No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998/01/14 - Agenda PacketCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA WEDNESDAY JANUARY 14, 1998 7:00 PM Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center Council Chamber 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California I. CALL TO ORDER Roll Call Chairman Barker __ Vice Chairman McNiel __ Commissioner Bethel __ Commissioner Macias __ Commissioner Tolstoy __ II. ANNOUNCEMENTS III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES December 10, 1997 IV. CONSENT CALENDAR The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non- controversial. They will be acted on by the Commission at one time without discussion. If anyone has concern over any item, it should be removed for discussion. A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-30 - CHOU AND LI']'I'LE - A request to construct two industrial buildings (Building A - 18,196 square feet and Building B - 25,564 square feet) on 2.18 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 10838 and 10868 Bell Court - APN: 209-491-37. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. B A REQUEST TO SUMMARILY VACATE THE SOUTHERLY SEGMENT OF MILLER AVENUE WEST OF ETIWANDA AVENUE, 66 FEET WIDE, AS RELATED TO LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 412 - APN: 227-171-12 and 14. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS The following items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice their opinion of the related projecL 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 projecL Please sign in after speaking. C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-30 - MICHAEL GALAZ (MVP SPORTS GRILL) -A request to establish and legalize a restaurant/sports grill including on-site indoor and outdoor consumption of alcoholic beverages within an existing 9,000 square foot lease space in the Regional Commercial designation (Subarea 4) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan located within the Foothill Marketplace shopping center at 12809 Foothill Boulevard APN: 229-031-33. Related File: Entertainment Permit 97-03. (TO BE CONTINUED TO FEBRUARY 11, 1998) D. ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT 97-03 - MICHAEL GALAZ (MVP SPORTS GRILL) - A request to allow entertainment including, but not limited to, indoor and outdoor live entertainment, karaoke, DJ music, dancing, and amusement devices (arcade games, pool tables, dart boards, kids theater/play area) within an existing 9,000 square foot lease space in the Regional Commercial designation (Subarea 4) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan located within the Foothill Marketplace shopping center at 12809 Foothill Boulevard. APN: 229-031-33. Related File: Conditional Use Permit 97-30. (TO BE CONTINUED TO FEBRUARY 11, 1998) E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-33 ~ GOODYEAR RUBBER CO. - The addition of an 18,844 square foot metal building to an existing 33,820 square foot metal building on 3.84 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 3) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 8814 Industrial Lane - APN: 209-032-30,31 and 32. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. VI. NEW BUSINESS F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-35 - NORTHTOWN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION - A request to construct single family residences on 13 in-fill lots in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) within the Northtown area along Center Avenue, 24th Street, and 25th Street, east of Hermosa Avenue - APN: 209-101-04, 209-101-05. 209-102-08, 209-102-15, 209-102-38, 209-102-39, 209-103-24 through 26, 209-103-29, 209-104-24, 209-122-15, and 209-123-09. Related files: Development Review 95-03, Tree Removal Permit 97-23, and Minor Exception 97-22. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Page 2 VII. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS G. PATIO FURNITURE IN TERRA VISTA TOWN CENTER -RUBIO'S BAJA GRILL/LEWIS HOMES - A request to consider a corporate design, thatched (palapas) style, of outdoor patio umbrellas for a 2,200 square foot restaurant in a multi-tenant pad building, located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard, east of Aspen Drive and west of Montgomery Wards-APN: 1077-421-76. (Continued from December 10, 1997) H. APPEAL OF MINOR EXCEPTION 97-19 - BELMAL - An appeal of the City Planner's decision regarding block wall placement for a Minor Exception to allow an 8-foot high block wall where a maximum height of 6 feet is allowed in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) located at 9218 La Grande Street - APN: 202-055-01. I. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS 97-03 - MASI COMMERCE PARTNERS - A request to consider amending the definition of Auto Service Court in Subarea 7 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. J. APPEAL OF INCOMPLETENESS FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-40 - M.E,C.C,A, -An appeal of the City Planners determination of incompleteness for an application to use two existing buildings totaling 2,058 square feet as a church facility, located on a 2.86 acre parcel within the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at 9212 Base Line Road - APN: 202-242-09. K. USE DETERMINATION 97-02 - OPTIONS FOR YOUTH - A request to determine that a youth counseling/educational service is similar to an administrative office and is a permitted use within the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. VIII. PUBLIC COMMENTS This is the time and p/ace for the general public to address the Commission. Items to be discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS L. REVIEW OF THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD TASK FORCE DRAFT POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS X. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11:00 p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission. Page 3 I, Gall Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certi~ that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on January 8, 1998, at/east 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. Page 4 VICINITY MAP · k CITY HALL CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ' STAFF REPORT DATE: January 14, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission ' FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Brent Le Count, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-30 - CHOU AND LII'rLE - A request to construct two industrial buildings (Building A 18,196 square feet and Building B 25,564 square feet) on 2.18 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 10838 and 10868 Bell Court- APN: 209-491-37. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A Surrounding Land Use and Zoninq: The site is surrounded to the north, west, and south by industrial buildings within the Rancho Cucamonga Business Park and a vacant parcel to the east, General Industrial District (Subarea 8) Industrial Area Specific Plan B. General Plan Desianations: Project Site - General Industrial North - General Industrial South - General Industrial East General Industrial West - General Industrial C. Site Characteristics: The site has been graded to create a fiat pad. Vegetation consists of wild grasses and weeds which have been mowed. The site is one of the few remaining vacant parcels within the Rancho Cucamonga Business Park. The site slopes from nodh to south at approximately 3 percent. D. Parkinq Calculations: Number of Number of Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces of Use Footaae Ratio Required Provided Office 4,000 1/250 16 18 Manufacturing 11,500 1/500 23 23 Warehouse 28,260 1/1000 2__8 2__8 TOTAL 43,760 67 69 ITEM A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 97-30 - CHOU & LITI'LE January 14, 1998 Page 2 ANALYSIS: A. General: This review is for consideration of environmental clearance only. The City Planner will take final action following environmental clearance. The applicant is proposing two painted tilt-up type buildings with deep reveals organizing wall surfaces into geometric patterns, use of columns and color variation and dense landscaping to accent the buildings. A Master Plan was approved for the area in 1986 including a provision for zero side setbacks where buildings on adjacent parcels abut one another. The proposed development is generally consistent with the approved Master Plan and with the style and type of development in the area and both buildings would abut buildings on adjacent parcels. B. Desiqn Review Committee: The project was considered by the Design Review Committee (McNiel, Coleman) on December 3, 1997, at which time the Committee recommended to the City Planner that the project be approved with conditions. C. Technical/Gradinq Review Committee: The Technical and Grading Review Committees have reviewed the project and recommend approval subject to conditions. D. Environmental Assessment: Par~ I of the Initial Study has been completed by the applicant. Staff completed Part II of the Initial Study, the Environmental Checklist. Staff feels that no significant adverse environmental impacts would result from development of this project. If the Planning Commission concurs, then issuance of a Negative Declaration would be in order. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission issue a Negative Declaration for Development Review 97-30. City Planner BB:BLC:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Utilization Map Exhibit "B" - Site Plan Exhibit"C" - Elevations Exhibit "D" Grading Plan Exhibit "E" Landscape Plan Exhibit "F" Design Review Committee Action dated December 2, 1997 Exhibit "G" - Initial Study Part II \ .......... ~% / / ,~ ~ ~Vj t~x ~,,,~o,,~, ,,,~,,,~ ~ -- ' " ' '/ ~ PROJECT DATA ~ e ~ o ~' I I / PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN A- 1 PA~T~ ACCENT~ ~ ~ I I :~ ~:-~ /__ ,,, III iial ,, j~/_ -~..,J~ ...... ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ //~ ~ ~ ~----~ BUILDING B ~ EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 10838 BELL CT 108e8 BELL CT , ~ g I I ~ / PRELIMIHARY LAHDSCAPE PLAH P' DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:40 p.m. Brent Le Count December 2, 1997 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-30 - CHOU AND LITTLE - A request to construct two industrial buildings (Building A 18, 196 square feet and Building B 25,564 square feet) on 2.18 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 10838 and 10868 Bell Court - APN: 209-491-37. Design Parameters: The vacant site is one of the few remaining to be developed parcels within the Rancho Cucamonga Business Park. A Master Plan was approved for the area 1986. The development scheme consists of painted tilt-up type buildings with deep reveals organizing wall surfaces into geometric patterns, use of columns and color variation and dense landscaping to accent the buildings. The Master Plan includes zero side setbacks where buildings on adjacent parcels abut one another. The proposed development is generally consistent with style and type of development the area and both buildings would abut buildings on adjacent parcels. Building "A" would abut an existing building to the west and Building "B" would abut a planned building to the east shown to have a zero setback per the Master Plan. Both buildings are proposed to have loading area dock high doors and truck parking spaces notched at the rear of the buildings well hidden from Bell Court. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus ofCommittee discussion regarding this project: 1. None - Staff believes the proposed buildings are compatible with surrounding development and with the overall design standards of the Industrial Area Specific Plan and Planning Commission Policy including use of two primary building materials (painted concrete and sandblasted concrete). Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. Provide landscape planters along east and west property lines at northeast and northwest comers of site to avoid having paving run directly up against base of perimeter walls (continuation of planter along north property line). Planters and parking should be designed to provide hammer head-like area for backing out from end parking spaces. 2. Provide tables and seats within employee outdoor eating areas. Also, either relocate eating areas away from loading docks or provide buffer the form of 4-foot screen walls. 3. Provide a minimum of one tree per 30 linear feet of property line (3 trees) along south side of Building "B," suggest Canary Island Pines or a Podocarpus variety. Ground surface can either be treated with shade tolerant ground cover or gravel to minimize maintenance. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee recommends approval subject to the modifications recommended above. Attachment: Approved Master Plan EXHmIT "F" DRC COMMENTS DR 97-30 - CHOU AND LITTLE December 2, 1997 Page 2 Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Brent Le Count The Design Review Committee recommended approval of the project subject to the following conditions: 1. Provide landscape planters along east and west property lines at northeast and northwest comers of site to avoid having paving run directly up against base of perimeter walls. Planters and parking should be designed to provide a hammer head-like area for backing out from end parking spaces. 2. Provide tables and seats within employee outdoor eating areas. Relocate eating areas away form loading docks or provide buffer in the form of 4-foot high screen walls. 3. Provide a minimum of 1 tree per 30 linear feet of property line (3 trees) along the south side of Building "B," such as Canary Island Pines or a Podocarpus variety. Ground surface may be either treated with shade tolerant ground cover or gravel to minimize maintenance. 4. Provide trees along the north sides of Buildings "A" and "B" to provide shade for adjacent parking spaces.  City of Rancho Cucamonga TF ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIS ORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-30 2. Related Files: DR 86-26 3. Description of Project: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-30 - CHOU AND LIT]'LE - A request to construct two industrial buildings (Building A - 18,196 square feet and Building B - 25,564 square feet) on 2.18 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 10838 and 10868 Bell Court - APN: 209-491-37. 4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Victor Chou and Robert Little 4340 Campus Drive #208-B, Newport Beach, CA 92660 5. General Plan Designation: General Industrial 6. Zoning: Subarea 8 (General Industrial) Industrial Area Specific Plan 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The site is surrounded by similar tilt up type one- and two-story industrial buildings. 8. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 9. Contact Person and Phone Number: Brent Le Count (909) 477-2750 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 97-30 Page ? ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ( ) Land Use and Planning ( ) Transportation/Circulation (f) Public Services ( ) Population and Housing (~/) Biological Resources ( ) Utilities and Service Systems (v') Geological Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources (~') Aesthetics ( ) Water (~) Hazards ( ) Cultural Resources ) Air Quality ( ) Noise ( ) Recreation ( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: (v') I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ( ) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project, or agreed to, by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ( ) I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ( ) I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based upon the eadier analysis as descdbed on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EiR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Signed: ~4b-~L/~/~ Brent Le Count, AICP Associate Planner, November 5, 1997 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 97-30 Page 3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an explanation is required for all "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact" answers, including a discussion of ways to mitigate the significant effects identified. 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposah a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) (~) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( ) (~) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ( ) d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community? ( ) 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ( ) ( ) ( ) (t/) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (V) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 97-30 Page 4 I Potentlaity Pomntially Unless Than 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS, Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~) b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') d) Seiche hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~) e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') f) Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') h) Expansive soils? ( ) ( ) (V) ( ) i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) ( ) (t./) Comments: h) The General Plan indicates the Tujunga-Delhi soil association for the site which "may have soil bearing capacities that could limit some development. Structures proposed on this soil type should be permitted only after a site specific investigation has been prepared that indicates that the soil can adequately support the weight of the structure." A soils report will be required by the Building and Safety Division prior to issuance of building permits. The impact is not considered significant. 4. WATER. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? ( ) ( ) (v') b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) ( ) (v') c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? ( ) ( ) (v') d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? ( ) ( ) J Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 97-30 Page 5 e) Changes in currants, or the course or direction of water movements? ( ) ( ) (~) ~ Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ( ) ( ) g) A}temd direction or rote of flow of groundwater? ( ) ( ) (~) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) ( ) ( ) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater othe~ise available for public water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~) 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposah a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ( ) ( ) Potenlially Unless Than 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal resufl in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g, sharp cu~es or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 97-30 Page 6 c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ( ) ( ) (v') d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) ( ) (v') e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) ( ) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g.. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) ( ) (~) g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ( ) ( ) (v') I Potentia~y [ Signeric, ant Impacl Less Potentially Unless Than 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? ( ) ( ) (v') ( ) b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees, eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Comments: a) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service identifies the project area soil type as Tujunga Delhi Sand Soils which is a type of soil that is associated with the endangered Delhi Sands flower-loving fly. No other unique, rare, or endangered animal species are known to be potentially located on the project site. The site is not considered high quality habitat due to soil disturbance from previous grading and the lack of flowering vegetation. J Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 97-30 Page 7 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposah a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ) ( ) (v') b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? ) ( ) (v') c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? ) ( ) (v') 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? ( ) ( ) (~/) ( ) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~/) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~/) e) Increased fire hazard in areas with ~ammable brush, grass, or trees? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Comments: a) The project proposes speculative industrial buildings. Manufacturing activities can include use of oil. chemicals, and/or radiation and therefore could pose a hazard. Use of any such hazardous substances will require special permits to ensure safe handling, storage, and operation. The impact is not considered significant. 10. NOISE. Will the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 97-30 Page 8 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered government sen/ices in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? ( ) ( ) (~') ( ) b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~') c) Schools? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) ( ) ( ) (V') e) Other governmental services? ( ) ( ) ( ) Comments: a) Manufacturing activities may include use of hazardous chemicals which would require special permits from the Fire Prevention District. The impact is not considered significant. 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~) b) Communication systems? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') e) Storm water drainage? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') f) Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (t/) 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposah a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') J Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 97-30 Page 9 c) Create light or glare? ( ) ( ) (V) ( ) Comments: c) New light and glare will be created since the site is currently vacant. A condition of approval will require lighting to be designed to contain light on the property and avoid casting excess light and glare onto surrounding properties or public rights-of- way. I Potentially S~gni~cant Impact Less Potentially UnJess Than 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal.' a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v~) b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') c) Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~') e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') 15. RECREATION. Wouldthe.proposah a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (Y) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (y) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 97-30 Page 10 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate impo~ant examples of the major periods of California histo~ or prehisto~? ( ) ( ) ( ) (y) b) Shod term: Does the project have the potential to achieve sho~-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A sho~-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time. Long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) ( ( ) (f) c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other currant projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) ( ) ( ) (~) d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ( ) ( ) (~) EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiedng, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The following earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply): (v')General Plan EIR (ce ined Apri, 6, J Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 97-30 Pa~le 11 (v') Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989) (v')Industrial Area Specific Plan EIR (Certified September .19, 1981 ) (v') Initial Study/Negative Declaration for Development Review 86-26 (Cerffified October 8, 1986) APPLICANT CERTIFICATION I certify that I am the applicant for the project described in this Initial Study. I acknowledge that I have read this Initial Study and the proposed mitigation measures. Further, I have revised the project plans or proposals and/or hereby agree to the proposed mitigation measures to avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant environmental effects would occur. City of Rancho Cucamonga NEGATIVE DECLARATION The following Negative Declaration is being circ~ ,ated for public review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act Section 21091 and 21092 of the Public Resources Code. Project File No.: Development Review 97-30 Public Review Period Closes: January 14, 1998 Project Name: Project Applicant: V~ctor Chou and Robert Little Project Location (also see attached map): Located at 10838 and 10868 Bell Court APN: 209-491-37. Project Description: A request to construct two industrial buildings (Building A - 18,196 square feet and Building B - 25,564 square feet) on 2.18 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. FINDING This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has conducted an Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment and is proposing this Negative Declaration based upon the following finding: [] The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. FI The Initjal Study identified potentially significant effects but: (1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this proposed Negative Declaratjon was released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and (2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment. If adopted, the Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. Reasons to support this finding are included in the attached Initial Study. The project file and all related documents are available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division at 10500 Civic Center Drive (909) 477-2750 or Fax (909) 477-2847. NOTICE The public is invited to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration during the review period. January 14, 1998 Date of Determination Adopted By CITY OF RANCHO CUCAIVIONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: January 14, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer BY: Mafia E. Perez, Assistant Engineer SUBJECT: A REQUEST TO SUMMARILY VACATE THE SOUTHERLY SEGMENT OF MILLER AVENUE WEST OF ETIWANDA AVENUE, 66 FEET WIDE, AS RELATED TO LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 412 - APN 227-171-12 & 14 BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS In February of 1984 the City accepted an offer of dedication for the southerly portion of the ultimate alignment of Miller Avenue by a separate document. The applicant for Lot Line Adjustment 412 is proposing to vacate the original Miller Avenue at this time and fully dedicate the realigned Miller Avenue, subject to improvement. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make the finding, through minute action, that the street vacation conforms with the General Plan. This finding will be forwarded to the City Council for further processing and final approval. Respectfully submitted, Senior Civil Engineer Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Vicinity Map and Street Vacation Area ITEM B MI:EEER'AV~ENOE ;'_o CITY OF ITEM:Miller Avenue Vacation RANCHO CUCAMONGA TITLE: Vicinity Map ENGINEERING DIVISION EXHIBIT: "A" CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ' STAFF REPORT DATE: January 14, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Brent Le Count, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-30 - MICHAEL GALAZ (MVP SPORTS GRILL~ - A request to establish and legalize a restaurantJspods grill including on-site indoor and outdoor consumption of alcoholic beverages within an existing 9,000 square foot lease space in the Regional Commercial designation (Subarea 4) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan located within the Foothill Marketplace shopping center at 12809 Foothill Boulevard -APN: 229-031-33. Related File: Entertainment Permit 97-03 ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT 97-03 - MICHAEL GALAZ (MVP SPORTS GRILL) - A request to allow entertainment including, but not limited to, indoor and outdoor live entertainment, karaoke, DJ music, dancing, and amusement devices (arcade games, pool tables, dart boards, kids theater/play area) within an existing 9,000 square foot lease space in the Regional Commercial designation (Subarea 4) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan located within the Foothill Marketplace shopping center at 12809 Foothill Boulevard - APN: 229-031-33. Related File: Conditional Use Permit 97-30 The property owner, the Watson Company, has rescinded cedification of the above referenced applications, as the proposed activities violate lease agreements with other tenants (Exhibit "A"). The Watson Company has indicated that the matter can be resolved but that it will take approximately one month to obtain necessary approvals from other tenants. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue the public hearing for Conditional Use Permit 97-30 and Entertainment Permit 97-03 to February 11.1998, without further public notice. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner Attachments: Exhibit "A" Landlord's letter ITEM C & D ~AN 87 '98 17:31 TO 989~*/'r2847 FROM T1-E WATtSON CObPANY T-4~G P. IB2 Jara~ary 7, 1998 Mr. Brent Le Count AIC'P, Associate Planner 10500 Civic Centor Drive Rancho Cucamongs, CA 91730 Re: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-:10 - IVIVP SPORTS GRU.I. ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT 97-03 - MVP SPORTS Gi~n.L FOOTHILL MARKETPLACE - R.4aNCHO CUCAMONGA Dear Brent: Thank you for the correspondence for a conditional use permit and entertainment permit for MVP Sports Grill at Fooflffil Markedplace. ks the Landiord at Foothill Marketplace, we cominually support our tenants that have various needs within the shopping center. However, we cannot support the application for the Conditional Use Permit ~ Entertahment Pern~ a~ this time. Prcscttdy, these uses violate our lease terms with several dour "major tenant" at Foothill Marketplace. Therefore, prior to any Landlord's approval, w~ w~ll ncc:d to submit ]otters to our major teamus for their acceptance of the use permits. Again, we do our best to support or tenants, however, carmot risk violating our lease tenus with our tenants. Please contact me should you have any questions at (714) 757-7776. Sincerely, Diana Pope Property Manage~ 36Q0 Birch St., Suite 250 Newport Beach, CA 92660 714.757.7776 hx 714,757.7788 CITY OF RANCH0 CUCAIVIONGA - STAFF REPORT DATE: January 14, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Nancy Fong, AICP, Senior Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-33 - GOODYEAR RUBBER CO. - The addition of an 18,844 square foot metal building to an existing 33.820 square foot metal building on 3.64 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 3) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 8814 Industrial Lane - APN: 209-032-30, 31, and 32. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Site Characteristics: The site consists of three parcels, the westerly and northerly parcels are developed with a metal building and parking area. The easterly parcel is vacant. The southwesterly corner of the site is a remnant parcel that contains a single family home. The owner of the lot and the residents have long been aware of the existing manufacturing uses. The southern end of the site abuts the Metrolink rail. B. Surroundinq Land Uses: North Industrial Development; General Industrial District ( Subarea 3) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan South - Metrolink Rail East Industrial Buildings; General Industrial District (Subarea 3) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan West Vacant; General Industrial Distdct (Subarea 3) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan C. Parkinq Calculations: Number of Number of Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces of Use Footaoe Ratio Reauired Provided Existing Warehouse 12,000 1/1000 12 Existing Office 1,500 1/250 6 Existing Manufacturing 20,320 1/500 41 Proposed Manufacturing 1,540 1/500 3 Proposed Warehouse 17,304 1/1000 1_Z7 _ TOTAL 52,664 79 77* * See Section C for parking analysis ,, TTP. b~ ~. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 97-33 GOODYEAR RUBBER CO. January 14, 1998 Page 2 ANALYSIS: A. General: The applicant, Larry Sears of Goodyear Rubber Co., is the owner and the occupant of the existing metal building. He manufactures rubber lining for tanks. He needs to expand his business and proposes to add on to the existing metal building. The new addition will be on the easterly parcel. This manufacturing use is classified as Medium Manufacturing, which requires a Conditional Use Permit. Because the site improvements and the manufacturing business were established before the City was incorporated and the adoption of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, the proposed expansion requires a Conditional Use Permit. To address some of the non-conforming on-site improvements, the applicant proposes to improve and upgrade the existing parking area to the current standards by providing 20 to 30 feet of landscape setback along Industrial Lane street frontages and a decorative masonry screen wall behind the landscape setback. He also proposes to install the same decorative masonry wall on the east and south property boundaries to screen any activities related to his manufacturing business. Staff believes that the proposed improvements would significantly upgrade the existing conditions. The Industrial Area Specific Plan does not allow the use of metal material in the General Industrial District. However, the Design Review Committee has previously approved the use of metal material for additions to existing metal buildings. This is the case for this project. The proposed design has a few architectural treatments such as metal Iouvers, windows at the top of the building, and steel metal canopy at the north elevation. B. Desiqn Review Committee: The Design Review Committee, (McNiel, Coleman) reviewed the proposed project on December 2.1997, and recommended approval with conditions (Exhibit "F"). They are as follows: 1. Provide large enough weep holes at 10 feet on center along the length of the masonry wall at the south property boundary to allow for vines to grow on the Metrolink side of the wall and deter unwanted graffiti. 2. Use split face matedal for the paint storage enclosure area at the east side of the new building. 3. Use a combination of split face and fluted materials to create a pattern which would provide visual interest for the masonry screen wall along the east and south property boundaries and along Industrial Lane street frontages. 4. Provide mounding within the landscape setback area. C. Parkinq Analysis: Based on the square footage of the existing and proposed manufacturing, office, and warehouse uses, the total number of parking spaces required are 79 spaces. The site shows 73 parking spaces, hence. a shortfall of 6 spaces. However, to meet the requirement of fire access, the row of parking spaces at the south side of the existing building as shown in Exhibit "C2" has to be eliminated. This would reduce the available parking spaces down to 54 spaces. Staff, with the concurrence of the applicant, has revised the parking layout for the parking area east of the existing building and the area at the southwest corner of the site. The revised parking layout achieves a total of 23 spaces. This would bring the total number of parking spaces back to 77, with a shortfall of only 2 spaces. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 97-33 GOODYEAR RUBBER CO. January 14, 1998 Page 3 The applicant has requested a Minor Exception to reduce the required parking. A Minor Exception allows the reduction of parking spaces up to 10 percent. According to the applicant, the expansion of his business would not increase the total number of employees. At the largest shift, the total number of employees on-site is 58. Therefore, the site has sufficient parking spaces to accommodate the proposed expansion. Upon approval of the Conditional Use Permit, the City Planner will issue a letter of approval for the Minor Exception. D. Environmental Assessment: Staff has completed an environmental review of the proposed project and determined that there will not be significant impact to the environment and a Negative Declaration is recommended. FACTS FOR FINDING: The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and the Industrial Area Specific Plan. The design of the proposed project, together with the conditions of approval, meets the applicable provisions of the Development Code and the Industrial Area Specific Plan. The development of the project will not have a significant impact on the environment. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 300 foot radius of the project site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit 97-33 through the adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with Conditions. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:NF:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Utilization Map Exhibit "B" - Site Plan Exhibit "C" - Revised Parking Layout Exhibit "D" - Grading Plan Exhibit"E"- Elevations Exhibit "F" - Design Review Comments dated December 2, 1997 Exhibit "G" - Initial Study Part II Resolution of Approval with Conditions tEN E 487.00' __ EXISTING CHAINL' \ EXISTING A/C BERM TO REMAIN ,32' 4a' 1-' ~ 02' EXISTINS ~ ROOF ONLY CONCRETE ~ CANOPY · SLAB I 174.5' EXISTING BUILDING FIN. FLR. ELEVATION 100.00' F-1 XISTING FIREWALL (2 HR-)~L~ , 27,285 S.F. FIRE S~RINKLERS IN EXISTING & PROPOSED BUILDING O~E ~ RELOCATED IST. DUST EX HD > 400.5' COLLEC OR EXIST· OHD CRYO PROPOSED OHD 40 -- W,I. FENCE ~ ~ MASONRY WALt ~ I -- W,I, 26' SLIDH 9' I1' 6' MASONRY' C ~3' W.I. GATES ""], ~NDSCAPING ~ 6' DEDICATION NEW 35' EXPANDED TO ~T-6" 3/4" 12. W/PLUG L/S 2386 FLUSH BY PALM CHAIN FENCE EXISTING HOUSE 20' 13~'4'-8 1/4" 15'-3 43'-2 SEBOLOS PROPERTY ~ (NOT A PART) A/C D~KE __ ASEMENT APN NUMBER 209-032-33 TO REMAIN 62' 150.00' ROOF ( CANO A/C dIKE TO REMAIN _ --EXISTING 6' HIGH ~ C/L FENCE 58.5' ,,' 50' ' 46' H-2 H-2 ~' 3,200 S.F. 3,680 S.F. ~_~ DOWN / CONCRETE RAMP 51' D ~ L 1 HR. FIREWALL ~ ~ XF%t~ 2 HR. FIREV ·- EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT · TO BE RELOCATED '~,~s;~uE ,// PROPOSED BUILDING FIN. FLR. ELEVATION 98.50' "EpL~,TP, EOPOLE 18,844 S.F. OUT F- 1 OCCUPANCY L~N_.E IIN CONSTRUCTION 26' w.I. GATE- DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Nancy Fong December 2, 1997 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-33 - GOODYEAR RUBBER CO. - The addition of 18,844 square foot metal building to an existing 33,820 square foot metal building on 3.64 acres of land the General Industrial District (Subarea 3) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 8814 Industrial Lane - APN: 209-032-30,31 and 32. Design Parameters: The site consists of three parcels. The westerly and northerly parcels are developed with a metal building and parking area. The appiizant, Good Year Rubber Company, is the owner and the occupant of the building, who manufactures rubber lining for tanks. The applicant needs to expand his business and proposes to add another metal building to the existing one. The ne~v addition ~vill be at the easterly vacant parcel. The manufacturing use is classified as Medium Manufacturing which requires a Conditional Use Permit. Because the site improvements and manufacturing business were established before the City was incorporated and the adoption of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, the proposed expansion requires a Conditional Use Permit. At the most southwesterly side of the site is a remnant parcel that contains a single family home. The owner of the lot and the residents are well aware of the existing manufacturing uses for a long time. The southern end of the site abuts the Metrolink rail. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: 1. Site Plan: The existing improvements such as parking area, outdoor storage area, percentage of landscaped areas, etc., are non-conforming as it does not meet the current development standards. The issue staff raised was to what extent should the improvements be brought up to current standards. The applicant proposes to improve and upgrade the existing parking area to the current standards by providing 20 to 30 feet of landscape setback along Industrial Lane street frontages and a decorati:'e masonry screen wall behind the landscape setback. He also proposes to install the same decorative masonry wall along the east and south property boundaries to screen any activities related to his manufacturing business. Staff believes that the proposed improvements would upgrade the existing conditions. The following recommendations would further enhance the project: a. Provide large enough weep holes at 10 feet on center along the length of the masonry wall at the south property boundary to allow for vines to gro~v on the Metrolink side of the wall and deter unwanted graf~ti. 2. Elevations: The Industrial Specific Plan does not allow the use of metal material the General Industrial District. However, the Design Review Committee previously has approved the use of metal material as long as the new addition is attached to the existing metal building. This is the case for this project. The proposed design has a few architectural treatments such as metal louvers and windows at the top of the building and steel metal canopy at the north elevation. Staff recommends further enhancement to the south elevation since it is subject to Metrolink view. Secondary, Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Conmqittee will &s ss~t e x~mg secondary desl~,n ~ssues. O'~P s fa~e material for the paint storage enclosure area at the east side of the new building. DRC COMMENTS CUP 97-33 - GOODYEAR RUBBER CO. December 2, 1997 Page 2 2. Repaint the existing building to match the new addition. 3. Use a combination of split face and timed materials to create a pattern which would provide visual interest for the masonry screen wall along the east and south property boundaries and along Industrial Lane street frontages. 4. Provide mounding within the landscape setback area. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee approve the project subject to the modifications as recommended above. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Nancy Fong The Design Review Committee recommended approval with the following conditions: 1. Provide large enough weep holes at 10 feet on center along the length of the masonry wall at the south property boundary to allo~v for vines to grow on the Metrolink side of the wall and deter unwanted graffiti. 2. Use split face material for the paint storage enclosure area at the east side of the new building. 3. Use a combination of split face and fluted materials to create a pattern which ~vould provide visual interest for the masonry screen wall along the east and south property boundaries and along Industrial Lane street frontages. 4. Provide mounding within the landscape setback area. City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM IhlITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: Conditional Use Permit 97-33 2. Related Files: Minor Exception 97-24 3. Description of Project: The addition of 18,844 square foot metal building to an existing 33,820 square foot metal building on 3.64 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 3) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 8814 Industrial Lane - APN: 209- 032-30, 31, and 32. 4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Goodyear Rubber, Inc. 8814 Industrial Lane Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 5. General Plan Designation: General Industrial 6. Zoning: General Industrial District, Subarea 3 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: North - Zoned industrial and developed with industrial buildings South - Metrolink rail East - Zoned industrial and developed with industrial buildings West - Zoned industrial and undeveloped 8, Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 9. Contact Person and Phone Number: Nancy Fong, AICP, Senior Planner (909) 477-2750 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: Permit from AQMD to operate the expansion of manufacturing rubber lining. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 97-33 Pa~le 2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages, Land Use and Planning ( ) Transportation/Circulation ( ) Public Services Population and Housing (X) Biological Resources ( ) Utilities and Service Systems Geological Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources ( ) Aesthetics X) Water ( ) Hazards ( ) Cultural Resources X) Air Quality (X) Noise ( ) Recreation ( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: (X) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ( ) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project, or agreed to, by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ( ) I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ( ) I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based upon the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or Signed:mitigati~;~~.~d upon the proposed project. December 2~Ar~997 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 97-33 Page 3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an explanation is required for all "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact" answers, including a discussion of ways to mitigate the significant effects identified. Signif*t,.ant Impact Less Issues and Supporting Ir~o~ation Sources: Potenteli'/ Unless Tha~ I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal.' a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) ( ) (X) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( ) ( ) (X) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ( ) ( ) (X) d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community? ) ( ) ( ) (X) 2. POPU~TION AND HOUSING. Would the proposah a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Induce substantial gro~h in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g.. through projects in an undeveloped area or e~ension of major infrastructure)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. WcJd the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving? a) Faults rupture? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 97-33 Page 4 Signscant c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Seiche hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) f) Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) h) Expansive soils? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) ~.....~ sup,o.i~ i~,~,.,,i,= so.r..: s~.~l ~it.o.l~o.s~.~.~ 4. WATER. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ( ) ( ) (X) f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ( ) (X) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) ) (X) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) (X) ( ) i) Substantial Feduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 97-33 Page 5 Comments: a) The development of the site would increase paved surfaces which would increase discharge of surface water. However, installation of drainage facilities according to City's Standards is required for the site, which will handle the increase in surface water. c) & h) The proposed use within the future building will require the storage of hazardous materials such as waste oil, resins containing amines, oil absorbent and paint as shown in the attached list. The hazardous materials are stored in drums within an enclosed area and are picked up for recycling. The applicant is required to meet all Building and Fire Codes including the construction of a containment area where the materials are stored so that any accidental spillage of the materials will be contained and will not be discharged in the drainage facilities or affect the quality of ground water. 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal.' a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) ( ) ( ) X) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ( ) ( ) ( ) X) d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ( ) ( ) X) Comments: a) The manufacturing process will emit particulate 8,000 Ibs/year including Zinc Oxide 200 Ibs/year and Dioctyl Phthalate 80 Ibs/yr. The applicant is required to meet all air quality codes and obtain permits from AQMD in order to operate the use. 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.9., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 97-33 Pa~le 6 Potentialh/ SignScant Impac~ Less Potentially Unless 1hen Issues end Suppor'~ Irrfon?lati{xl Sources: S ntI d c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: a) The expansion of the use will increase the number of truck and vehicular trips. However, the site and the public streets are designed to handle the increase. 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? ( ) ( ) ( ) X) b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees, eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? ( ) ( ) (X) ) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) X) d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh. riparian. and vernal pool)? ( ) ( ) ( ) X) e) Wddlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) ( ) ( ) X) Comments: b) The development of the site will require removal of four mature eucalyptus trees. The locations of the existing trees conflict with the required driveway and fire lane access. The applicant is required to obtain a Tree Removal Permit for the removal of the four mature trees and is required to replace them at a rate of one to one with a minimum of 36-inch box size trees. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 97-33 Page 7 SignfficantMitigation Significant mNo~ 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal.' a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) ISSues ar~l Supp~telg ~otmAlion Sources: Potsntially Unless 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? ( ) ( ) ( (X) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) ( ) ( (X) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: a) An accidental spill may happen with storage of hazardous materials. However, the containment area will minimize the impacts of the spillage. t 0. NOISE. Will the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) ( ) (X ( ) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 97-33 Pa~e 8 Comments: a) & b) According to the applicant, the manufacturing process will generate an increase of interior and exterior noise of up to approximately 85 db. The applicant is required to provide sound insulation to meet the noise standards of 75 Ldn in the Industrial Area Specific Plan. 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or aflered government se~ices in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Schools? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Other governmental se~ices? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? ( ) ( ) ( ) X) b) Communication systems? ( ) ( ) ( ) X) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) X) d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ( ) ( ) X) e) Storm water drainage? ( ) ( ) ( ) X) 0 Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) ( ) X) g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) X) I ..... and Sup~.~g Infomation S ..... S~nffi~nt Mitigation S?~2~nt I~ 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal.' Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 97-33 Page 9 S~gnifican[ lmpac~ Less Issues and Supp~l~ng Information Sources: Poten[ially Unless Than a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) ( ) (X) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? () () (X) c) Create light or glare? ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: a)& b) The site backs up to Metrolink railroad. To screen the activities on site, the applicant is required to construct a decorative block wall with weep holes for vines to grow. The decorative block wall and the vines will improve the aesthetic of the site. 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposah a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) ( ) (X) c) Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) ( ) (X) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? () () (X) e) Restdct existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( ) ( ) (X) 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal.' a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 97-33 Pa~le 10 S 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate impodant examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Shod term: Does the project have the potential to achieve shod-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one whirlS, occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time. Long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) .:~- ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: The proposed project is consistent with the General plan and the Industrial Area Specific Plan. The development of the site would not create adverse environmental impact. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The followin9 earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the City Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 97-33 Pa~le 11 of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply): (X) General Plan EIR (Certified April 6, 1981) (X) Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989) (X) Industrial Area Specific Plan EIR (Certified September 19, 1981) ( ) Industrial Area Specific Plan, Subarea 18, EIR (SCH #93102055, certified June 15, 1994) ( ) Victoria Planned Community EIR (Certified May 20, 1981) ( ) Terra Vista Planned Community EIR (SCH #81082808, certified February 16, 1983) ( ) Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan EIR (SCH #87021615, cedified September 16, 1987) ( ) Etiwanda Specific Plan EIR (SCH #82061801, certified July 6, 1983) ( ) Etiwanda North Specific Plan EIR (SCH #89012314, certified April 1, 1992) ( ) Other: ( ) Other: APPLICANT CERTIFICATION I certify that I am the applicant for the project described in this Initial Study. I acknowledge that I have read this Initial Study and the proposed mitigation measures. Further, I have revised the project plans or proposals and/or hereby agree to the proposed mitigation measures to avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant environmental effects would occur. Print Name and Title:/-/h'~J'j-2 72 ,~"~<~FE,_~ *~/P~c',~ ,'b(,-,>J 7"'  Sheet1 ,.. GOODYEAR RUBBER COM.P. ANY 8833 INDUSTRIAL LANE · CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 91730-4597 · PHONE (909) 987o1774 -- FAX (909) 989-4233 HAZS H I P 12/3/97 · GOODYEAR RUBBER COMPANY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PROJECT CUP 97-33 HAZARDOUS WASTE SHIPMENTS TYPE: PAINT FILTERS PAPER OIUH20 SHOT OIUABS RESINS OIL UNITS: POUND POUND POUND GAL POUND POUND GAL GAL 1/12/96 "' 500 300 100 55 4/10/96 165 110 600 250 7/1/96 110 450 500 ..... 9/29/96 55 300 395 10/18/96 75 10/22/97 1200 12/30/96 55 600 3/19/97 2500 500 1000 6/2/97 450 210 300 6/5/97 165 45 9/15/97 1 400 9/16/97 900 9/17/97 215 TOTALS: 548~ 2001 100 755 60.0 3445 75 45 PAINT WASTE PAINT CAKE & DEBRIS, 3, UN1263 II FILTERS NON-RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE SOLID (SPRAY BOOTH FILTERS) OIUABS NON-RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE SOLID (OiL/ABSORBANT) OIUH20 NON-RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE LIQUID (OIL/VVATER) SHOT NON-RCRA HAZARDO(;JS WASTE SOLID (STEEL SHOT SAIL4D BLAST GRIT) PAPER NON-RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE SOLID (PRODUCTION PAPER :'fR,~H) OIL NON-RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE LIQUID GNASTE OIL) RESIN WASTE FLAMMABLE LIQUIDS, CORROSIVE N.O.S. (RESINS CONTAINING AMINES), UN2924, Page 1 City of Rancho Cucamonga NEGATIVE DECLARATION The fo~owing Negative Declaration is being circulated for pubtic review in accordance with the California Environmental Qua~ty Act Section 21091 and 21092 of the Pubtic Resources Code. Project File No.: Condi'donal Use Permit 97-33 Public Review Period Closes: January 14, 1998 Project Name: Project Applicant: Goodyear Rubber, Inc. Project Location (also see attached map): Located at 8814 Industrial Lane - APN: 209-032-30, 31, and 32. Project Description: The addition of an 18,844 square foot metal building to an existing 33,820 square foot metal building on 3.64 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 3) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. FINDING This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has conducted an Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment and is proposing this Negative Declaration based upon the following finding: [] The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. [] The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects but: (1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this proposed Negative Declaration was released for public review would avoid the effects or mYdgate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and (2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment. If adopted, the Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. Reasons to support this finding are included in the attached Initial Study. The project file and all related documents are available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division at 10500 Civic Center Drive (909} 477-2760 or Fax (909) 477-2847. NOTICE The public is invited to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration during the review period. January 14, 1998 Date of Determination Adopted By RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ENVIRONMENTAL ASGESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97-33, THE ADDITION OF AN 18,844 SQUARE FOOT METAL BUILDING TO AN EXISTING 33,820 SQUARE FOOT METAL BUILDING ON 3.64 ACRES OF LAND IN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DIGTRICT (SUBAREA 3 ) OF THE INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED AT 8814 INDUSTRIAL LANE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF APN: 209-032-30, 31. AND 32. A. Recitals. 1. Goodyear Rubber company has filed an application for the issuance of Conditional Use Permit No. 97-33, 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 14th day of January 1998. the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public headng on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites pdor to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE. it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public headng on January 14, 1998, including wdtten and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located at 8814 Industrial Lane, at the southwest comer of Industrial Lane and Feron Boulevard, with a street frontage of 560 feet and lot depth of 597 feet and is presently improved with a 33,820 metal building and parking area. b. The properties to the north and east are developed with industrial buildings, the property to the south is the Metrolink rail, the property to the west is vacant. c. The applicant proposes to expand and add 18,844 square feet to the existing metal building. d. The existing site improvements are nonconforming because the site was developed before the City's incorporation and the adoption of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. e. The development of the vacant portion of the site for the expansion will bring the site improvements as close to meeting current standards as possible, which significantly improve the conditions. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 97-33- GOOD YEAR RUBBER January 14,1998 Page 2 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public headng and upon the specific findings of facts set fodh in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code and the Industrial Area Specific Plan, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; b. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and c. The proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code and the Industrial Area Specific Plan. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows: a. That the Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder; that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, furlher, this Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the application. b. Based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the 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 headng, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference: Planninq Division 1 ) Provide large enough weep holes at 10 feet on center along the length of the masonry wall at the south property boundary to allow for vines to grow on the Metrolink side of the wall and deter unwanted graffiti. Final design subject to City Planner review and approval, prior to issuance of building permits. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 97-33 - GOOD YEAR RUBBER January 14, 1998 Page 3 2) Use split face materials for the paint storage enclosure area at the east side of the new building. 3) Use a combination of split face and fluted materials to create a pattern for the masonry screen wall along the east and south properly boundaries and along Industrial Lane Street frontages. Final design subject to City Planner review and approval, prior to issuance of building permits. 4) Provide mounding within the landscape setback area along Industrial Lane. 5) Submit a Tree Removal Permit for the removal of four Eucalyptus trees. Replacement trees are at the rate of one-to-one and of 36-inch box size, pdor to issuance of grading permits. 6) Provide additional trees and shrubs to augment the existing landscaping along Feron Boulevard street frontages, to the satisfaction of the City Planner, 7) Provide dense landscaping such as, increase number of trees and shrubs within the landscape setback area along Industrial Lane street frontages and at the comer of Industrial Lane and Femn Boulevard. 8) Approval is granted contingent upon approval of Minor Exception 97-24 for parking. Enqineerina Division 1) Vacate the excess right-of-way along Industrial Lane as shown on the County Assessor Parcel Map. 2) A reciprocal access easement allowing the parcel adjacent to the southwest comer of the project to utilize the existing drive aisle along the west property line (via Feron Boulevard) or along the east and south property lines (via Industrial Lane) shall be provided, prior to issuance of building permits. 3) If the applicant acquires the westerly adjacent parcel, Condition No. 2 is null and void, The acquisition of the westerly adjacent parcel will require a lot merger to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 4) The parkway grade shall be 2 percent draining from the back of sidewalk to the curb. No boulders shall be allowed within the City right- of-way. Buildinq and Fire Safety Division 1 ) The applicant shall meet with Building and Fire Safety Division staff to review the occupancy of the proposed and existing buildings, prior to submittal of plan check. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall cedify to the adoption of this Resolution, PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 97-33- GOOD YEAR RUBBER January 14,1998 Page 4 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 1998. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Bullet, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 14th day of January 1998, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT#: Conditional Use Permit 97-33 SUBJECT: 18,844 square foot metal buildin9 APPLICANT: Good Year Rubber Company LOCATION: 8814 Industrial Lane (southwest corner of Industrial Lane and Feron Boulevard ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Time Limits completion Date 1. Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, if building permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 24 months from the date of approval. 2. Pdor to recordation of the final map or prior to the issuance of building permits when no map is involved, written certification from the affected water district that adequate sewer and water facilities are or will be available to serve the proposed project shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development. Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. B. Site Development 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors. landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, Development Code regulations, and the Industrial Area Specific Plan. 2.Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 3. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection Distdct and the Building and Safety Division to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. Project No. (~UP 97-33 Completion D!te 4. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. All site, grading. landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 7. A detailed on-site lighting plan, including a photometric diagram, shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and Police Department (477-2800) prior to the issuance of building permits. Such plan shall indicate style, illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties. 8. Trash receptacle(s) are required and shall meet City standards. The final design, locations, and the number of trash receptacles shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 9. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers. AC condensers. etc.. shall be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. For single family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults. C. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans) 1.All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances, and exits shall be striped per City standards. 2. 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. D. Landscaping 1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan. including slope planting and model home landscaping in the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. 2. A minimum of 20% of trees planted within industrial projects, and a minimum of 30% within commercial and office projects, shall be Specimen size trees - 24-inch box or larger. 3.Within parking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-gallon tree for every three parking stalls, sufficient to shade 50% of the parking area at solar noon on August 21. 4. For multi-family residential and non-residential development, property owners are responsible for the continual maintenance of all landscaped areas on-site, as well as contiguous planted areas within the public right-of-way. All landscaped areas shall be kept free from weeds and debris and maintained in healthy and thriving condition, and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing, and trimming. Any damaged, dead, diseased, or decaying plant material shall be replaced within 30 days from the date of damage. Project No. CUP 97-33 Completion Date 5. The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to City Planner review and approval and coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the Engineering Division. 6. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909} 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: E. Site Development 1. The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of issuance of relative permits. Please contact the Building and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new commercial or industrial development or addition to an existing development, the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include. but are not limited to: TransporLation Development Fee, Drainage Fee, School Fees, Permit and Plan Checking Fees. F. Grading 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. 2. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: G. Dedication and Vehicular Access 1. Dedication shall be made of the following rights~f-way on the perimeter streets (measured from street centerline): 31total feet on Industrial Lane. 2. Corner property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards. H. Street Improvements 1. All public improvements (interior streets, drainage facilities. community trails, paseos, landscaped areas, etc.) shown on the plans and/or tentative map shall be constructed to City Standards. Interior street improvements shall include, but are not limited to, curb and gutter, AC pavement, drive approaches, sidewalks, street lights, and street trees. SC-~97 3 Project No. CUP97-33 Comoletion D~te 2. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: Street Name Gutter Pvmt walk Appr. Lights Trees Trail Island Trail Industrial Lane X X (f~ X X X (e) Feron Boulevard X (g) X X Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement reconstruction and overlays will be determined dudng plan check. (c) If so marked, sidewalk shall be curvilinear per STD. 114. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu of construction fee shall be provided for this item. (e) Handicapped access ramp ((f) 4-foot wide property line adajcent (g) 6-foot wide curb adjacent. 3. Improvement Plans and Construction: a. Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights on future signal poles. and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. b. Prior to any work being pe~ormed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any other permits required. c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing. traffic signal conduit, and interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR, or any other locations approved by the City Engineer. Notes: (1)Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200 feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer. (2) Conduit shall be 3-inch (at intersections) or 2-inch (along streets) galvanized steel with pull rope or as specified. e. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. Project NO. CUP 97-33 Completion Date f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. g. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards, except for single family residential lots. h. Street names shall be approved by the City Planner prior to submittal for first plan check. 4.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. 5. Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with adopted policy. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project intersections. including driveways. Local residential street intersections and commercial or industrial driveways may have lines of sight plotted as required. I. Public Maintenance Areas 1. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. J. Utilities 1. Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas, electric power, telephone, and cable 'IV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility Standards. Easements shall be provided as required. 2. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. 3. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the Cucamonga County Water District (CCVVD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from the CCVVD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. K. General Requirements and Approvals 1.The separate parcels contained within the project boundaries shall be legally combined into one parcel prior to issuance of building permits. 2. A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated operating costs for all new street lights for the first six months of operation, pdor to final map approval or prior to building permit issuance if no map is involved. Project No. CUP 97-33 Completion D!te APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730 FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: L. General Fire Protection Conditions 1. Fire flow requirement shall be 3,000 gallons per minute. a. A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department personnel prior to water plan approval. 2. Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided prior to water plan approval. Required hydrants, if any, will be determined by the Fire District. Fire District standards require a 6" riser with a 4" and a 2-1/2" outlet. Substandard hydrants shall be upgraded to meet this standard. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specifications on approved brands and model numbers. 3. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for all hydrants and installed prior to final inspection. 4. An automatic fire extinguishing system(s) will be required as noted below: Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15. Note: Special sprinkler densities are required for such hazardous operations as woodworking, plastics manufacturing, spray painting, flammable liquids storage, high piled stock, etc. Contact the Fire Safety Division to determine if sprinkler system is adequate for proposed operations. 5. Sprinkler system monitoring shall be installed and operational immediately upon completion of sprinkler system. 6. Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District's fire lane standards, as noted: X All roadways per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 22. 7. Fire Department access shall be amended to facilitate emergency apparatus. 8. All trees and shrubs planted in any median shall be kept trimmed a minimum of 14'6" from ground up so as not to impede fire apparatus. 9. A Knox rapid entry key vault shall be installed prior to final inspection. Proof of purchase shall be submitted prior to final building plan approval. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specific details and ordering information. 10. Gated/restricted entry(s) require installation of a Knox rapid entry key system. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specific details and ordering information. 11.A tenant use letter shall be submitted prior to final building plan approval. Contact the Fire Safety Division for the proper form letter. 12. Plan check fees in the amount of $645.00 have been paid. An additional $62.50 shall be paid: X Prior to water plan approval. Project NO. CUP 97-33 Cornp}etion Date Note: Separate plan check fees for fire protection systems (sprinklers, hood systems, alarms, etc.) and/or any consultant reviews will be assessed upon submittal of plans. 13. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1994 UBC, UFC, / UPC, UMC, NEC, and RCFD Standards 22 and 15. M, Special Permits 1. Special permits may be required, depending on intended use, as noted below: a. General Use Permit shall be required for any activity or operation not specifically described __ __/__ below, which in the judgement of the Fire Chief is likely to produce conditions hazardous to life or property. Complete plan review shall be submitted for review and approval prior to starting any construction. UFC 1001. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAlVIONGA ' ~ STAFF REPORT DATE: January 14, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Dan Coleman, Principal Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-35 - NORTHTOWN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. - A request to construct single family residences on 13 in-fill lots in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) within the Northtown area along Center Avenue, 24th Street, and 25th Street, east of Hermosa Avenue o APN: 209-101-04, 209-101-05, 209-102-08, 209-102-15. 209-102-38, 209-102-39, 209-103-24 through 26, 209-103-29, 209-104-24, 209-122-15, and 209-123-09. Related files: Development Review 95-03, Tree Removal Permit 97-23, and Minor Exception 97-22. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Proiect Description: This is Phase 2 of the Northtown Housing Development Corporation affordable housing in-fill program. Northtown Housing Development Corporation's goal is to construct affordable single family homes to provide needed housing and a positive influence. The house designs are identical to the Phase 1, which was approved by the Planning Commission on March 8, 1995 and completed in 1996. B. Site Characteristics: The 13 parcels within the Northtown community are vacant with mature trees, shrubs, and grasses. All parcels have frontage on improved streets. The lots stope two percent from north to south. ANALYSIS: A. General: The applicant has designed three floor plans with two alternate elevations each. These single story homes feature covered porches and detached two-car garages. The homes are designed with elements of the "craftsman" architectural style based upon the few remaining fine examples of this style in the neighborhood. The Planning Commission conducted a Pre-Application Review of the proposed design concepts on January 11, 1995. The Commission praised the craftsman style architecture, front porches, and use of detached garages. B. Desiqn Review Committee: The Committee (Bethel, Macias, Fong) reviewed the project on December 16, 1997, and recommended approval. ITEr~ F PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 97-35- NORTHTOWN HOUSING DEV. CORP. Janua~ 14,1998 Page 2 C. Technical Review Committee: On December 17, 1997, the Committee reviewed the project and determined that, with the recommended standard and special conditions of approval, the project is consistent with all City standards and ordinances. The Grading Committee recommended approval of the project at its meeting on December 16, 1997. D. Environmental Assessment: The Initial Study has been completed and a determination made by staff that there is one area of concern. The project will remove five heritage trees (not including fruit or nut bearing trees). Staff has reviewed the project and determined that it has been designed to preserve as many healthy trees as practical. Most of the trees proposed for removal are too small to be considered heritage trees or suffer from disease, neglect, or weak form. As required by the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance, the trees will be replaced. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with conditions and issuance of a Negative Declaration. Respectfully submitted, City Planner BB:DC:MB:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" Location Map Exhibit "B" Site Plan Exhibit "C" Grading Plan Exhibit "D" Floor Plans Exhibit "E" Elevations Exhibit "F" Tree Removal Plan Exhibit "G" Design Review Committee Action Comments dated December 16, 1997 Exhibit "H" Initial Study Part II Resolution of Approval with Conditions PROJECT VICINITY MAP ,~ ~ JI c~r.~ ~.~. ~L.~..A~ ~I,~!~XM~' ~.....~.~ 2e~ ~. 25~ ~. ~T ~, Af.l~ ~R · ' ~f~ I.A.S.P. Subarea 6 ~ ~;: ................. i! (~ Vacant ~3""' ' '''~ y .................. · i. ' LEGEND: °'"' i}i: :: ':~': :"' "' ' " '',:_~_ii: .. ,.c .......[] "L" :~:; Io ee >~ ..... .......................... : _ . I ;: - . e 0 : ® I.A.S.~. SG'l~area 6 ~ ~/acant .... "LM" ~ ; ~!~ I,A.S.P. S~"6area 5 ,~. ,,~,~.~:,~ ' .-~ ,/' ~ - ~ .. INFILL :::: ~_~ OF ~ ~CHO CU~ON~. ~ T.~ ' , , ...., HANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALF. SITE UTILIZATION/KEY PLAN .... . ............... ,--ECT"C.NI',,M,p NORTHTOWN INFILL PROJECT ' CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLANS SHEET INDEX MAP // pROPERTY SCHEDULE ~ SHEET INDEX MAP GENERAL NOTE~ ,__ ~ ,,~ .............. ~C~N 'l~--~'S EARTHWORK qUANTITIES: ................. _ ,,, 6RADNN6 PLANS o~-- "i ~..~ l, t~ ' ,. , ,, . -,~ ::,, ~2~ .... ...................... : ::::=:. ....................... DEnDISIl' CI~ OF ~NCHO CUCAMONGA I~ O I~-~1 , CONCEpTuAL ...... ......... ;'~';~ ....... "- =.; GRADING PLANS k i~,) Phase II C~T B ~A~ O CUC-dtMON NORTHTOWN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORP. RANCliO CUCAMONGA, CALF. ....... Phase II IITI~ILL DEVELOP/~IE ~ OF a ~CHO CU~ON~, ~ NORTHTOWN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORP. 'tj' ~',~' RANCliO CUCAMONGA, CALIF ...... ,,_ : ~,~.;:.'E:.:'~...'.:'.'.:':: "A" RIGHT "A" LEFT  ' "B" FRONT .=,,~..::Phase II IIFILL D~LOP]E ..~.. NOHTHTOWN HOHSING DEVELOPMENT COHP. ' ............... fl~NCHO CUC~MONGA, ChLIF. PLAN ] ~" ~' ":: ~:::~ ::: ;m 'A" RIGHT . "A" FRONT ~' ':~~ ~ ~ ..........,.,"~" ,~. ' :'~.: . i "B" FRONT .... ,~,=-.=.~'Phase II ~ . ~IIFILL D~LOP~E ~ff OF B~CHO ~~O~, ~ ~,~,~,~,:-.~,~. ~,~ NOrTHTOWN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CO~P. ~NCHO CUC~MONG~, C~LIF. PLaN 2 *~ ...............  ~ "A" RIGHT "A" FRONT ! ! = ...... "A" LEFT - - - ! "B" FRONT -=.-,=PhaselI NORTHTOWN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORP. RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIF. PLAN 3 FRONT RIGHT REAR LEFT :..-=:,:;,: Phase II INUFILL DEVELOPME art or n A_~rcno CUC, AMo~GA, CA~,w- ;i~'.LT~;; RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIF. GARAGE '~"~;,~"'~ ............... City of Tree Removal Permit Rancho Cucamonga DEVELOPMENT GENERAL INFORMATION ORMORETHAN5TREESOR50'LINEARFEETOFWINDRO Ordinance No. 276, pertaining to the preservation of trees on private property, requires that no person remove or relocate any woody plants in excess of fifteen (15) feet in height and having a single trunk circumference of fifteen (15) inches or more and multi-trunks having a circumference of thirty (30'i ~nches or more (measured twenty-four (24) ~nches from ground level), without first obtaining a Tre~ TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT: LOCATIONOFSUBJECTSITE' Va=ious s'ites. See at'cached list0 . Pete= J. Pitassi, AIA A ' ' FAPPLICANT: 8439 Wh-lte Oak Ave., Suite 105, Bancho Cucamonga, CA (909) 980-1361 Northtown Housing Development Corp., 9999 Feron Blvd., #A, Rancho Cucamonga, ]ICA (909) 9~0-0465 R[ASONS ~O~ REMOVAL (a~ach mecessa~y shee~s)z ~ To facilitate development of single family homes on these vacant lots. Units were plotted to save as many tress as possible. ~~~/~ j ~p nt during grading operationl' / APPUCANT'SSSGNATUR DAT[2 11/4/97 D~TSONAL RUNG 8 This application shah include a plot plan indicating location of aU trees to be removed and retained The species, number, and size of the trees to be removed shall be so designated. If a tree is diseased then a written statement from a licensed arborist stating the nature of the disease shah be required~ ACTION -- Evaluation of this application is based on the criteria on the reverse side, D APPROVED D DENIED By: Reasons: Date: Notification of application shall be given to property owners within a three hundred foot radius ten days i e i y f t or building permit issuance, whichever comes first. Should applicant fail to remove the trees within t~is 90 day period, a new permit shall be required, unless an extension is requested fourten (14) days p or to the /~xpWration of the permit. TREE REMOVAL APPLICATION Revised 12/3/9 7 The following Phase Two infill lots will have trees removed during the construction process. When known, the tree's species, size (trunk diameter), and condition have been identified. See the attached copy ofthe Preliminary Grading Plans for location ofthe trees to be removed. Lot A2: 6 trees will be removed. I (5) 6" Fruit. m (1) 24" Walnut. (4) 4"-6" Sapplings. (2) 3" unknown. · (3) 6"-12" unknown. (1) 12" Palm to be relocated by NHDC Lot C2: 5 trees will be removed. 2' high Palm. · 18" wind damaged Oak. · Palm stump. · (2) 24" unknown. Lot D2: 2 trees will be removed. · 6" Cactus. ,~ 12" Cactus. Lot E2: 3 trees will be removed. 3" Ficus. 4" Fruit. 6" Fig. Lot F2: 3 trees will be removed. · 18" Oak. t. 6" unknown. ,': ~ 10" stump. Lot G2: 5 trees will be removed. 2" Sapptings. · Cactus massing 3" Fruit. (2) 6" Pomegranate. 25th St. DR 97-35 , ~-. P~TER l, PITASS1. AIA A ~ C H I T E C T 843q WHllE OAK AVE $rE ~05 ~ANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA q~730 FAX (q0~} ~44-58t4 I' [ 10163 25th St. ~ Lot B2 i I --4 L.. ~.~/ Alternate Site Plan Lot B2 HOUSING D~ . o;; ~ Gam~ ON~RUCCION R~I DEN~ 32.10 ]I.50FG +. +- + 31.50FG J -.-..'>. T.P.C.C.- ': 30.90 . FJ /~..,..~,.,. --- ~ ~ :' -- -- Z EXIST. ALLEY %--x T :" X X :..7 .. - · 26.02 25.98FS '-3:1 SLOPE wood ~uuM. TO ~ .D~.= ~ 25.00FG 5 1.00' 0 ' ' ~ ~.s' E.D  24.60 ~/~ ~ox. F.L ~ TC :' / s.55 FS ~ 24.30 FG ~ 23.80 ~ ,.~ k __ ~zC/~l~ :,-'Z."-::~ b 24.70TC(~ \ o ' '. 2~.OOFG \ +~ H.P. ~<;~ F.G. ... / 22.30FS 22.2oFG / -~ 21.70 + ~lT i. O0' 22.35TC 22.75 21.55Tc 1.00' O' AREA BE + LF:: 0.50' ,, \\ \ 'F.L ~ -. +. ~CE J EXISTING ALLEY ..... - r"L_ N89'35'2a*V 50,01 APPROX. 4' ALLEY ~? EXISTING ALLEY N89'35'.~",,/50,01 X ~ 29.70 ~ + co ::L/F.L -3:1 SLOPE MAXIMUid 29,70 29.4OF. G: APPROX. 11.9' %.AN 1.'R E.D.F.=I.; so.o~ TO BE ~Y o T Neg'35'Se".' C.L FENCE 23.10 H.P./F.L 23.00FS ~'~'-,7~//f~ ". "IR 22.00 F.L I 10' AREA TO/BE I 24 th 5T~,l~cf 3~' BL~ BE V~ 20.40FC 18.90 H.P. + 19.70FC 3.5' ~K W~ '~ 5.9' 18.95 19.20FG F.S. ~+~ 3,9' FS 18.10 F,L 18.50FC -- C.L ~CE T~.~m W/CONC. MOW-CURB .- ~.~oFs ~×~ 24.40 F.L OCK W~,t, ,.. c~ c~, / 7777 ; 25.75 F.L E,D.F.= 1.00 PAO-24,eO \\ \ F.F.-28,¶O ~// ~ LOT 'K-2' PLAN II! f-"--- ( ~ F.C. /N..2~/k ;0: ~CE AREA BE EXISTING ALLEY DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS CONSENT CALENDAR 8:50 p.m. Miki Bratt December 16, 1997 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-35 - NORTH TOWN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORP. - A request to construct single family residences on 13 infill lots in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) within the North Town area along Center Avenue, 24th Street, and 25th Street, east of Hermosa Avenue - APN: 209-102-08, 209-102-15, 209-102-38. 209- 103-26, 209-103-25. 209-103-24, 209-104-24, 209-101-05, 209-122-15, 209-123-09, 209-101-04. Related Files: Development Review 95-03 and Tree Removal Permit 97-23. Attachment: Design Review Comments dated February 14, and 28, 1995 Desiqn Review Committee Action: Members Present: Bill Bethel, Rich Macins, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Miki Bratt The Committee recommended approval. DESIGN P,_EVIEW COMM~ENTS 5:40 p.m. Dan Coleman February 1.4, 1995 ENrVIRON?v'gENTAL ASSESSMENT ANrD DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 9503 - NORTHTO~,VN HOUSI~G DEVELOPMENT CORP.- A request to construe! single family residences on 12 infill lots in the Low Residential District (2-4 d`'velling units per acre) within the Northto`.','n area along 24th Street, 25th Street, and Humboldt Avenue, east of Hermosa Avenue. - APN: 209-102-19, 31; 209-104-16, lg; 209-111-04, 15, 16; 209-112-26; 209-123-25. Related File: Pre-Applioation Review 94-05 ' Background: Trds project was revie,.ved by the Platre. tag Corrtmission at a Pro-Application Revie,.v workshop on Ja_qu.a.ry 1 I, 1995. The Cornn~ission praised the craftsmen style architecture, front porches, end use of detached garages. Concerns expressed b'y the Commission included asphalt composition roof material, predominant stucco materials on side and rear elevations, and chimney siding materials. Corns'nears were made that the craftsman style should '.',Tap horizontal siding around all sides and use masom'y chimneys. See a~ached minutes. Design Parameters: The Northtow'n Housing Development Corp. (NHDC) goal for this project is to provide quality affordable single fas'nily detached homes that will positi','ely influence the community and inspire pride of ownership. The lots are scattered tt'u'oughout the Northto~vn area and represent the first phase of NHDC's efforts to acquire and build affordable single family detached housing. The proposed craftsman architecture is based upon the few remaining fine examples of this style in the neighborhood. Much of the housing stock within the Northto'.~'n area is pro-1950; unfortunately, many of these older craftsman homes have been modified with rather insensitive stucco-over ireatments and aluminum frame windo`.vs. Staff Comments: The follo,.ving comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. !Maior IsSues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Co'm.mittee discussion regarding this project. 1. Composition versus tile roof material. The Plea. ninE Commission has a policy requiring tile roofs on new residences. However, they have approved the use of composition roofing on several other projects, including one Design A'.vard wirmer, where appropriate for the architectural style. Stagsupports the use ofcomposltlon shingle material as consistent with the craftsman architecture. 2. Stucco versus ho~zontal siding on side and rear elevations. Commission policy is "if the front is sided, then siding should be used on all elevations". On Plans I & 2 the siding is used as an accent material on only 1/2 ofthe front elevation. On Plea 3 the entire front of the house is sided, and is '.,,-rapped around the sides to logical stopping points. Staff supports the use of stucco on the sides and rear elevations to maintain affordability and reduce long term maintenance costs. Secondan' Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time pe~,'-mitting, the Com:mittee '.viii discuss the following secondary design issues. DRC COMMENTS DR 95-03 - NORTHTO\VN Februar),14,1995 Page 2 1. A undetermined number of existing trees must be removed; however, consistent with Commission policy existing health>' trees are being presen'ed whenever possible. A Tree Removal Permit must be considered by the Planning Commission concurrently with the Development Rev ew application. 2. Chimney materials (siding versus ransom-y) - Consistent with Commission policy, the project features chimney stacks using the same accent materials used on house (i.e., horizontal siding). 3. Property line walls/fencing should be built to provide private yard areas. Return walls/fencing and comer side walls/fencing should be decoralive and compatible with architecture. None are sho'~m on the plans. Policy issues: The following items are a runner of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion. 1. Ma,nufacmred stone versus real river rock veneer. Corn.miss on policy requires that river rock veneer be constructed using native rock. Other ~'pes of stone veneers may be manufactured products. (This could be conditioned). 2. All comer lots should have upgraded comer side elevations. such as horizontal siding and windows v.,'ith mullions ~.d wood trim sun'ounds. (This could be conditioned). ])csi~n Review Committee Action: ..Members Present: Larr7 McNiel, HeirLz Lumpp, Brad Bullet Staff Plm'mer: Dan Coleman The Commirxee recommended approval of the project subject to the following conditions: t. ADnlicant to re~'~-n to DRC o~or to Pl~'~ing Co~TLmiSsion, with alternative elevation with all s&aco scheme (no horizonL~l siding). Provide cost differential between siding versus stucco as a percentage of total house construction cost. Also provide photo analysis of houses on adjoining lots. 2. Provide properly line ~d return fencing or ,xalls. Applic~t to return to DRC prior to Plarming Co~"nission with a fencing plan. Provide ~alysis of existing fenceAvail materials on adjoining lots. 3. Chimney materials may be stucco or siding. 4. Construct side,xalk connections from house front door to public sidewalk, and from hous~ back door to driveway. 5. Use wood trim surrounds on all windows. 6. Composition shingle roof material '..','as acceptable as consistent with architectural st~'le and context. The proposed tree removals are acceptable. Fg.v ) DESIGN R.EVIE%V COMMENTS 5:40 p.m. Dan Coleman Febmay 28, 1995 EN'V]RONM]ENTAL ASSESS.,'v[ENT AND DEVELOPM'~NrF REVIE\V 95-03 - NORTHTO~,VN HOUS FNIG DEVELOPMENT CORP. - A request to construct single family residences on ]2 illfill lots in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) within the Noruhtown area along 241h SLreet, 251h Street, and Hmmboldt Avenue, east of Hermosa Avenue. - APN: 209-102.19, 31; 209-104-16, 18; 209-1 ti-04, 15, 16; 209-I 12-26; 209-123-25. Related File: Pre-Application Review 94-05 (Continued from February 14, 1995). Design Review Committee Action: .,Members Present: Hei,'u Lumpp, LarD' McNieI, Dan'Coleman S:_-..".i' Planner: D'n Coleman 1. The alternative with the all stucco scheme was not recommended for approval. 2. The fer}cing plan, as presented by the architect, '.'.'as recommended for approval.  City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-35 2. Related Files: DR 95-03; TRP 97-23; ME 97-22 3. Description of Project: A request to construct single family residences on 13 in-fill lots in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) within the North Town area along Center Avenue, 24th Street, and 25 Street, east of Hermosa Avenue APN: 209-101-04, 209-101-05. 209-102-08, 209-102-15, 209-102-38. 209-102-39, 209-103-24 through 26, 209-103-29, 209-104-24, 209-122-15, and 209-123-09. 4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Northtown Housing Development Corporation, 10171 25th Street, Rancho Cucamonga 91730. 5. General Plan Designation: Low Residential ( 2-4 dwelling units per acre). 6. Zoning: Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre). 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre). 8. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive PO Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 9. Contact Person and Phone Number: Miki Bratt, AICP, Associate Planner (909) 477-2750 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: None Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 97-35 Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be poteptially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact;' "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ( ) Land Use and Planning ( ) Transpodation/Circulation ( ) Public Services ( ) Population and Housing ( ) Biological Resources ( ) Utilities and Service Systems ( ) Geologicel Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources ( ) Aesthetics ( ) Water ( ) Hazards ( ) Cultural Resources ( ) Air Quality ( ) Noise ( ) Recreation ( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: (X) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ( ) I find that although the proposed project coutd have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project, or agreed to, by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ( ) I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ( ) I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based upon the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Signed: ~J~'~'f.- 7~ Miki Bratt, AICF~'/ Associate Planner December 16, 1997 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 97-35 Page 3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an explanation is required for all "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact" answers, including a discussion of ways to mitigate the significant effects identified. 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ( ) (X) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( ( ) (X) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ( ( ) (X) d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community? ( ( ) (X) Comments: Consistent with General Plan and zoning for district. Potentially Signfficant Impact Less PotentiallyUnless Than 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ( ) ( ) (X) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? ( ) ( ) (X) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: Proposed housing units replace units lost through deterioration and demolition and increase the supply of affordable housing in the City. Initial Study for ! City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 97-35 ! Page 4 Potenlially Unless Than 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (X) b) Seismic ground shaking? (X) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (X) d) Seiche hazards? (×) e) Landslides or mudflows? (X) f~ Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (X) g) Subsidence of the land? (X) h) Expansive soils? (X) i) Unique geologic or physical features? (X) Comments: Development will occur on vacant lots within an established neighborhood. Impac~ Less Potenlially Unless Than 4. WATER. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorptjon rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of su~ace water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 97-35 Page 5 0 Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ( ) ) (X) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) ) (X) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) ) (X) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater othe~ise available for public water supplies? ( ) ) (X) 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposah a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) ) ) (X) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) ) (X) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ( ) ) (X) d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ) (X) 6. T~NSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal resuR in: a) Increased vehicle trips or tra~c congestion? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp cu~es or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Insu~cient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 97-35 Page 6 I Potentially f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees, eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) c) Locally designated natural communities (e!g., eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ) (X) d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? ( ) ( ) (X) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: a) A number of dead, diseased, and dying trees will be removed subject to a Tree Removal Permit and tree replacement policies of the City's tree preservation ordinance of the Development Code, Section 19.08.100. Most of the trees scheduled for removal are fruit and nut trees which are exempt from the ordinance. 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposah a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? ( ) ( ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 97-35 Page 7 c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 9. HA~RDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) increased fire hazard in areas with ~ammable brush, grass, or trees? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 10. NOISE. Will the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Potentiaily Signff'~ant Impac~ Less Poteniially Unless Than 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered government seaices in any of the fo~owing areas: a) Fire protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 97-35 Page 8 ]mpac~ Less b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Schools? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Other governmental services? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: The proposed residences are in-fill within a developed residential neighborhood in which public services are available. 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Communication systems? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Storm water drainage? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) f) Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: The proposed residences are in-fill within a developed residential neighborhood in which public services are available. IPotentialh/ S~gnrf~cant Impact Less Potentially Unless Than 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal.' a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) J Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 97-35 Page 9 b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Create light or glare? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Potentially Signfficant Impact Less Potential;'/ Un[e~s Than 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposah a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 15. RECREATION. Would the proposah a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 97-35 Page 10 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. : a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the , environment, substantially reduce the habi!at of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community. reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California histor" ar prehistory?, ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Short term: Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time. Long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulative!y considerable? CCumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects). ( ) ( ) ( ) . (X) d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: The project proposes construction of 13 single family detached residences consistent with the developed Low Residential District within which it is located. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The following earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive: (X) General Plan EIR (Certified April 6, 1981) J Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Nodhtown Housing Development Corporation: Phase II Page 11 (X)Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989) (X) Other: Environment Assessment: Part II for Development Review 95-03, February 13, 1995. APPLICANT CERTIFICATION I certify that I am the applicant for the project described in this Initial Study. I acknowledge that I have read this Initial Study and the proposed mitigation measures. Further, I have revised the project plans or proposals and/or hereby agree to the proposed mitigation measures to avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant environmental effects would OCCUr. Signature: E~ J~ Date: PrintNameandTitle: II~IVTdtdl'~ ,.~ (2q~,C~4 /.E, YEC'uTIvE D~ezcF~ City of Rancho Cucamonga NEGATIVE DECLARATION The following Negative Declaration is being circulated~ for public review in accordance with the Ca~fornia Environmental Qua~ty Act Section 2fOgf and 2.1092 of the Public Resources Code. Project File No.: Development Review 97-35 Public Review Period Closes: January 14, 1998 Project Name: Project Applicant: Northtown Housing Development Corporation Project Location (also see attached map): Wrlhin the Northtown area along Center Avenue, 24th Street, and 25th Street, east of Hermosa Avenue - APN: 209-101-04, 209-101-05, 209-102-08, 209-102-15, 209-102-38,209-102-39,209-103-24 th roUgh 26. 209-103-29,209-104-24, 209-122-15, and 209-123-09. Project Description: A request to construct single family residences on 13 in-fill lots in the Low Residential Distdct (2-4 dwelling units per acre). FINDING This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has conducted an Initial Study to deterThine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment and is proposing this Negative Declaration based upon the following finding: [] The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. [] The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects but: (1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this proposed Negative Declaration was released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and (2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment. If adopted, the Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. Reasons to support this finding are included in the attached Initial Study. The project file and all related documents are available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division at 10500 Civic Center Drive (909) 477-2750 or Fax (909) 477-2847. NOTICE The public is invited to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration during the review period. January 14, 1998 Date of Determination Adopted By J RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-35, A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES ON 13 IN-FILL LOTS LOCATED WITHIN THE NORTHTOWN AREA ALONG CENTER AVENUE, 24TH STREET, AND 25 STREET, EAST OF HERMOSA AVENUE IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -APN: 209-101-04, 209-101-05, 209-102-08, 209-102-15, 209-102-38, 209-102-39, 209-103-24 through 26, 209-103-29, 209-104-24, 209-122-15, and 209-123-09. A. Recitals. 1. Northtown Housing Development Corporation has filed an application for Development Review 97-35, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereina~er in this Resolution, the subject Development Review request is referred to as "the application.'* 2. On January 14, 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a meeting to consider the application. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced meeting on January 14, 1998, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to 13 properties with an average street frontage of 50 feet and an average lot depth of 150 feet which are presently vacant. All lots front-on improved public streets. b. The properties to the nodh, south, east, and west are either vacant, developed with single family residences, or developed with improved flood control channel. c. The vacation of street right-of-way for parcels fronttrig 24th Street, 25th Street, and Center Avenue. as required in the attached conditions, is in conformance with the General Plan. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the Commission during the above- referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, the Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 97-35 - NORTHTOWN HOUSING DEV. CORP. January 14, 1998 Page 2 b. That the proposed project is in accord wiih the objectives of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and · ~ . c. That the proposed project is in comphance w~th each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code; and d. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, together with all wdtten and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows: a. That the Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA 9uidelines promulgated thereunder; that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, furlher. this Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the application. b. That, based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Furlher, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission during the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of;Regulations. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Planninq Division 1) Provide property line and return fencing or wails. 2) Chimney materials may be stucco or siding. 3) Construct sidewalk connections from house front door to public sidewalk and from house back door to driveway. 4) Wood trim surrounds shall be provided on all windows. 5) Composition shingle roof material is approved as consistent with the architectural style and context. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 97-35- NORTHTOWN HOUSING DEV. CORP. January 14,1998 Page 3 6) Tree Removal Permit 97-23 is approved subject to replacement planting per Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 19.08.100. The Palm tree at 10163 25th Street shall be relocated and preserved. Each lot shall be reviewed by the City Planner to determine appropriate replacement. Enqineedng Division 1) A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate landscape and lighting districts shall be filed with the City Engineer, pdor to the issuance of building permits. 2) Public right-of-way improvements adjacent to and fronting all project lots shall be protected in-place, upgraded, repaired, and replaced as required and all missing improvements constructed including, but not limited to, sidewalks, street trees, drive approaches and street lights to the satisfaction of the City Engineer: a) The tentative locations for the street lights are at the vicinity of 14188 24th Street and on Madne Avenue at the northwest corner with 24th Street. b) Security shall be posted and an agreement executed, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Attorney, guaranteeing completion of the required street improvements, prior to the issuance of building permits. c) Prior to any work being performed in the street right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the office of the City Engineer. d) Provide street improvement plans, prepared by a registered Civil Engineer, for all required off-site public improvements. Processing and plan check fees will be required. 3) The General Plan indicates 24th and 25th Streets to be local streets which have a 30-foot half-street right-of-way from street centerline to the property line. The parcels fronting these streets currently have 40 feet dedicated with 22 feet of parkway. Ten feet of parkway/right-of- way shall be vacated on both 24th and 25th Street frontages of project parcels for conformance with the General Plan. The vacations shall be completed prior to the issuance of building permits. 4) A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated cost of operating street lights during the first six months of operations, prior to the issuance of building permits. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 97-35- NORTHTOWN HOUSING DEV. CORP. January 14,1998 Page 4 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY:OF JANUARY 1998. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO 'CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 14th day of January 1998, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT#: Development Review 97-35 SUBJECT: 13 Detached Sin.qle Family Residences APPLICANT: Northtown Housin,q Development Corporation LOCATION: Various Locations in Northtown Area ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Time Limits comoletion Date 1. Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, if building permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 24 months from the date of approval 2. Prior to recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes first, the applicant shall consent to, or participate in. the establishment of a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District for the construction and maintenance of necessary school facilities. However, if any school district has previously established such a Community Facilities District, the applicant shall, in the alternative, consent to the annexation of the project site into the territory of such existing District prior to the recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permits. whichever comes first. Further, if the affected school district has not formed a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District within twelve months from the date of approval of the project and prior to the recordation of the final map or issuance of building permits for said project, this condition shall be deemed null and void. 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. 3. Prior to recordation of the final map or prior to the issuance of building permits when no map is involved, written certification from the affected water district that adequate sewer and water facilities are or will be available to serve the proposed project shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development. Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. Project NO. DR 97-35 I Comp erich Date B. Site Development 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance v~ith the approved plans which include site prans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions cdntained herein, Development Code regulations. i 2. Pdor to any use of the project site or business activity being tcommenced thereon, all Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Ci~/Planner. 3. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. ' Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Division to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. 4. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 7. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. For single family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults. 8. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination. 9. For single family residential development, a 2-inch galvanized pipe shall be attached to each support post for all wood fences, with a minimum of two '/'~-inCh lag bolts, to withstand high winds. Both post and pipe shall be installed in an 18-inch deep concrete footing. Pipe shall extend at least 4 feet, 6 inches above grade. 10. Wood fencing shall be treated with stain, paint, or water sealant. 11. On corner side yards, provide minimum 5-foot setback between walls/fences and sidewalk. C. Building Design 1. All roof appurtenances, including air cOnditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Details shall be included in building plans. Project NO. DR 97-35 Completion Date Other Agencies 1. The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location of mail boxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for mail boxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mail boxes and the design of the overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: E. Site Development 1. The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code. Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, and all other applicable codes. ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of issuance of relative permits. Please contact the Building and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition to existing unit(s), the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: City Beautification Fee, Park Fee. Drainage Fee, Transportation Development Fee. Permit and Plan Checking Fees. and School Fees. 3. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official. after tractJparcel map recordation and prior to issuance of building permits. Existing Structures 1.Existing sewage disposal facilities shall be removed, filled and/or capped to comply with the Uniform Plumbing Code and Uniform Building Code. 2. Underground on-site utilities are to be located and shown on building plans submitted for building permit application. G. Grading 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. 2.A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. 3. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730~ FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: H. General Fire Protection Conditions 1. Fire flow requirement shall be 1,000 gallons per minute. Projed No. DR 97-35 Comoretion D!te 2. Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided prior to watei plan approval Required hydrants, if any, will be determined by the Fire District. Fire District standards require a 6" riser with a 4" and a 2-I/2" outlet. Substandard hydrants shall be up~'rade~l to meet this standard. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specifications on approved brands and model numbers. 3. Plan check fees in the amount of $125.00 shall be paid: Prior to final plan approval. Note: Separate plan check fees for fire protection systems (sprinklers, hood systems, alarms, etc.) and/or any consultant reviews will be as,sessed upon submittal of plans. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, {909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: -~. I. Security Hardware 1. A secondary locking device shall be installed on all sliding glass doors. 2. One-inch single cylinder dead bolts shall be installed on all entrance doors. If windows are within 40 inches of any locking device, tempered glass or a double cylinder dead bolt shall be used. 3. All garage or rolling doors shall have slide bolts or sorr~ type of secondary locking devices. J. Windows 1. All sliding glass windows shall have secondary locking devices and should not be able to be lifted from frame or track in any manner. K. Building Numbering 1. Numbera and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime visibility. SC - 6/97 4 J CITY OF RANCH0 CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: January 14, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Nancy Fong, AICP, Senior Planner SUBJECT: PATIO FURNITURE IN TERRA VISTA TOWN CENTER- RUBIO'S BAJA GRILULEWIS HOMES - A request to consider a corporate design, thatched (palapas) style, of outdoor patio umbrellas for a 2,200 square foot restaurant in a multi-tenant pad building, located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard, east of Aspen Drive and west of MontgomeryWards-APN: 1077421-76. (Continued from 12/10~97) BACKGROUND: On December 10, 1997, the Planning Commission continued this item to irs January 14, 1998, meeting at the request of the applicant because of a scheduling conflict. Staff has not received any new information. Attached is the December 10, 1997, report for your review. RECOMMENDATION: Staffs recommendation has not changed, which is to deny the use of corporate-identity palapas umbrellas and reaffirm City Planner and Design Review Committee decisions to deny the use of palapas through minute action. Respectfully submitted, City Planner BB:NF:taa Attachments: Exhibit "A" Applicant's Letter dated December 8, 1997 Exhibit "B" Planning Commission Staff Report dated December 10, 1997 ITEM G 12/08/97 H0N 19:05 F.,tX 619 4520181 .__ RU310'S RESTAURANTS ~ou~ ubic December 8, 1997 Nancy Fong City ofRancho Ctw, amonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: Palio Fumituxe in Tetra Vista Town Center Rubio's Baja C.n-ill Dear Nancy: We received the staff report advising us of the panning Commission meeting on D~cembex 10~, 1998 to rgvi~w request to use palapas on the patio of our restaurant in the Term Vi~a Town Cant~r. We would like to have a rclxesentative allend the meeting but due to scheduling conflicts no one will be able to attet~l the meeting scheduled for D~cember 10, 1998. Therefore w~ are requesting continuanee of our case to lhe January 14~, t 998 rr~ in order for us to have a representative can be there to present our Please confirm you receipt of this request by calling me directly at (619) 452-1770. Sincerely, RUBIO'S RESTAURANTS, INC. Ted ' Director of Keal Estate CITY OF RANCHO CUCAIVIONGA ' ~ STAFF REPORT DATE: December 10, 1997 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Nancy Fong, AICP, Senior Planner SUBJECT: PATIO FURNITURE IN TERRA VISTA TOWN CENTER- RUBIO'S BAJA GRILL/LEWIS HOMES - A request to consider a corporate design, thatched (palapas) style, of outdoor patio umbrellas for a 2,200 square foot restaurant in a multi-tenant pad building, located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard, east of Aspen Drive and west of Montgomery Wards - APN: 1077-421-76. BACKGROUND: Rubio's Baja Grill restaurant is located in a multi-tenant pad building (Exhibit "A") within Terra Vista Town Center. One of Rubio's corporate identities is the use of thatched-style, palapas umbrellas for their outdoor patio area. Their proposal to use this style of umbrella requires review because the design is different from the uniform street furniture design approved by the Planning Commission for Terra Vista Town Center (Conditional Use Permit 88-12). ANALYSIS: 1. Approved Uniform Street Furniture: A typical condition of approval for the development of a commercial center includes the submission of a uniform design of street furniture for Design Review Committee or City Planner review and approval. The developer, Lewis Homes, submitted designs of street furniture that included patio tables, chairs, umbrellas, light poles, waste containers, planter pots, pattern and color of hardscape, etc. The design was approved by the Design Review Committee in January of 1989. Exhibit "B" shows the approved patio furniture in the Food Court area. The approved umbrellas are of canvas material with solid colors that match the table colors, which is burgundy or aqua-blue. Boston Market, Java City Cafe, and other food users have complied and use the approved design. 2. Rubio's Palapas Umbrella ~ Thatched Style: Representatives from Rubio's were informed of the patio furniture design criteria in March of 1997. Rubio's went through plan check process between July and September and was informed again that staff cannot approve their palapas umbrellas. On September 25, 1997, staff approved their tenant improvement plans, minus the proposed palapas umbrellas, so they could proceed with interior construction. The restaurant is now open for business. Representatives of Rubio's stated that palapas is part of their corporate identity and they have to use them in their outdoor patio area. Because commercial centers approved after 1984 have compiled with the condition of approval to set up a uniform design of street furniture and tenants within those centers have complied with the criteria, allowing the use of palapas umbrellas, a corporate identity, will set a precedent for the entire City. Other businesses may then begin to use their own designs, which could include multi- colors and patterns, checker board umbrellas, or umbrellas with advertisements of products, etc. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DIRECTOR'S REPORT - RUBIO'S BAJA GRILL December 10, 1997 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Comn ission deny the use of corporate-identity palapas umbrellas, and reaffirm City Planner's and Design Review Committee's decision to deny the use of palapas through minute action. Brad Buller City Planner BB:NF:taa Attachments: Exhibit "A" Site Plan Exhibit "B" Approved Street Furniture" Exhibit "C" Proposed Palapas Exhibit "D" Elevations Showing Patio and Palapas Exhibit "E" Applicant's Letters FOOTHILL BLVD ~.~ ~I. JIT~ A 5UITE D '~' 1146 5F ~619 5F o- I~'-4" COL COL ""x. 2D'-Y' 46'-3" ~' ~GUITIE l; or= 22._.',',',',',',','~5 5F r~ 74'-6" TVTC DUlLPING #4 /~-,CI ~ {C) ( PEDESTRIAN AREAS -- PROPOSED PALAPAS PER PLAN PROPOSED h/~'TAL PATIO FURNETURE PER PLAN ..N,S.EDTO~TC, RA.L, NGTO~TCN EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING RAILINGS SOUTH ELEVATION ubid RECEIVED August 27, OCT 3 0 ~7 City of Rancho Cucam~a ~s. Nancy ~on~ Planning Divis~n Cj~ oE ~ancho Cucamon~a ]0500 Civic Cente~ D~jve ~ancho Cucamon~a, CA 9~730 Re: ~a~o Proposa~ Te~a Vista Towne Cente~ ~ubjo's Ba~a ~ancho Cucamon~a, Ca}~Eo~a Dea~ Nancy: Than~ you Eor ta~jn~ ~e ~me ~o spea~ wj~ me ~e~a~d~ ~ubjo's sj~na~e paso design. ] have enclosed Eo~ your review a ~ac~a~e oE jn~o~ma~on, which includes several photographs oE boffi ~e ~efio~ and exterior o~ ou~ ~estauran~. You wj]] note ~a~ ~a~c~e~ umEre}}as (~a}apas) are a prominendy dispiayed on our patios; aEe part oE our ]o~o; and a~e included in many oE our adverfisjn~ p~eces. The ~a]apa is ~e signature a~ch~tecm~a] {eam~e in a(] o~ our ~estau~an~. In ~e interes~ oE teamwork, we are p~o~osin~ ~e Eo}~owin~ ~afio design which we Eee} ~j]] mee~ bo~ ~e Cj~'s and ~u~jo's needs. ~. ~ubio's will build a decoEa~ve rai]in~ surronndin~ d~e entire patio. The decorative raj]in~ will be "interrupted" wjd~ ~8" high ~8" x ~" C~U pfi]ars wi~ a stucco finish painted to ma~ch ~e bui]din~ on ~0' 6" centers. The insertion is ~o mas~ ~e ~oposed Eurn~re Erom ~e s~eet simjla~ to ~e design at d~e ~aca~onj ~jH in ~e same center. See enclosed dra~jn~.) 2. ~u~io s wz overall he~h~ and cemented into ~e concrete pa~o s}ah. Each Pa~apa 3. ~u~io's wfi] install our s~anda~d patio E~rnj~re which we ~ee] is upscaJe d~an ~e current patio Eurni~re in d~e Eood cour~ area. Each ~ahJe and chair is Ea~ricated meta} design ~owder coated to insure Ms Nancy Fong August 27, 1997 Page -2- they do not rust or are easily damaged. i~I .have enclosed some photographs and information on our fur, nxture for your review. Once you have had a chance to review the enclosed information, I am sure you will agree that the proposed design will have a very upscale look and feel. As a high quality quick service restaurant, it is imperative that we present ourselves in an upscale fashion in order to attract our core customers. If you feel the proposed design meets within your' guidelines and can be approved, we are prepared to create final architectural documents for your final review and approval. I would be happy to meet with you at any time to discuss any questions or concerns you may have. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, RUBIO'S RESTAURANTS, INC. ~I, M.C.R. Director of Real Estate cc: Richard Rubio, Vice President of Real Estate Development Carl Garlick, Construction Manager N0~-84-'1997 l?~ 03 P. 01 Lewis Homes Retail 1156 N. Mounl~in Avenue / P.O. Box 670 Upland. CA 91 9~9/965-0971 FAX 909/94~40 August 1, 1997 Mml/Fax 909477-2849 Ms. Nancy Fong Senior Planner R E C E I V E D City of Raneho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Dr. NOV 0 5 ~997 Rancho Cucamonga, CA. 91729 City ot Rancbo Cucamonga Re: Rubio's Patio Furniture planning Division Tern Vista Town Center Dear Ms. F0ng: We have completed the review of the Patio furniture for this tenant and have approved the 30" Plaza Tables and accompanying pl~7~ Euro Chairs and Palapa style umbrellas as submitted to your office by Rubio's Restaurants. Inc., August 27, 1997. We believe this furniture would enhance the appearance of this restaurant in pattiodor, arid the overall center in general. If you have any questions, please do nat hesitate to call me at 909-949-6715. Sincerely. LEWIS HOMES MANAGEMENT CORP. '- Richard Reinhardt Commercial Project Manager co: (;. Hoxworth J. Jzsper ' File/Chron TOTRL P. 01 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ' STAFF REPORT DATE: January 14, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Bullet City Planner BY: Brent Le Count, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: APPEAL OF MINOR EXCEPTION 97-19 - BELMAL - An appeal of the City Planner's decision regarding block wall placement for a Minor Exception to allow an 8-foot high block wall where a maximum height of 6 feet is allowed in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) located at 9218 La Grande Street - APN: 202-055-01 ABSTRACT: The applicant. Joseph Belmal, is seeking to install an 8-foot high block wall along the east property line (abutting Lion Street) of his property for privacy. The applicant contends that the condition requiring the wall to be set back 5 feet from the properly line will deny privacy and force the removal of two plum trees and prevent construction of a swimming pool in the back yard area. BACKGROUND: On October 28, 1997, the City Planner approved a Minor Exception to allow construction of an 8-foot high block wall along the east side of the applicant's property. A condition was added requiring the wall to respect the 5-foot setback from the property line. This requirement is based upon established Planning Commission policy and is intended to avoid the stark appearance of having an 8-foot high block wall directly adjacent to the back of the sidewalk and to provide room for landscaping between the back of sidewalk and the wall. The resulting landscape "buffer" would help reduce the potential for graffiti along the wall. This Commission policy has been uniformly applied citywide. ANALYSIS: One of the findings required to approve a Minor Exception is that "the granting of the Minor Exception will not be detrimental to the public health, safety. or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity." In staffs opinion, construction of an 8-foot high block wall adjacent to the back of sidewalk would have aesthetic impacts upon the surrounding neighborhood inconsistent with this finding. If the appellant wishes to preserve the existing plum trees, the wall could be jogged to avoid the trees. It is not clear why locating the wall to respect a 5-foot setback would provide lesser privacy and secudty than a wall directly on the property line. The back yard area appears large enough to reasonably accommodate a swimming pool of the type and size desired by the appellant. The existence of 8-foot high walls directly adjacent to the sidewalk is not a common condition in this older neighborhood; however, 5- to 6-foot walls behind the sidewalk can be found. The intent of the Commission's policy is to soften the appearance of walls with landscaping. An alternative would be to provide a landscape area of sufficient depth to plant shrubs. A planter depth of 2-3 feet could be adequate depending upon the shrub species. ITEM H PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ME 97-19- BELMAL January 14,1998 Page 2 PUBLIC COMMENT: The appellant has provided a letter,from one neighbor and a petition signed by several neighbors indicating that they are not opposed,, to construction of the block wall directly on the property line. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission uphold, by minute action, the City Planner's decision to require a 5-foot setback for the proposed 8-foot high block wall. Respectfully submitted, City Planner BB:BLC/jfs Attachments: Exhibit "A" - AppeIlant's Letter Including Neighbor's Letter and Signed Petition Exhibit "B" - City Planner Decision Letter Exhibit "C" - Site Plan Exhibit "D" - Wall Elevations .7 "' Nov. 6,1997 oseph Belmal Alta Loma, CA 91701 Re: Appeal ~4,,3~? ~ For minor exception of Masonary wall setback I, Joseph Belm~ am appealing ~e ~nor exception application setback section ~ 97-19. 1. The 5 foot setback that you require will force us to remove two plum trees that are located exactly 5 foot away from Lion St. sidewalk. 2. We have already experienced a stolen vehicle right off our own property. 3. We have had 3 cats abducted fight off our property. 4. Children tend to climb on our fruit trees and we don't want to be responsible if they fall. 5. We find beer bottles and cigarette butts on a daily basis. In all, we the residents of 9218 La Grande, Alta Loma, Cal., 91701 ask that you allow us to build our stucco masonary wall along the east property line of 9218 La Grand Street. If we are forced to set it back 5 feet we will be denied the privacy and security our family deserves, also we will be forced to cancel our future plans to build a swimming pool. Besides, we refuse to remove the two beautiful plum trees located exactly 5 feet back from Lion St. sidewalk. Thank you for your consideration, / Joseph Belmal I/~\ Petition Re: Stucco wall adjacent to Lion Street Sidewalk Owner of Property: Joseph Belmal 9218 La Grande Alta Loma, CA 91701 # 97-19 We the residents on Lion Street in Alta Loma and neighbors of Joseph Belmal, clearly have no objections what so ever regarding the beautiful stucco wall that he plans to build adjacent to the Lion Street sidewalk. As for the issue of a 5 foot setback, and the requirements of landscaping, we feel that your enforcing of a 5 foot setback would require removal of two beautiful fully grown plum trees that happen to be lined up exactly 5 feet out from Lion Street sidewalk. In all, we agree with Joseph Belmal that a stucco wall adjacent to Lion street sidewalk would be appropriate in maintaining a sufficient amount of privacy and security for whatever resident who desires such. ADDRESS 9: r;/$/ Z,,~;,,.7 4,{ 7/13 L,~ E~ 9 To/ q.I ~7 ~ ~, C-~/e:,i ~17~f T H E C I Y 0 F i ANCI-IO CUCAMONGA g2'18 ka Grande Street Rancho Cucamonga, CA 9'170'1 SUBJECT: MINOR EXCEPTION 97-'19 Dear Mr. helmsic The Plannin9 Division has reviewed your application for a Minor Exception. As required by Section '17.04.050 of the Development Code, all conti9uous property owners were notified and given a ten- day period within which to express any concerns or comments. During that review period we received one response regardin9 your request that involved the timely removal of 9raffiti. The following conditions reflect this issue. Based upon plan review and site inspection, staff has made the followin9 findings: 1. The application proposes the construction of an 8-foot high masonry wall alon9 the east property line at 92'18 ka Grande Street. 2. The Minor Exception process allows for the consideration of increasing the maximum wall height by 2 feet, pursuant to the provisions of the Development Code (Section 'i7.04.050(A)). The maximum wall height of 8 feet is measured from finish grade at the base of the wall to the top of the wall. 3. The wall height increase is necessary in order to maintain a level of privacy and security for the property ewner. The above findings of fact support the necessary findings which are required by the City's Development Code and are listed below: 1. That the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulations would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship inconsistent with the objec!ives of the General Plan and intent of the Development Code. 2. That there are exceptional direumstances or' conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same district. 3. That the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulations would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the same district. Ms,/or William J. A:ex.?.rtser ~ Councj[memOer Pgut Bjane ;..t,s,tcr ~ra Tern D[cne/.VC~"r's ~ Counc!!memDer Rex Gutierrez ..~ck Lsm, -~!C~, Cir'/h:cr'sGer Counc;!member James V. Cur37clo ~ ~--'~-^ "' ..... "-~ C:-', 91729 C9C9) '-'77-27C0 · FAX CC,T,9', ,'77-2e49 Joseph Belmal ME 97-19 October 28, 1997 Page 2 4. That the granting of the Minor Exception will not constitute a grant of a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. .Therefore, your request has been approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval shall expire, unless extended by the City Planner, if building permits are not issued within 24 months from the date of approval. 2. The proposed wall height shall be limited to a maximum height of 8 feet measured from the finish grade at the base of the wall to the top of the wall. 3. The wall shall be setback a minimum of 5 feet behind the Lion Street sidewalk. 4. The 5-foot area between the sidewalk and wall shall be landscaped with shrubs and vines to soften the appearance of the wall, and reduce the potential for incidents of graffiti. Shrubs shall be a minimum 5-gallon size planted 4 feet on center and vines shall be a minimum 5-gallon size planted 10 feet on center. 5. All graffiti shall be removed within 48 hours. 6. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits from the Building and Safety Division. 7. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code and all other applicable City Ordinances. 8. All required landscaping shall be installed prior to Planning Division finaling the block wall building permit. This decision shall be final following a ten-day appeal period. Any appeals shall be made in writing to the Secretary of the Planning Commission along with a $62 filing fee. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Brent Le Count at (909) 477-2750. Sincerely, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Senior PlanneiP~ NF:BLC/mlg . cc: Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer ~ r7 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: January 14, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of Planning Co ission SUBJECT: I SI Staff has received a request from the Chainnan to report the project status and the outstanding issues in Masi Plaza to the Commission. The following highlights the project status and the outstanding issues that need to be addressed: A. Outstanding Items. 1. Install 35 granite plaques for displaying of vintners' families and their wine labels along the Vintner' s Walk prior to occupancy of Dennys. Comment: The applicant stated the granite plaques are made. To date the plaques are not installed. 2. Install the La Fourcade displays and the history of wine making displays, a total of seven plaques, within the Vintner's Walk and the overhead trellis between Dennys and Building 7, prior to occupancy of Dennys. Comment: The above is a mitigation except for the overhead metal trellis and was tied to release of occupancy for Building 5 or 6 (Dennys) whichever comes first. In order not to delay the opening of Dennys, staff worked with the applicant and allowed him to delay the installation till occupancy for Building 7 as requested. He agreed that the items would be installed before asking for occupancy of Building 7. Artached is the May 14, 1997 Facsimile to the applicant listing the items that need to be completed or installed. Staff has repeatedly reminded him that he needs to complete the listed items as well as submitting a sample of the aluminum plaques for "the history of wine making" displays. Staff has not seen one to date. There is no indication that the applicant will install the overhead metal trellis between Dennys and Building 7 nor provide alternatives to address the item. 3. Install wood trellis according to the approved plans for the trash enclosures for Buildings 4 and 7. Comment: On October 28, 1997, the applicant signed an agreement stating that he would finish installing the wood trellises above the trash enclosures for Buildings 4 and 7 by November 3, 1997. Staff released occupancy for Building 4 based on the signed agreement. Wood Trellises are not installed to date. 4. Install and complete the La Fourcade entry arch on Building 5, the descriptive plaque for the La Fourcade building, the Vintner's families display, the Masi plaque and the Statue. Comment: The above is a mitigation and was tied to the release of occupancy for Building 5 or 6 (Dermys) whichever comes first. In order not to delay the opening of Dennys, staff worked with the applicant and allowed him to delay the installation till occuI~ancy for Buildin,~ 5. B. Project Status: 1. Building 5. Because of a change in the tenant, the applicant submitted a new Design Review application to modify the previously approved elevations. The application was processed but has not been completed. Revised plans that address the July 1, 1997 Design Review Committee' s concerns have not been submitted for staff and Committee's review to date. 2. Building 7. The shell building is complete. Landscape around the building is 90 percent complete. Trash enclosure does not have the required overhead wood trellises. Several tenants, a dental office, a cafe place, and a liquor market store, are doing interior improvements. The applicant is requesting occupancy of Building 7. Staff reminded him of the outstanding items that still need to be installed and completed. Again the applicant is requesting special favors and treatment asking for occupancy and promised to complete them at a later date as shown in the attached January 14 letter. 3. Buildings 13 and 14. Under construction. 4. Southwest side of the site. The applicant has plans to expand the auto service court, which require an Industrial Area Specific Plan amendment and a Conditional Use Permit to modify the master plan and expansion of the auto service court. 5. Remainder of the project site is not in plan check attachments FOOTHILL BOULEVARD S EBA S TI~,NJt/A y ROLLER RINK EXHIBIT I: SITE PLAN MEMO To: Brad Buller, City Planner Date: 1/14/98 City of Rancho Cucamonga From: Michael Scandiffio Masi Commerce Center Partners Re: Masi Plaza Issues Dear Brad: As per our conversation yesterday, I want to reiterate my understanding and obligations: (1) Trellis on Trash Enclosure I will submit to Nancy Fong by Thursday a photograph of a trash enclosure without the trellis and one with the trellis (Jack In The Box). If the Planning Cormmission desires the trellis, we will install the trellis on the trash enclosures behind buildings 4 & 7 and in other places as required by the City. (2) Vintners Walk Sculpture and Historical Displays I understand from Ray Persinger, the artist, that the statute will be delivered in February. Marianne Persinger will complete the design and layout of the artwork for the historical displays along the Vintner Walk. I am told that they will be ready for City review within two weeks. Fabrication of the metal plaques will take two additional weeks. (3) Vintner Walk Plagues The 35 Vintner name plaques will be installed on the seat wall this week. I hope my commitments on the above items will help facilitate the sign-off by the planning division of building #7 this Wednesday. If there is anything I missed, please call me at 909-481-5020. Thanks again for your help. Sincerely, MicS~candif~o ' Telephone: 909-481-5020 · Fax: 909-481-5025 MEMO To: Nancy Fong Date: 10/28/97 Planning Division, City of Rancho Cucamonga From: Michael Scandiffio Masi Commence Center Parmers Re: Building #9 & #10 - Final Planning Division Sign Off Please be advised that we will be installing the five 15-gallon trees to the south side of building #I0 and repairing the turf along Masi Drive in front of buildings #9 & #10 by Monday evening, November 3. If this is acceptable to you, we request that you release building # 10 for Tenm~t occupancy and issue the "final" for the Auto Court. Sincerely, M~Scandif~o 11871 Foothill Boulevard · Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Telephone: (909)481-5020 · Fax: (909)481-5025 facsimile TRANSMITTAL to:# Mike Scandiffio 'fax: 818-558-3623 re: MASI PLAZA date: May i4, 1997 pages: 2, including a cover pa~:e 1. On April 24, 1997, I met with you and your team for a pre-inspection conference. I oudined the areas that need to be completed prior to Planning Division signing off the release of occupancy for Dennys and Building 7 to you and your team. The areas discussed were: the completion of the t~vo buildings, the site and landscaping improvement according to the approved plans, the limits for site and landscaping improvement according to the phasing plan (phase 1 B) dated January 14, 1997, the temporary fencing needed to separate improved areas from construction zones, and so on. The purpose of this pre-inspection conference was to have all parties involved to be a~vare of the requirements ahead of time and work toward achieving the goal of the release of occupancy for Dennys. 2. At this meeting I also discussed your propoial of changing the color for the metal trellis work along the Vintner's ~Valk from black to an accent color of burgundy similar to the window mullion color for Dennys. I stated that the City Planner has approved the color change with conditions that vines be provided along the trellis and that a detail showing how vines cling to the smooth metal trellis be submitted for his review and approval. Your landscape architect agreed to it. On May 13, 1997, I confirmed the approval with the mentioned conditions via a fax. Therefore, the request for the vine planting details is not on short notice since you and your team knew the conditions of approval as of April 24, 1997. 3. A routine inspection of the site on May 12, 13 and 14, I found the following items need to be corrected and/or addressed to the satisfaction of the City Planner: · Because of the grade difference between Buildings 6 and 7, the landscape area north of Building ~r)/e~tf~D 7 has been eliminated, which is inconsistent with the approved plans. Staff is concerned with security and safety within this sub-grade area. · The depth of the landscape area south of Building 7 is less than the depth of 9.3 feet as shown on south of Building 7 to take up the grades and make up the loss of the landscape area for both the north and south sides of Building 7. · The seat wall/tree well and the t~vo pedestals for the La Fourcade interpretive art display are missing. Staff received revised plans that show the seat wall is moved 7.5 feet closer to Dennys ecause of a conflict with the grease interceptor. The approved plans show a 60-inch box size building with a 60-inch box size tree could cause problem in the future. The revised plan shmv the uvo pedestals for La Fourcade display are moved to a different location contrary to the approved plans. This change is being reviewed by the City Planner. · The concrete ~vork in front of Dennys are not according to the approved Vintner's walk, (,Z)~speci~cally the brick bandings are missing. The concrete light bollards at 'the north side of Dennys and the east side of Dennys and Building Ct~t are missing. 4. The completion and installation of historic interpretlye art displays are required for the follox~4ng buildings: NqOccupancy for building 6 - install and complete the metal trellis work with vines and the granite plaques for display of vintners' families and the wine labels along the Vintner's Walk. · Occupant' for Building 7 - install and complete the La Fourcade displays and the history, of wine ma~ng c~zspia),s within tile 'v'inLltcr'~ walk, and Lilt vvcthcakl it~ct, a'& t, lc;'li~ and 7. · Occupancy for Building 5 - install and complete the La Fourcade entry arch on Building 5, the 1 would like to have a meeting ~%~th you and y~r sign consultant to review the manu{~cturing plaques ~luminum ~pels) for thP dis~2y ef MqI~ric text and the related ~aphics as soon as possible. ~you have questions, please call me. ~~ . cc: Brad Buller ~~~Z John De Frenza Ray Deselle ~ck Ro~na Laird Construction Cal State Builders l~aled Obeid From the desk of Nancy Fong Senior Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division (909) 477-2750 fax: (909) 477-2847 CITY OF RANCHO CUCA/VIONGA -- STAFF REPORT DATE: January 14, 1998 · TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Nancy Fong, AICP, Senior Planner SUBJECT: DIRECTOR'S REPORT 97-03 - MASI COMMERCE CENTER PARTNERS - A request to consider amending the definition of Auto Service Court in Subarea 7 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. BACKGROUND: The applicant, Mike Scandiffio of Masi Commerce Center, stated that he wouId like to expand the size (acreage) for the Auto Service Court within Masi Plaza by developing an additional 3.5 acres south of the existing site, see Exhibit "C." He would like to expand the definition by adding more auto related types of services including auto body work and painting. Attached is Exhibit "A," which shows the applicanrs proposed changes to the definition of the Auto Service Court. The proposal necessitates an amendment to the Industrial Area Specific Plan. According to the Development Code, only City Council or the Planning Commission may initiate amendments to the Industrial Area Specific Plan, which is the reason for this report. ANALYSIS: A. The Intent of Auto Service Court: The land use category of Auto Service Court was added to the Industrial Area Specific Plan in 1992 and the definition was expanded in April 1994. The purpose of the Auto Service Court is to encourage an integrated development similar to master planning where design criteria was established to address unique operational characteristics such as roll-up doors and open bays. The design criteria together with the clustering of auto related uses fosters efficiency of land use, maximizes public safety, and increases opportunities for creating landscaping areas which would be more aesthetically pleasing. These are the reasons the Planning Commission supported the Auto Service Court at that time. The applicant recently completed his Auto Service Court in Masi Plaza and stated that it has been a success, which is the reason for his request to expand it. B. ProPosed Chanaes to Auto Service Court: The applicant proposes to establish a minimum of 5 acres and a maximum of 9 acres for the Auto Service Court and expand the auto related services to include auto cleaning and detailing, auto sales, lease and rental, and auto painting and body work. Staff believes that the increase in size (acreage), when properly master planned together with the proper mix of auto related uses, could strengthen the success of an auto service court. However, the proposal to include auto painting and body work could create a compatibility issue since these types of uses can be intensive. ITEM I PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DIR. RPT. 97-03 - MASI COMMERCE CENTER PARTNERS January 14, 1998 Page 2 Body work is considered as major automotive repair because of the extent of work involved and potential noise and vibration concerns. Perhal~s additional criteria could be established to limit the type of auto painting business where body repair is not required except forthe repair of minor dents and replacement parts. Staff believes that the applicant's proposals warrant further study and recommends initiating a, n amendment. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission, through minute action, direct the applicant to submit an Industrial Area Specific Plan amendment with the accompanying fee. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:NF:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Applicant's request Exhibit "B" - Current Definition of Auto Service Court Exhibit "C" - Site Plan MEMO Brad Buller, City Pla~ Oily 0f~c~o ~o~e ~ Michel ~o M~i ~a~ C~ pare ~CCP) ~cndmcnt to ~u~g~ ? of ~o hd~ ~v Auto ~a Co~ De~oa ~ B~: M~i ~ Cen~r P~ ~ to ~ ~ Auto Ind~ S~c Pi to tc~i~ ~ d~l~p~ of our plu~ P~ Co~ Attaghed is the proposed am~ttne~t (changes are shown in italic). We look forward to meetin8 with you and NanCy We will ~I1 om the plan amendment applications and pay the associated fees by Tuesday of this v,~k. · ~you have any que~io~, please call me a~ 9094g1-5020. Sinee~ly, TABLE 11I-2 LA~_"D_US_~ TYPE..DEFI~ONS A~IH'OMOTIVE S-ERVICE COURT: An integraa:d cluster of relatect'automotivc service activities, wkich tyFicall~ include: b'~ ~i~Ilx3i Clrd~ 3tllti0I~, ~ 0[ ~l.h61ll ~illary Ik~ gHEh It~ e3/Wa~h~.~ and food marts; general auton'~otive service and repair including mufflers, shocks, aliameats, brakes, oil changes. lul~,~'cafions, me-ups, smog checks, fire repair and replacement, t~aasmissiOns; ~a!~.lation of air e011ditiOning, car h es, stcreos win shie - and ho ste ' win hield tintin: automobile c o parts; automobile rental/leasing a utomobile painting a ~o,. any rna/or or ~ecorul~/ art~rfal, Auto Service Courts shall be restricted to commercial recreation overlay di~icts. Minimum Size: 5 acres. Ma,xdlI'iLII~ Size: 9 acres. Maxima ~on~e along a major or secondary' arterial street: 3O0 feet. ~aoer~Tss to the site ~ili be pcrmiltedl ~mly 0ffany major~ s~ '(,~y%' and pap i31ands shall be mi~t f~<~m all major and ac~ondary artcrials through a eorabinalion of herins, landscaping, low w~dls, and building orientation. An appropriate combination of bcrms, landscaping, and architectural elements shall be provided around the entire perimeter of the site to minimize the knpact of the auto court uses form the existing and future surrounding uszs. Outdoor storage of inoperative vehicles; parks, or equipment is lymhibited. All work shall be conducted indoors. All signage shall be limited to signs 'approved und ProgTam. ' ' ' Industrial Area Specific Plan Part IIf, Section U Animal Care: Activities typically include, but are not limited to: the' provision of animal care " treatment, and boarding services of large and small animals. Uses typically include, but are not limited to: animal clinics, large and small animal hospitals, and kennels. Automotive Fleet Storage: Activities typically include, but are not limited to: the storage of vehicles used regularly in business operations and not available for sale on site. Such uses typically include. but not limited to: overnight storage of service vehicles. mobile catering trucks, and taxi cabs. Automotive Rental: Activities typically include, but are not limited to: the rental from the premises of motor vehicles, with provision of incidental maintenance services. Uses typically include. but are not limited to, car rental agencies. On-site storage shall not occupy more than 25 percent of the required parking for the subject building suite, unless approved with a Conditional Use Permit. Automotive and Liqht Truck Repair-Minor: Activities include, but are not limited to: automotive and light truck repair. the retail sale of goods and services for automotive vehicles and light trucks (less than 6000 Ib).'and the cleaning and washing of automotive vehicles. Uses typically include, but are not limited to: brake, muffler, and tire shops and automotive drive-through car washes. Heavier automobile repair such as transmission and engine repair are not included. Disabled vehicles shall be screened from public view. Automotive and Truck Repair-Maior: Activities typically include, but are not limited to: heavy automobile and truck repair such as transmission and engine repair, the painting of automotive vehicles, automotive body work, and the installation of major accessories. Disabled vehicles shall be screened from public view. Automotive Sales and Leasinq: Activities typically include but are not limited to: the display. sale, or leasing of new and used automobiles, trucks, and recreational vehicles; minor automotive repair;, and installation of accessories. Uses typically include car dealerships with ~tions' service stations with or without ancillary uses such as car · washes and food marts; gendral automotive s':rvice and repair including mufflers, shocks. ~ alignments, brakes, oil changes, lubrications, tune-ups, smog checks, tire repair and replacement, and transmissions; installation of air conditioning, car phones, stereos, windshields, and upholstery; windshield tinting; sale of auto parts; and other related services. 1,F/ .T(/Gi(::2 Auto Courts shall comply with the following design criteria: Maximum Size: 4 acres. - No access to the site will be permitted directly off any major arterial. Service bays and pump islands shall be screened from all major and secondary artcrisis through a combination of betins, landscaping, low walls, and building  orientation. ,..~ II1-10 7 ~dustrial Area Specific Plan Part I]I, Section II An appropriate combination of berms, landscaping, ar;d architectural elements shall be provided around the entire p~dmeter of the site to minimize the impact of the auto court uses from the existing, and future surrounding uses. Outdoor storage of inoperative vehicles, parts, or equipment is prohibited. All work shall be conducted indoors.; All signage shall be limited to signs ~pproved under a Uniform Sign Program. Automotive Service Station: Activities typically inciude, but are not limited to: the sale from the promises of goods and the provision of seNice normally required in the day-to-day operation of motor vehicles, including the principal sale of petroleum products, the incidental sale of tiros, batteries, roplacement items, and lubricating services, and the performance of minor repairs, such as tune-up, tiro change, and brake work. Buildinq Contractors Offices and Yards: Activities typically include offices and storage of equipment, materials, and vehicles for contractors Who aro in the trades involving construction activities which include, but aro not limited to, plumbing, painting, electrical, roofing, carpentry, and other services. Screening of outdoor storage is required as per Section IV, A.6 of Part III. (Storage Area/Screening). Buildinq Contractors Storaqe Yard: Activities include the maintenance and outdoor storage of large constructjon equipment such as earthmoving equipment, cranes, and outdoor storage of building materials in an unscreened manner. Buildinq Maintenance Services: Activities typically include, but aro not limited to: maintenance and custodial services, window cleaning services. disinfecting and exterminating services, and janitodal services. Small operation contractors may be included in this category, provided that the contractor has no outdoor storage of any materials or equipment, no inoperable vehicles or non-motofized trailers. nor any vehicles in excess of 84 inches in width or 6,000 pounds in gross weight. Buildinq and Liqht Equipment'Supplies and Sales: Activities typically include, but are not limited to: the rotnil sale or rental from the premises of goods and equipment, including paint, glass. hardware, fixtures, electrical supplies, rotortillers, syhll trailers. lumber, and hardware and may have outdoor storage where allowed. Business Supply Retail and Services: Activities typically include, but aro not limited to: retail sales, rental or repair from the premises of office equipment, office supplies and similar office goods primarily to firms and other organizations utilizing the goods rather than to individuals. They exclude the sale of materials used in construction of buildings or other structures. Business Support Services: Activities typically include, but are not limited to: services which support the activity of firms, such as, clerical, employment, protective. or minor processing. including blueprint services, and multi-copying of pamphlets and small reports for another firm. Activities not included in this category are the printing of books and services of a personal naturo. II1-11 6/97 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAlvlONGA ' ~ STAFF REPORT DATE: January 14, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Steve Hayes, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: APPEAL OF INCOMPLETENESS FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 9740 - M.EC.C.A. - An appeal of the City Planner determination of incompleteness for an application to use two existing buildings totaling 2,058 square feet as a church facility, located on a 2.86 acre parcel within the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at 9212 Base Line Road - APN: 202-242-09. ABSTRACT: This application was deemed incomplete for processing on November 18, 1997. The purpose of this report is a request for the Planning Commission to make an interpretation relative to a request from the Muslim Education and Community Center (MECCA) to waive the requirement for the additional payment of $ 3,615.32 in Planning Division fees for the processing of their Conditional Use Permit application. The payment of the additional Planning Division fees was referenced as a completeness item in the correspondence to the applicant dated November 18, 1997 (Exhibit "B"). The applicant has stated that all other items mentioned in Section 1 .a of the letter will be addressed with the re-submittal of the project. Per the Development Code, the developer has the ability to appeal the City Planner's determination of incompleteness within 10 days from the date of the incompleteness letter. However, staff is forwarding this request to the Commission at the applicant's request without a formal appeal because it involves an interpretation of the Conditional Use Permit application, specifically, whether this application constitutes a "Construction" or a "Non-Construction" Conditional Use Permit. The additional Planning Division fees and information, such as an Environmental Assessment and its related fees, is requested because staff has made the interpretation that this application involves additional construction on the property and ,therefore, requires a Construction Conditional Use Permit. The additional requested fee is the balance for the Construction Conditional Use Permit. ANALYSIS: The applicant purchased the property without consulting with City staff concerning process or requirements. The applicant is proposing to convert a house and detached garage, on an otherwise unimproved site, into a church with Sunday school classes. In conjunction with using the buildings, the applicant is proposing to construct the required parking lot with an asphalt all- weather driving surface, striped and landscaped per City standards. By definition, the addition of a parking lot on the property, with the proposed church intensifying the use of the property, requires street dedication and other applicable public street improvements, such as utility undergrounding, storm drains, street trees, etc., per Ordinance No. 58, which relates to City public improvement policies and requirements. In staffs opinion, the site improvements and related public street improvements, constitute construction, thereby requiring a Construction Conditional Use Permit and payment of all applicable fees. ITEM J PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 97-40 - MECCA January 14, 1998 Page 2 Secondly, Development Code Section 17.04.035 (Non-Cohstruction Conditional Use Permits) gives the City Planner authority to review and consider Conditional Use Permits only when no exterior construction is involved. This is simply not the case because this application involves the construction of approximately 1,300 square feet of new covered patio structures to create a courtyard between the two existing buildings. The applica!ion is therefore subject to all steps in the Development Review process, including full review of all applicable advisory committees as well as the Planning Commission; typical 0f all projects involving new construction. Finally, the application, in staff's opinion, constitutes a "project" Under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and is subject to full environmental review. Only the Planning Commission has the ability to review and consider projects involving Environmental Review. Since the fees requested are essentially processing fees for the application and the application is subject to all steps of the City's Development Review process, staff feels that payment of the processing fees for a Construction Conditional Use Permit should be required. All application fees are established by City Council Resolution 97-170. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the appeal by minute action and interpret the application to be a Construction Conditional Use Permit requiring an Environmental Assessment and payment of all associated fees. Respectfully submitted, City Planner BB:SH:taa Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Applicant's Letter Exhibit "B" Incompleteness Letter dated November 18, 1997 Exhibit "C" - Vicinity Map Exhibit "D" Site Plan M.E.C.C.A 9212 BASELINE ROAD RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 9170! Dated: 12-31-97 The Planning Commission City ofRancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamnngn, Ca 91701 Dear Sirs, The Muslim Education and Community Center of Amerlca is a non-profit educational and religious organization which was founded in 1991 in the city of Rancho Cucamonga. It is registered with the State of California as non-profit organization (Tax hi./, 1848238). The sole purpose of the organlzat/on is to provide communal, educational, religious and social facilities and oppurmnities tO the muslim families in the area. Since 1992, we have leased a 3,800 sq.fL space in an industrial urea at 9375 Feron BIrd iu the city of Ranch Cucamonga. Before starting the use of the leased facility, we applied for a CUP to the planning coatminion. After a thoroul~h review and a publlc hearing the permit was granted. We have been in the same facility ever since. Our community consists of about 23 to 25 families. We gather for Friday Noon Prayers (which ~ day of our Sabbath) and use the facility for approximately 2 hours. We offer Sunday religious ~-hool to about 35 children for approximately 3.5 hout~. During special religious occasions we use the facility for potluck dintiers and sped ken are invited to lalk and discuss issues ofconecn~ and interest to our community. 'l~e entire financial operation of the organization depends upon contributions from the community. There is no outside financial support. AH the work from cleaning to teaching the children is done by volunteers. Recently we purchased a piece of land with a house and a three car garage at 9212 Baseline Road in the city of Raneho Cucamonga. This was dune by ~rrowhtg money from some people within the community. We owe almost $200,000.00 on this property. Right now we are paying rent on aur present facility and borrowing money to pay for the new proper~y. We have applied for a CUP for the new property. A volunteer architect prepared our initial plans which we submitted to the planning division of the cjty. We paid the regular $435.00 fee with our application. We don*t intend to build any buildings on the new property for afteast five years. We would like to modify the garage for our Prayer area anti convert the house for Sunday religious school purposes. The only big change wlould be a parking lot to accomodate the traffic. The new property a private residencesbefore, has an unpaved parking for private autos..After the initial review of our ~ application Mr. Dan Coleman (Principal Planner) at the city planning decided that since we are paving the empty area next to the house for parking, the entire project will be considered as new construction and an application fee of $4,0~0.32 ~vill be required of us, This is more than 10 times the fee of $435.00 required with ou.r initial applic~!tion. We were totoily devasted, to say the least. We arranged a meeting with ~Jr. Coleman and Mr. Steve Hayes who was assigned to review our project. We explained to the two offthem that our resources donut provide for thai kind of money. We also explained that just paving a parking lot should not make the cntiro project a new construction. We also need money to make the d~irod and required changes in the garage and the house to meet our need and city requirements. Our present estimates arc that the parking lot alone is to cosl us about ~30,000.00. It is obviou.~ that the entire project and its potential can bc completely jeopardised. Since we don't have money right now to pay $40~0.32 fee upfront, our application cannot move forward. We need to pay our rent and borrow money every month to pay for the new property. The utility bids are an additional l'manciai burden. Our community is excited about'the possibilities this new property offers. We wish to have a pcrmenant house and we would like to continue to be part of this growing community. In light of the above, we are requesting that the plamihsg cornralston donut consider the entire project as new construction and therefore waive the required fee of $4050.32. We strongly feel that the entire project is not a new construction. Simply stated, our whole project and its future is in jeopardy and we are asking your help in resolving this situation. Like any non-profit religious organization we are struggling to acheire a betler future for our community and any help nnd support you cu give us will be immes~sely appreciated. Since ient n T H E C I T Y 0 F ANCI-IO CUCAHONCA ',lovember 18, 1997 ~Z~IC~ ,.~ Dr. Nadir Khan 6149 Amberwood Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-40 Dear Dr. Khan: Your application for the above-referenced project has been reviewed for completeness and accuracy of filing. As a result of the review. the project application has been found to be incomplete for processing. Attached please find a list outlining additional information needed prior to finding the application complete. non-conformities with development standards. and major design issues. Further processing of your project cannot begin until, at a minimum, the Completeness Items am submitted and the application accepted as complete. However, to expedite processing of your project, it is recommended that all issues on the attached list be addressed now. Submit eight copies of the revised application to the Planning Division. The applicant must submit the infon'nation and/or plans necessary to make the application complete within 60 days of the date of this letter. Failure to submit within this time limit may result in denial of your application. his decision regarding the incomplete status of your application shall be final following a ten-day appeal beginning with the date of this letter. Only Completeness Items may be appealed at this time. A written statement of masons for the appeal must be submitted to the Planning Commission Secretary and be accompanied by a S62 appeal fee. Should you have any questions regarding the review process. or if we can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact the project planner, Steve Hayes. at (909) 477-2750, Monday through Thursday from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Since Since,%,,,E EVE EPARTMENT Dan Coleman Principal Planner DC:SH:mlg Attachment Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer Karen Mosley Office Specialist II ', I uloyor I,'ViiliOPn J. Aexc, d~r , Councilmember Pc,,:I Bicne Mc'tor Pro Tern Dione Willieins ",'F"":>!'~ r~:- Councilmem:?,er Rex Gutierrez Jcck Lcm. ,A~CP. CiN Mcncger CounciJmember Jcmes V. Curatcio .:,:: FILE NO.: CUP 97-40! (COMPLETENESS COMMENTS) NOTE: This information is provided to assist in the preparation of a development package complete for processing. Additional information or comments may be necessary based upon a more thorough analysis during the Development Review Process, I. Planninq Division: A, ComDleteness Items - Additional information that, must be submitted prior to finding the application complete: 1. The development of this site as a church requires a Conditional Use Permit (construction); therefore, the application fees are as follows: Conditional Use Permit 63,761.96 Initial Study 288.36 S4,050.32 Fees paid -435.00 Balance due $3,615.32 Please submit a check in the amount of $3,615.32 for the balance due. 2. Submit a Conceptual Grading Plan per the attached Submittal Requirements Checklist. 3. Submit a Landscape Plan per the attached Submittal Requirements Checklist. 4. Submit a Site Utilization Map per the attached Submittal Requirements Checklist. 5. Due to the infill nature of the proposed project in a residential area, expanded public notification is required beyond the minjmum 300-foot radius, as follows: a. North to the south side of La Grande Street. b. East to the west side of Hellman Avenue., c. South to the Park Place Shopping Center. d. West to the properties on the west side of Eastwood Avenue. 6. Install a 4-foot by 8-foot "Notice of Filing" sign on the proper~y in accordance with the attached Supplemental Notice Filing Requirements handout. A neighborhood meeting inviting all affected property owners within the neighborhood is strongly recommended, prior to scheduling the project for review and approval of the Planning Commission. Staff will be glad to coordinate with you to arrange a time and meeting room at the Civic Center for the neighborhood meeting. COMPLETENESS COMMENTS CUP 97-40 November 18, 1997 age 2 7. ' A Tree Removal Permit with a reduced size Site Plan showing the locations of all trees on the proper~y shall be submitted if any existing trees are proposed to be removed. Attached for your convenience is a copy of the Tree Removal Permit application form. If trees are to be removed, submit a report from a licensed arborist. .. 8. A Master Plan for possible future development of the remainder of the site shall be submitted with the application. The Master Plan should address such issues as building location. s. location and orientation of parking areas, and vehicular and pedestrian circulation. 9. Provide information within 200 feet of the site on the Site Plan and Grading Plan, including, but not limited to, location of all structures, street improvements, any important physical features, and any existing walls and fences. 10. Provide illustrative elevations of all fences and walls. Label whether existing fences on- site are proposed to remain in-place or be removed. 11. The Site, Landscape, Grading Plans and Site Utilization Map shall be drawn to an engineering scale, such as 1 inch equals 40 feet. 12. Show the location of the required sidewalk along Base Line Road on the Site. Landscape and Grading Plans. The sidewalk shall designed to meander in accordance with City Standards. 13. Please verify that no gate is proposed at the access point along Base Line Road. 14. Correct inconsistencies between the building Elevations and the Roof Plan. 15. Submit public hearing information per the attached Submittal Requirements Checklist using the expanded notification area (see Comment #5 above). Follow format shown which should include the Tax Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) on each address label. 16. Submit a completed Initial Study Pan I (Environmental Assessment form) which is attached. 17. Submit a noise study prepared by an acoustical engineer per the attached handout. This study is necessary to address the potential impact of vehicle noise and basketball court upon surrounding residences. B. Technical Issues - The following preliminary technical issues are minimum code requirements which must be satisfied before the project can be recommended for approval to the Planning Commission. It is recommended that these issues be addressed in the revised plans: 1. A 45-foot average landscape setback and 30-foot parking setback (as measured from ultimate face of curb) will be required along Base Line Road. COMPLETENESS COMMENTS, CUP 97-40 November 18, 1997 Page 3 2. An emergency secondary vehicular access sha:ll be provided for the project. Staff would recommend that this be provided in the form of a tuff-block area near the southeast corner of the site. 3. The drive aisle east of and closest to the buildin, g shall be widened to a width of 26 feet to allow for emergency vehicle access. 4. A new block wall will be recommended to be required to be built along the interior property lines of the parcel in conjunction with the proposed use. Staff would recommend that the applicant work with the adjacent property owners to possible share in the cost of the wall and to avoid double wall or fence situations. 5. The undeveloped portion of the site will be required to be hydroseeded for erosion control and irrigated with an automatic irrigation system, prior to the use commencing on the property. 6. Since Base Line Road is considered a Special Boulevard within the City, a Master Plan for design of the landscape theme has been established. This project shall have a landscape theme incorporated that is consistent with the Base Line Road street scape master Plan. For further details, please consult Laura Bonaccorsi of the Engineering Division at (909) 477-2740. :- 7. For'y6ur iF~formation, any new light standards within the parking lot area shall be limited to a maximum height of 15 feet and have lights directed away from adjacent residential properties to avoid adverse impacts on adjacent'residents. A Lighting Plan will be required to be reviewed and approved by the Sheriffs Department and Planning Division as a condition of project approval. 8. Landscape berming, decorative low walls, shru'b hedges, or a combination thereof, shall be provided to screen parking areas from view of Base Line Road. 9. The trash enclosure shall be designed in accordance with City Standards and shall be architecturally integrated with the buildings. 10. Relocate basketball court to comply with required 5-foot setback from property line. 11. Provide decorative masonry wall around entire.property. C. Desiqn Issues - The following are preliminary design issues that are recommended to be addressed in the revised plans: 1. A general upgrade in the exterior appearance of the buildings should be provided. In doing so, staff would recommend that the new roof system be designed to compliment the existing roof by providing a uniform slope and material to all roof areas. 2. Wood trim should be introduced around windows on the building. 3. Wherever possible, additional landscaping sho,uld be provided across the site. COMPLETENESS COMMENTS CUP 97-40 November 18, 1997 ~age 4 4. Special paving shall be introduced at the primary vehicular entrance, handicapped parking areas and key pedestrian areas in the project. 5. Walls or fences proposed along Base Line Road should be pilasters incorporated into their design. II. Enqineerinq Division: A. Completeness: 1. Provide a Conceptual Grading Plan. Show the existing storm drain lateral in Base Line Road. 2. Show existing utility poles on the "Detailed Site Plan." Also, refer to the attached "Existing Overhead Utility Requirements" handout and provide a separate drawing per Section B of the handout. Include poles along the west properly line. 3. Existing curb, gutter, sidewalks and driveways on both sides of adjacent street shall be shown on the Site and Grading Plans within 200 feet. respectively, of the project boundaries. Include Lion Street as well as Base Line Road. 4. Line of s!ght designs shall be provided for all project intersections, including major driveways. on the Grading and Landscape Plans in accordance with the attached policy. 5. Verify the distance between the existing house and the curb face along Base Line Road. Our topographic maps seem to indicate 50 feet, rather than the 69 feet that is indicated. 6. Fire District comments will be needed regarding their ability to maneuver within the proposed parking lot and the necessity of an emergency access to the rear of the property, perhaps from Lion Street or to the easterly portion of the property frontage. 7. Since gated access is proposed, a design shall be provided to show that passenger cars are able to gain access when the gate is closed and can turn around without backing onto the public street. At a minimum. the ga(e shall be located 50 feet from the curb line and a 40-foot driveway width may be necessary. 8. Provide a Traffic Study which addresses the following: a. Parking demand, the ratio of students and school staff to parking spaces. b. Students pick-up and drop-off daily volume anticipated and site planning to accommodate grade levels. c. Average daily traffic projected for each development phase and peaking characteristics. d. Impact on Base Line Road traffic. e. Circulation in and out of the project driveway. COMPLETENESS COMMENTb CUP 97-40 November 18, 1997 Page 5 B. Issues: 1. Ordinance No. 58. as amended, requires installation of missing frontage improvements, with the construction of buildings and parking '.lot which intensify its use. 2. It will be necessary to mitigate the increase in: run-off due to development of the project . . site by upgrading the existing storm drain. lateral and possibly the catch basin in Base Line Road to current City standards. 3. No par~<ing or student drop-off will be allowed On Base Line Road. Ill. Buildinq and Safety Division's Fire Prevention/New Construction Unit: 1. Fire flow requirement shall be 3,000 gallons per minute. b. A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by Fire Department personnel prior to water plan approval. c. For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional fire flow test of the on-site hydrants shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by Fire Department personnel after construction and prior to occupancy. 2. Fire hydrants are required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed. flushed, and operable prior to delivery of any combustible building materials on-site (i.e., lumber, roofing materials. etc.). Hydrant flushing shall be witnessed by Fire Department personnel. 3. Existing fire hydrant locations shaft be provided prior to water plan approval. Required hydrants, if any, will be determined by the Fire District. Fire District standards require a 6 inch riser with a 4 inch and 2-1/2 inch outlet. 'Substandard hydrants shall be upgraded to meet this standard. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specifications on approved brands and model numbers. 4. Prior to the issuance of building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be submitted to the Fire District that an approved temporary water supply for fire protection is available, pending completion of required fire protection system. 5. A fire alarm system(s) shall be required as noted below: a. Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15. b. California Code Regulations Title 24. 6. Roadways within project shall comply with the Fi~e District's fire lane standards, as noted: a. All roadways. b. See attached Ordinance No. 22. COMPLETENESS COMMENTS CUP 97-40 November 18, 1997 'age 6 7. Emergency access, a minimum of 26 feet wide, shall be provided, and maintained free and clear of obstructions at all times during construction, in accordance with Fire District requirements. 8. All trees and shrubs planted in any median shall be kept trimmed to a minimum of 14 feet 6 inches from ground up. so as not to impede fire apparatus. 9. A Knox rapid entry key vault shall be installed prior to final inspection. Proof of purchase shall be submitted prior to final building plan approval. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specific details and ordering information. 10. Plan check fees in the amount of $62.50 shall be paid prior to final plan approval. Note: Separate plan check fees for fire protection systems (sprinklers, hood systems, alarms, etc.) and/or any consultant reviews will be assessed upon submittal of plans. 11. Plans shall be submitled and plans approved prior to construction in accordance with 1994 UBC, UFC. UPC, UMC, NEC and RCFD Standards 22, 15. 12. A change of occupancy analysis is required to be completed prior to Conditional Use Permit approval Contact John Thomas, Plan Check Coordinator, at (909) 477-2710 ext. 2202. IV. Rancho Cucamonqa Police Department: Applicant shall contact the Police Department, (909) 477- 2800, for compliance with the following conditions: 1. All parking, common, and storage areas shall have minimum maintained l-foot candle power. These areas should be lighted from sunset to sunrise and on photo sensored cell. 2. All buildings shall have minimal security lighting to eliminate dark areas around the buildings, with direct lighting to be ~rovided by all entryways. Lighting shall be consistent around the entire development. 3. Lighting in exterior areas shall be in vandal-resistant fixtures. 4. Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime visibility. 5. Install a burglar alarm system and a panic alarm if needed. Instructing management and employees on the operation of the alarm system will reduce the amount of false alarms and in turn save dollars and lives. 6. More information on type of gate - is pedestrian gate coded? Hours of business? Anyone living on-site? O00 .O00 X X 1382.2 X CITY OF RANCHO CUCAJVIONGA ' STAFF RF, PORT DATE: January 14, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Rebecca Van Buren, Associate Planner SUBJECT: USE DETERMINATION 97-02 - OPTIONS FOR YOUTH - A request to determine that a youth counseling/educational service is similar to an administrative office and is a permitted use within the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. ANALYSIS: Backqround: The applicant, Options for Youth, is interested in establishing a "charier school" in an approximate 1,500 square foot suite in the northeastern portion of the Thomas Winery Plaza (between Cardio Fitness and Cue 'N View Billiards). The subject site is in Subarea 2 of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan (Exhibit "E"). The specific plan allows educational institutions and vocational schools as a conditional use in Subarea 4, but not in Subarea 2. Notwithstanding, the applicant contends that the proposed "charier school" is not operated as a school in the traditional manner. It does not provide group instruction nor are the students in attendance for a typical school day. Options for Youth operates an academic counseling program which targets at-risk or dropped-out students. Teachers/counselors meet with students for one-on- one counseling, academic instruction, and mentoring. The facility administers educational programs; i.e., it provides homework assignments for independent study, grades homework, and administers tests. Students visit the facility twice a week for their scheduled appointments which typically are one hour in duration. Students participating in the program do so voluntarily to furlher their life prospects. The operational characteristics of the proposed use are similar to the business operation of a professional service, such as a counselor. psychologist, or physical therapist. Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan: Subarea 2 of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan is located between Cucamonga Creek and Hellman Avenue. This Subarea contains a variety of land use activities, including the Thomas Brothers Winery, which prevails as the Subarea Activity Center. The Subarea allows "administrative, business, and professional offices" as a permitted use. Staff feels the proposed use operates in a manner consistent with an administrative office. It appears the operational characteristics and intensity of the use would not be any different than that of a counseling service which lacks the "charter school" credentials. Based upon the description of use presented herein, Staff feels it is appropriate to classify the use as a form of administrative office and allow as a permitted use. It should be noted the use would not be authorized to transition to a traditional school format, such as instituting classes, recess breaks, school day attendance. etc. A transition from an office function to a school would require a specific plan amendment and conditional use permit. ITEM K PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT UD 97-02 - OPTIONS FOR YOUTH January 14, 1998 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve Use Determination 97-02 to allow a youth counseling/educational service to '.be classified as an administrative office and a permitted use in the Foothill Boulevard Specifi'c Plan in those districts which permit administrative, business, and professional offices therein~. Respectfully submitted, City Planner BB:RVB:gs Attachments: Exhibit"A" - Applicant's letter Exhibit "B" Site Plan Exhibit "C" Floor Plan Exhibit "D" Land Use Tables for Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Exhibit "E" Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Subarea 2 Map Resolution of Approval OPTIONS FOR YOUTH - UPLAND Charter School December 18, 1997 Mr. Brad Buller, City Planner CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Re: Options For Youth Proposed Center/Located in The Thomas Winery Center at the Northeast Corner of Foothill and Vineyard, Rancho Cucamonga Dear Mr. Buller: Please allow this letter to serve as a request for a "Use Determination" for the proposed Options For Youth Center located within a special commercial district, at the northeast corner of Foothill and Vineyard. Options For Youth--Upland, Inc. is a non-profit, public benefit corporation that operates a counseling program that is specifically designed for at-risk or drop-out students. Using a one-on-one format Options For Youth staff members meet with local high school students twice per week for one hour appointments to proctor tests as well as discuss life goals, job skills, and academic achievement (student attendance is voluntary). The student impact at each center is minimal. Students are primarily dropped off by their parents or utilize the public transit system to arrive at their scheduled appointment time. The name of this program is Options For Youth Charter School. I believe the word "school" has led to many obvious misconceptions about the type of business we operate. Our program does not fit the traditional sense of the word "school" in any form. We do not have extended school days where students are required to be in attendance for more than 12 hours per week or 4 hours in any one day. Since we see students on a one-on- one basis, there is no need for classrooms. California law states that: "charter schools be governed only by the charter school statute itself, not any other provisions of law that usually apply to public school districts in the state of California." Enclosed you will find a copy of the charter school statutes which do not limit how we operate as a business. Options For Youth is a professional service that is provided for those students who are willing to commit themselves to learning and developing self- responsibility. [] CORPORATE OFFICE · 2529 FOOTHILL BL., SUITE 1 · LA CRESCE~TA. CA 91214 · (818) 542-3555 · FAX (818~ 542-3550 [] UPLA\D CE~.TER · 310 '~ORTH i'~OU,%'TAh%' AVE'-;U5 · UPLA:~D, CA 91786 · (9091 9'J. 6-0500 ° FAX (909) 946-0506 ~-~ Mr. Brad Buller, City Planner December 18, 1997 Page 2 The center in Rancho Cucamonga will be set up to accommodate a maximum of only two full time staff members who will service student~ from the local high schoo s. The majority of this service is administrative in nature wi!h time being spent processing student files and proctoring tests. Thus the classifi,cation of "Profess onal, Administrative Services" is most fitting to our daily operations. Options For Youth provides an enormous benefit to the city of Rancho Cucamonga because it targets students who would otherwise be out of school. It is a contracted service with Upland Unified School District and focuses on returning at-risk students to traditional district programs. Thank you for your cooperation and coordination in respect to our request. Sincerely, Bryant Swenson Area Supervisor Enclosures: -Memorandum from Delaine' Eastin, State Superintendent of Public Education -Memorandum from Michael E. Hersher, Dep2uty General Counsel -California Education Code - Section 47600-47625, 41365 (charter school statutes) cc: Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, City of Rancho 'Cucamonga Jeep Jensen, Vice President, Options For Youth Karen Sears, Property Manager, GMS Realty ThomasWindy THOI4A$ ': ~· WINERY PLAZA C:~ RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA I IUlll LIII[III'ITiTI . o - ~lll IIIIIIIIIIIIIII ~ ~'~ ~ "~.l I.l.I I.Illll. IJ I,I Llll.[ I.kLl.l.lll.I..Ll_l LLI PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN FOR;, OPTIONS FOR YOUTH CENTER 7965 Vineyard Ave Unit F-3,~Rancho Gucamonga Please note that the following plans are not drawn to Scale. The purpose of the diagram is simply to show e basic layout and does not represent exact locations. 8' Fo~ables .V Bookshelf I 1 E Htl IT "C't Foothill Boulevard Specific Elan Part IV, Section 9 SUMMARY TABLE OF PERMITTED (P) AND CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED (C) USES Subarea One Subarea Two Subarea Three Subarea Four RETAIL COMMERCIAL USES SC CC O MR P SC CC ' O ~MR I MNR ! SC CC CO ,MR MR U MU CC IRRC MR LI3 O Antique Shops P P p P p p p1 p p Aooarel a) Boutiques P P P P P P P P P b) General P P P P P P P P Appliance Stores and Repair P P P P P Art, Music, Photographic Studios P P .P P p p p p p ! p2 C and Supply Stores Auto Service Station C C i C C C C C C C Auto Service (including trailers, motorcycles, boats, campers): a) Sales (with ancillary repair p p p P C facilities) b) Rentals P P P ; P P P c) Minor Repair (does not include major engine work, p p p p p mt.ffi'ler shops, painting, body work, upholstery, etc.) d) Coin-op Washing C C C e) Automatic Washing C C C C f) Parts and Supplies P P P P P _".'."':"'2"5....--............. 7'.... Bakeries (retail only) P P P P P P P P P Barber and Beauty Shops P P P P P P P P P P P 92 P Bed and Breakfast C C C C C C C O C Bicycle Shops P P p p p p p ~2 Blueprint and Photocopy p p p p p p p p p China and Glassware Stores P P p p p p p p2 Does not include thrift or second hand stores. 2 Refer to RRC(2) Section 9.9.2 footnotes AIr industrial uses and development standards shall be as provided in Sub-area 7 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan (ISP) IV-4 4/96 Foothill Boulevard Specific Elan ~ ?art IV,, Section 9 Subarea One Subarea Two ~ Subarea Three Subarea Four RETAIL COMMERCIAL USES SC CC 0 MR P SC CC O MR M~4R SC CC CO LMR MR U MU )CC ~RC MR LI3 ~O~ ,e tai, Le,,ge<ba,. Io,,ge. tavern) including related C C C C C C C C C ; C C C entertainment :Commercial Recreation: a) Indoor uses such as P P P P P P F P P P P P · bowling and billiards , b) Outdoor uses such as C C C CZ C C C C C tennis and basketball Convalescent Facilities & p p p p p p p p P P p p Hospitals Curtain and Drapery Shops P P P p p p p Day Care Centers C C i C Delicatessens and Speciaity Food Stores P P P P P P P P P Drug Stores and Pharmacies a) overl0,000sq. ft, P p p p p p b) Pharmacieswithorwithout spedaity retail under 10,000 C C C sq. t~. Electronics Sales and Service (Tvs, Stereos. radios. P P p p p p computers) Educational institutions. Parochial, Private (incJuding C colleges and universities) .~, Farmers' Markets P P p p p Floor Covedng Shops P P p p p Florist Shops p P P p p p p p p p p p p Fumiture Stores P P P P p p p p Hardware Stores P p p p p Health and Athletic Gyms and C P C P C P C p p p2 Weight Reducing Clinics P Hobby Shops p p p p p p p p2 Ice Cream Stores and Soda p p p p p p p p p p2 Fountains Janitorial Services and Supplies p p p p p2 C Jewelry Stores P P ! p p p p ) p p Laundry (Self Service) P p p p p Leather Goods and Luggage Stores P P P P P P P P ~Refer to RRC(2) Section 9.9.2 footnotes All industrial uses and development standards shall be as provided in Sub-area 7 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan (ISP) IV-5 4/96 J Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Part ~ Section 9 Subarea One Subarea Two Subarea Three Subarea Four RETAIL COMMERCIAL USES SC CC O MR P SC CC 0 MR MHR SC CC CO LMR MR ! U MU CC RRC MR I LI3 O ,ibmdes and Museums, public C and private _iquor Stores C C C C C C C C Vlessenger and Wire Services p p p p; p p p p2 Vlortuades and Cemetedes C VIMsic, Dance, and Maffial Arts Studios C P C P C P P P ~/ewspaper and Magazine Stores P P P · P P P I p p p p p p2 qursedes and Garden Supply p p p p p Stores within encJosed area 3ffice. Business Mac/nine and Computer Component Stores P P P P p p P P P C 3ffice Supply Stores P P P P P P P P P P =aint, Glass, and Wallpaper Stores P P P P P !Parking Facilities (commercial C where fees are charged} Parks and Recreation Facilities. C public and private =et Shops p p p p p p p p2 Photocopy (Xerox) p p p p p p p p2 Political or Philanthropic C Headquarters Public and Private Clubs and Lodges, including YMCA, C Y~VCA, and similar Youth Group Uses Record and Tape Stores P P P P p p P P P Recreational Vehicie Storage C Yards Restaurants fsit down): a) with entertainment and/or C C C C C C C C C C C cocktail lounge, bar b) inddental serving of beer and wine (without a cocktail lounge. bar, entertainment or P P P P P P P P P P P P P dancing) c) cefe. limited to 20 seats p p p p p p p p p p p p p (Including outdoor seating) d) Fast Food: with drive-thru C C C C C C without drive- P P P P P P P P P thru Refer to RRC(2) Section 9.9.2 footnotes All industrial uses and development standards shall be as provided in Sub-area 7 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan (ISP) IV-6 4/96 Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan . Subarea One Subarea Two ~ Subarea Three Subarea Four RETAIL COMMERCIAL USES SC CC O MR P SC CC O I MR M~IR SC CC CO .MR MR U MU CC 1RC MR LI3 : O I Shoo Stores and Repair Shops P P P P r P P P P P P SpeciaRy Retail P P P P ~ p p P Sportin~l Goods Stores: a) Specialty; Backpacking, Tennis. Skiing. P P P P P P P P P Mountaineedng. Fishing. etc. b) General; encorepassing a p p p p p vadety of sports equipreent !Supermarkets p p p P P Swimreing Pool Services and p p p ! p p Supplies Tailor Shops p p P P P P P P Toy Stores p p P p P P P P Vadety Department Stores. C P C P C P P P Junior Department Stores Veterinary (domestic): a) Non-boarding P C P C P P P P C b) Boarding C C C C C C Vocational or Business Trade Schools :~ ,,..~ C Watch and Clock Repair Stores \~'~ pN, ~ h'~ ~ p p p Yardage Goods Stores P P P P P ENTERTAINMENT AND Subarea One Subarea Two Sut~area Three Subarea Four CULTURAL USES SC CC O MR P SC CC O ! MR MHR SC CC CO LMR MR U MU CC RRC MR LI3 O ~,rcades C C C C C C C C '~uitural/Artist Exhibits: a) Indoor Gallery and Art Sa,~s P C P P C P P b) Outdoor Art Exhibits P C P C P C C )iscotheques C C C C C C C C Theaters: a) Dinner Theater P P P P P C P b) Movie Theater including p p p p p Multiplex 2 Refer to RRC(2) Section 9.9.2 footnotes 3 All inciustrial uses and developreent standards shall be as provided in Sub-area 7' of the Industrial Area Specific Plan (ISP) IV-7 4/96 Foothill Boulevard Spectffic Plan Part IV,, Section 9. OFFICE AND ADMINISTRATIVE Subarea One Subarea Two Subarea Three Subarea Four USES I SC CC 0 I MR P I SC CC 0 I M. MHR SC CC I CO ~MR MR I U MU CC aRC ~4. U3 I0 Administrative, Business, and p Professional Offices p p p p p p p p p p p p2 Banks, Finance Sen/ices and : p p p p p p p p p p p p p institutions, including ddve-thru Business and Office Sen/ices ; P P P P P p p P P Interior Decorating Firms P P P P P P p p p P P Medic~lrDental Offices and I Related p p p p p p p p p ~2 i P Health Clinic~ Optician and Optometrical Shops p p p p p p p p p Realtors and Real Estate Offices p p p p p p p p p p p ~2 P Travel Agencies p p p p p p p p p p p Subarea One Subarea Two Subarea Throe Subarea Four RESIDENTIAL USES SC ;CC O MR P SC CC ~O MR I MHR SC CC CO [LMR MR U MU CC tRC MR LI3 O Single Family Detached P P P P Single Family Attached (duplex, p p p p p p p triplex, fourplex) ~uiti-Family Dwellings P P P P P P Ancillary Residenital Uses a) Home-care Facilities (6 or p p p p p p p less) b) On-site Private Recreation p p p p p p p Facilities Accessory Uses: a) Accessory Structures P P P P P P P b) Home Occupation P P P P P P P Subarea One Subarea Two Subarea Three Subarea Four PUBLIC USES SC CC ] o MR P SC CC O MR MHR SC: CC CO I, MR MR U MU CC ]RRC MR LI3 O Transit Facilities C Public Utility Installations P IV-8 4/96 Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Part IV,, Section 9 Subarea Tw Subarea Four Uses: e) Conference/Convention Facilities f) Florist Shops g) Gif~ Shops h) Newspaper/Magazine Stores ~ Pharmacies j) Restaurants (s/t down) k) Toudst Information I) Travel Agencies 2 Refer to RRC(2) Section 9.9.2 footnotes 3 All industrial uses and development standards shall be as provided in Sub-area 7 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan (ISP) IV-9 4/96 J LEGEND OFFICE RESIDENTIAl, ~'~ MIXED USE r'~ LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ~ OFFICE Co ~ LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL F'~ COMMERCIAL/OFFICE < ~* L'~ MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL INDUSTRIAL a. t_~,H~ MEDIUM-HIGH RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL ~ LIGHT INDUSTRIAL b. COMMERCIAL PUBLI(; % ~C~ ~ SPECIAL COMMERCIAL ~ UTILITY '.X:)[~ COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL FT1 PUBLIC ° .r~'~REGiDNALRELATEDcoMMERcI,L .~"T ER i,____,,, MAST PLAN AREA LAND USE PLAN RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING USE DETERMINATION 97-02, DETERMINING THAT A YOUTH COUNSELING/EDUCATIONAL SERVICE IS SIMILAR TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE AND IS A PERMITTED USE WITHIN THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF A. Recitals. 1. Options for Youth has filed an application for the approval of Use Determination 97-02, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Use Determination is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 14th day of January 1998. the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a meeting on the application and concluded said meeting on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Pad A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced meeting on January 14, 1998, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application contemplates classifying a youth counseling/educational service similar to an administrative office as a permitted use within the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan; and, b. The youth counseling/educational service operates in a manner similar to an administrative office because the use provides individual counseling, instruction, and administration of exams on an appointment basis during normal business hours between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. The use facilitates independent study by youth participants. The use does not include group instruction or classes such as found in a traditional school environment. c. The Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan permits administrative offices in the Specialty Commercial, Community Commercial, Regional Related Commercial. Office, Commercial Office. and Mixed Use Districts. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The use in question has similar operational characteristics and intensity to an administrative office which is a permitted use in the Specialty Commercial, Community Commercial, Regional Related Commercial, Office, Commercial Office, and Mixed Use Districts of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. UD 97-02- OPTIONS FOR YOUTH January 14,1998 Page 2 b. The use in question meets the purpose and intent of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. The Goals of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Ptan in~:lude "to create a dynamic concourse that is attractive and of high quality with a unifying community design image, reflective of community heritage and identity. providing an economically viable setting for a balanced mixture of commercial and residential uses wth safe, efficient, circulation and ~access" (FBSP p. 11-4.1); and, "to develop a specific plan which is sensitive to community land use an;d fiscal needs" (FBSP p. 11-4.2). The use is adaptable to existing commercial and office developments in the corridor, without compromise of design image, and provides a necessary service to fudhe'r the educational development of youth in the community. ~ c. The use in question meets and conforms to the applicable goals and objectives of the General Plan. The use provides ,counseling and ~ducational services to a segment of the community with special needs, specifically to youth who are at risk of not succeeding in the traditional educational system. The use furthers the General Plan land use objectives for schools, including "work toward cooperation with the school districts for a learning environment that is capable of meeting the educational and recreational needs of the City's school-aged population and that encourages a diversity of experiences" and "set aside sufficient natural and historic areas for purposes of teaching environmental and historic values. and provide equipment and facilities to support these programs." (FBSP p. 111-65). The Foothill Boulevard corridor contains such historic resources and may be a conducive learning environment for youth counseling/educational services. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby determines that a youth counseling/educational service is similar to an administrative office and is a permitted Use in the Foothill 'Boulevard Specific Plan in those districts which so permit administrative offices. 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 1998. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 14th day of January 1998, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: .,~ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ' ~ STAFF REPORT DATE: January 14, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad BulleL City Planner BY: Larry Henderson AICP, Principal Planner SUBJECT: REVIEW OF THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD TASK FORCE DRAFT POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: In early 1997, the City Council directed the formation of a joint City Council/Planning Commission Task Force to examine issues and propose recommendations relative to land use policies along Foothill Boulevard. The Task Force compiled the attached listing of new policies and changes to existing policies for incorporation into the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. These draft recommendations are hereby forwarded to the Planning Commission for its review and input. RECOMMENDATION: Consider the draft recommendations and forward any comments back to the Task Force prior to scheduling for City Council consideration. Respectful submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:LH:gs Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Foothill Boulevard Task Force New Policy Recommendations Draft - December 3, 1997 Exhibit "B" - Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Adopted Goals and Policies Draft Changes - December 3, 1997 ITEH L FOOTHILL BOULEVARD TASK FORCE NEW POLICY RECOMMF'NDATIONS DRAFT - DECEMBER 3, 1997 The following polides were reviewed by the Foothi, Boule:vard Task Force on September 17, 1997. The Task Force recommends support of the following pol!cies as amended. See changes in italics. 1, GOAL: East of Haven Avenue, support a request',for a land use change under the following limited drcumstances: a) Process proiect concurrently with request for land use change; b) Provide evidence of commitment from major ~anchor or anchors; c) Provide a market absorption study; d) Demonstrate consistency With all applicable General Plan goals and policies. IMPLEMENTATION: Case by case upon receipt of an application package TIME FRAME: Current RESPONSIBILITY: Community Development Department 2. GOAL: As a high priority, construct median islands between Haven Avenue and the western City limit. IMPLEMENTATION: Identify funding and budget. Under direction of the Redevelopmerit Agency Board, the Agency can contribute funds for public improvements within the Agency's area, subject to availability. TIME FRAME: Three years (1998-2001) RESPONSIBILITY: Engineering Division, Redevelopment Agency, Caltrans · 3. GOAL: As a high priority, complete missing pedestrian linkages along Foothi, Boulevard between Haven Avenue and the western City limit and endeavor to construct concurrently with median island construction. IMPLEMENTATION: Map missing pedestrian linkages, identify funding source and budget. Under direction of the Redevelopmerit Agency Board, the Agency can contribute funds, subject to availability, for public improvements within the Agency's area. Identify funding sources and budget. TIME FRAME: Ten-year program (1998-2008) RESPONSIBILITY: Engineering Division and Redevelopment Agency 4. GOAL: As a high priority, reconstruct ~ the railroad bridge over Foothill Boulevard as a part of the Rails to Trails plan in order to facilitate safe traffic circulation and pedestrian linkages. IMPLEMENTATtON:~ SANBAG'Rails to Trails Program TIME FRAME: To be determined RESPONSIBILITY: Planning and Engineering Divisions EXHIBIT "A" ,,L~ , NEW POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS Page 2 5. GOAL: As a high priority, provide City assistance for Public Right-of-Way Improvements, including street widening, storm drains, and traffic signals, for the area west of Cucamonga Creek Channel. IMPLEMENTATION: Identify funding sources and budget funds TIME FRAME: Establish a priority list RESPONSIBILITY: Engineering Division 6. GOAL: Realign Red Hill Drive nodh of Foothill Boulevard. IMPLEMENTATION: Identify funding source and budget funds ,TIME FRAME: Until completed RESPONSIBILITY: Engineering Division 7. GOAL: Realign San Bernardino Road South of Foothill Boulevard. IMPLEMENTATION: Condition of development TIME FRAME: Until completed RESPONSIBILITY: Engineering Division and ApplicantIs for Development 8. GOAL: Consolidate Development Code and Specific Plans to clarify zoning requirements, design standards, and facilitate business development. IMPLEMENTATION: Identify funding source and budget funds. Redevelopment Agency funds may be used. ,TIME FRAME: Budget within three years RESPONSIBILITY: Planning Division and Redevelopment Agency 9. GOAL: Support efforts by the Chamber of Commerce and Foothill businesses to establish a spedal Shopping Distdct Identification. This policy is related to current policy in the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan (Section 10.3.). IMPLEMENTATION: Private funding TIME FRAME: Upon adoption RESPONSIBILITY: Foothill Boulevard business community and City. FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN ADOPTED GOALS AND POLICIES DRAFT CHANGES - DECE~IBER 3, 1997 The Task Force recommends continued support for theefollowing goals/policies which have been adopted within the Implementation Section of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan with the following changes: Delete Policy 10.2 and amend Policy 10.1.5. 10.1.1. GOAL: Redevelopment Agency Foothill Boule,>ard Plan IMPLEMENTATION: Redevelopmerit Agency. TIME FRAME: 1987 until plan completed RESPONSIBILITY: Redevelopment Agency 10.1,2. GOAL: Infrastructure Upgrade: a) Hermosa Avenue storm drain; b) Archibald Avenue storm drain; c) Hellman Avenue storm drain; d) Foothill Boulevard and East Avenue; e) Etiwanda Creek IMPLEMENTATION: Identify funding sources and/or mechanisms and budget TIME FRAME: 1987 - buildout RESPONSIBILITY: Engineering Division and Redevelopment Agency 10. 1 .3. GOAL: Incentive program for small lot consolidation for areas between Haven Avenue and the western City limit IMPLEMENTATION: Identify funding source and budget funds; negotiate with willing proper~y owners. ,TIME FRAME: 1987-buildout RESPONSIBILITY: Property owner initiative 10.1,4. GOAL: Attract high sales volume business and fill market void IMPLEMENTATION: Redeve:opment Agency TIME FRAME: 1987 until buildout RESPONSIBILITY: Redevelo'pment Agency and Community Development Department 1015 EXHIBIT "B" ADOPTED GOALS AND POLICIES Page 2 10.1,5, GOAL: Promote housing opportunities along and adjacent to Foothill Boulevard Corridor IMPLEMENTATION: Redevelopment Agency TIME FRAME: 1987 to buildout RESPONSIBILITY: Community Development Depadment. 10.2. COAL: FGF,T, TIM." ."P, AM..": 1257 ............ 10.3. 10.2. GOAL: Design coordination for Corddon Adopt and install distinctive signs, furniture, and color program for public right-of-way to achieve consistency within Specific Plan area. IMPLEMENTATION: Planning Division and/or private consultant TIME FRAME: 1987 to buildout RESPONSIBILITY: Community Development Division 10.4. 10.3. GOAL: Corridor identification sign program - identify location, design. and cost of acquisition (easement, lease, purchase) for City identification signs. IMPLEMENTATION: Planning Division and/or private consultant TIME FRAME: 1987 to buildout RESPONSIBILITY: Community Development Division