phase II.
18) All future building pads shall be temporarily seeded and
irrigated for erosion control. Erosion control plans shall
be reviewed and approved by the Building and Safety
division prior to issuance of building permits.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 25TH DAY OF JANUARY 1995.
BY:
E. David Barker, Chairman
ATTEST:
Brad Buller, Secretary
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. ~'
CUP 91-24 - MASI
January 25, 1995 ,
Page 4
I, Brad Buller, Secretary to the Planning Commission for the City ofRancho Cucamonga, do hereby
certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the
City Planner of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission
held on the 25th day of January 1995.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: