No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998/07/08 - Agenda PacketCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA WEDNESDAY JULY 8, 1998 7:00 PM Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center Council Chamber 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California I. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call Chairman Barker __ Vice Chairman McNiei __ Commissioner Bethel __ Commissioner Macias __ Commissioner Tolstoy __ II. ANNOUNCEMENTS III. CONSENT CALENDAR The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non- controversial They wi// be acted on by the Commission at one time without discussion. /f anyone 'has concern over any item, it shou/d be removed for discussion. A. QUITCLAIM OF A 14 FOOT STRIP OF LAND ON 8351 SAN BERNARDINO ROAD AT FOOTHILL BOULEVARD APN: 207-571-76. Related File: D~velopment Review 97-09. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-06 - PANDA PANDA - A request to construct a 2,800 square foot restaurant on 0.89 acres of land within the Foothill Marketplace Shopping Center in Subarea 4 (Regional Related Commercial) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard on the east side of the west entrance to the shopping center - APN: 229-031-45. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration, C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-05 - DAVIES - A request to construct two industrial buildings totaling 9,408 square feet of floor area (each building having 4,704 square feet) on 1.39 acres of land, in Subarea 3 (General Industrial) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southeast corner of Helms Avenue and 9th Street -APN: 209-03-58. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. IV, PUBLIC HEARINGS The following items are public hearings in which concemed individuals may voice their opinion of the related project. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address the Commission by stating your name and address. All such opinions shaft be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. Please sign in after speaking. D.~ DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 98-02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the regulations for second dwelling units for consistency with changes in state law. (Continued from June 10, 1998) (TO BE CONTINUED TO AUGUST 12, 1998) V. PUBLIC COMMENTS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Commission. Items to be discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda. VI. COMMISSION BUSINESS E. ELECTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION OFFICERS F. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS VII. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11:00 p. m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shaft be heard only with the consent of the Commission. THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL ADJOURN TO A WORKSHOP IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING IN THE RAINS ROOM REGARDING A PROPOSED REVISION TO THE PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM FOR TERRA VISTA TOWN CENTER AND TOWN CENTER SQUARE Page 2 I, Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on July 1, 1998, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. Page 3 CITY HALL CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY OF RANCHO CUCAiv~ONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: July g, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commissiou FROM: Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer SUBJECT: OUITCLAIM OF A 14' STRIP OF LAND ON 8351 SAN BERNARDINO ROAD AT FOOTHILL BOULEVARD.V-151A - APN 207-571-76 - RELATED FILE DR 97-09 BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS On September 24, 1959 the o,,'~"ners of the subject property dedicated a I4' strip of land, in fee, to the County of San Bernardino for highway purposes. Through the incorporation process the City took possession of all highways in November of 1977. The 14' fee dedication was discovered during the processing of a lot merger for the related project DR 97-09. The subject strip of[and ,,,,'as not a known dedication and has never been used for the purpose it was intended. Additionally, the General Plan does not reflect a street in this location. In order To allow l:~r normal development of the sight the strip needs to be quitclaimed by the City. RECOMMENDAT[ON Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make the finding through n~inute action that the subject quitclaim conforms with the General Plan. This finding ,.viII be Iiorwarded to the City Council for further processing and final approval Respectfrilly submitted, Dan Jfm~es~ Senior Civil Engineer DJ/Z'vIP Attachments: Exhibit ;;A"- Vicinity .'vl[ap Exhibit ';B" - Area to Be Quitclaimed ITEtt A 4 CITY OF ITEM:V-151A RANCHO 8UCAMONGA TITLE:Vicinity Map ENGINEERIN{] DIVISION EXHIBIT: "A" SAN BERNARDINO ROAD AREA TO BE QUITCLAIMED:~ CITY OF ITEM: V-15tA RANCH0 CUCAMONGA TITLE: Area to be ~tuitclaimed ENGINEERING DIVISION EXHIBIT: "B" CITY OF I~\rCHO CUCA~\'fONGA ' STAFF REPORT DATE: July 8, 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 98-06 - PANDA PANDA - A request to construct a 2,800 square foot restaurant on 0.89 acres of land within the Foothill Marketplace Shopping Center in Subarea 4 (Regional Related Commercial) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard on the east side of the west entrance to the shopping center - APN: 229-031-45. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Surroundincl Land Use and Zoninq: North - Church, offices; Community Commercial District, Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan (Subarea 4) South - Retail uses (Costco) within the Foothill Marketplace Shopping Center; Regional Related Commercial District, Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan (Subarea 4) East A service station has been approved on the site immediately to the east, freestanding "pad" restaurants and retail within the Foothill Marketplace Shopping Center; Regional Related Commercial District, Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan (Subarea 4) West - Freestanding "pad" restaurants, mini lube facility within the Foothill Marketplace Shopping Center; Regional Related Commercial District, Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan (Subarea 4) B. General Plan Desiqnations: Project Site - Commercial North- Commercial South- Commercial East Commercial West Commercial C. Site Characteristics: The site is one of the few remaining vacant building pads within the Foothill Marketplace shopping center and is currently used for parking. The site is located -- at the southeast corne~ of Foothill Boulevard and the western-most driveway entrance to ITEfl B PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 98-06 - PANDA PANDA July 8, 1998 Page 2 the shopping center. The site is immediately to the west of the recently approved Chevron seNice station and drive~thru car wash site. Full frontage improvements are in place (street, landscaping, sidewalk, curb, and gutter), The site is approximately 5 feet lower than Foothill Boulevard and slopes gently from norlh to south. D. Parkinq Calculations: Number of Number of Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces of Use Footage Ratio Required Provided Restaurant 3,000 1/10D 30 30 ANALYSIS: A. General: This review is for environmental clearance only. The City Planner will take final action following environmental clearance. A retail building (Development Review 95-18, expires September 1998) was previously approved for the site. The applicant is proposing a 2,800 square foot restaurant with a 200 square foot outdoor eating patio area on the south side of the building. B. Desiqn Review Committee: The project was considered by the Committee (Bethel, Macias, Fong) on June 16, 1998, and recommended for City Planner approval subject to minor modifications listed in the attached minutes. C. Technical Review Committee: The Technical and Grading Review Committees reviewed the project and recommended approval subject to conditions. D. Environmental Assessment: Part I of the Initial Study has been completed by the applicant. Staff has completed Part II of the Initial Study, the Environmental Checklist. Staff identified potential impacts related to traffic circulation, A traffic study (Kimley-Horn and Associates, August 23, 1995) addressed current circulation problems in the Foothill Marketplace Shopping Center and certain methods of mitigation. The study recommends installation of a right-hand turn lane on the southbound portion of Marketplace Drive to ensure an adequate balance of capacities between Marketplace Drive and left turn pockets on westbound Foothill boulevard, thereby avoiding vehicle stacking within the intersection. The Planning Commission previously reviewed this study and conditioned the previously approved retail project (Development Review 95-18) to implement the recommendations. Staff recommends that the same requirement be placed upon approval of the current application. The Initial Study includes a mitigation measure requiring the applicant to install the subject right-hand turn lane ¢n southbound Marketplace Drive. Staff feels that, with mitigation, the project will not have a significant adverse environmental impact. If the Planning Commission concurs, then issuance of a ' Mitigated Neg~iive Declaration would be in order. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 98-06 - PANDA PANDA July 8, 1998 Page 3 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission issue a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Development Review 98~06, Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:BLC:gs Attachments: Exhibit "A" Site Utilization Map Exhibit "B" Site Plan Exhibit "C" - Grading Plan Exhibit "D" - Landscape Plan Exhibit "E" - Floor Plans Exhibit "F" Elevations Exhibit "G" - DRC Action Comments dated June 16, 1998 Exhibit "H" - Initial Study Part II ~ PANDA PANDA _ A CHINESE GOURMET STAU~NT LEADE ] E ::~,t '- SYMBOLS PROJECT DIRECTORY P~ IND~ SITE P~ '"~"~ ~: (9 ....... ~,~,,,,_ ~ ........  - ~ CONSULTANTS: ...... ~..~.,~ ....... . ....... ~'"~ ~ ' ....... ~-~ ~NCHO = .... , .................. T10 PLANT PALETTE SOUTFI ELEVATION PANDA PANDA / t / / / / RANCHO CUCAMONGA ~ST 6~2'~' ® A-2.0 PANDA PANDA CUCAMONGA A-2.1 DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 8:20 p.m. Brent Le Count June 16, 1998 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-06 - PANDA PANDA - A request to construct a 2,800 square foot restaurant on 0.89 acres of land within the Foothill Marketplace Shopping Center in Subarea 4 (Regional Related Commercial) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard on the east side of the west entrance to the shopping center - APN: 229-031-45. Desiqn Parameters: The building is proposed on the pad directly east of In N'Qut Burger, and is currently improved with a parking lot. A retail building (Development Review 95-18, expires September 1998) was previously approved for the site (see attached). The site is immediately to the west of the recently approved Chevron service station site (see attached). Street scape landscaping has been planted along the north and west edges of the site and the applicant intends to keep [he existing landscaping to the extent possible. The restaurant will have a 200 square foot outdoor dining area/patio on the south side. - Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: 1. The building is designed with many of the design features of the Foothill Marketplace Center but also has many corporate design features such as brackets, awnings, glass block, and trellis design that do not occur elsewhere in the center. These features should be eliminated or restudied to be more consistent with the center. 2. The north and west elevations are the most visually prominent but they have the least visual interest. Provide a trellis on the north side of the building similar to that over the entry (east elevation) and continue wainscoting treatment around north and west elevations. Provide vine planrings for wall trellises on these elevations. Relocate service door on north elevation to less visually prominent location. Secondan/Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. Provide heavily landscaped berms within landscape setback along Foothill Boulevard and driveway entrance (west side of site). Treatment should be consistent with the design for the Chevron project to the east (see attached). 2. Provide landscaping at northwest corner of parking lot on north side of northern-most parking space. 3. Increase the amount of landscaping on the north side of the building, 4. Trash enclosure appears far larger than necessary. Resize and redesign per other enclosures in the center. Provide significant shrub planting around enclosure to screen, Adjust parking space/curb on west side of enclosure and orientation of enclosure to provide ready, conflict free access to enclosure. 5" Provide decorati~ pavin~ for clear area between handicapped parking spaces to match driveway paving, DRC COMMENTS DR 98-06 - PANDA PANDA June 16, 1998 Page 2 Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. Provide minimum 5-foot setback for trash enclosure. 2. Eliminate narrow planter on east side of parking area in center of parking Ioi. Replace with diamond shaped tree wells between parking spaces. 3. Sign letters shall be channel type. Only logo may be in the form of a can sign, 4. Specify that light standards, trash receptacle, colors and materials, and hard scape treatment will match that of the center. 5. Revise parking lot layout in the central portion to meet City standards. The two easterly stalls do not meet minimum 18 feet depth and there should be a 6-foot wide planteT at end of parking row, Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be redesigned in light of the above comments and brought back before the Committee for further review. Attachments Desiqn Review Committee Action: Members Present: Bill Bethel, Rich Macias, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Brent Le Count The Committee reviewed the project and recommend approval subject to the following: 1. Provide roll up door painted to match the building for enclosed service area on north side of building. 2. Provide decorative paving within handicapped parking area in front of building entry to match driveway treatment. 3. All awning shah have one solid color matching approved color pa[lette for the Foothill Marketplace shopping center. No stripped color patterns are permitted. 4. Provide tile wainscoting on all elevations. 5, Provide heavily landscaped berms within landscape setback areas along Foothill Boulevard and driveway entrance along west side of site, Treatment shall be consistent with design for Chevron project to the east. 6. Eliminate wheel stops for parking spaces in center of parking lot. 7. , Specify on plans that light standards, trash receptacles, colors and materials, and hard scape treatment shall match that of center. City of Rancho Cucamonga :- ( ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM , . INITIAL STUDY PART Ii BACKGROUND 1. Project File: Development Review 98-06 - PANDA PANDA 2. Related Files: Development Review 95-18 and Conditional Use Permit 92-17 3. Description of Project: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-06 - PANDA PANDA - A request to construct a 2,800 square foot restaurant on 0.89 acres of land within the Foothill Marketplace Shopping Center in Subarea 4 (Regional Related Commercial) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard on the east side of the west entrance to the shopping center - APN: 229-031-45. 4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Rupert Mok 829 South Lemon Avenue Suite A11-B Walnut, CA 91789 5. General Plan Designation: Commercial 6. Zoning: Regional Related Commercial District (Subarea 4) Foothilt Boulevard Specific Plan 7, Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Church, offices, retail to the north; restaurant, future service station, mini-lube facility, and retail uses within Foothill Marketplace shopping center to the east, west, and south. 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) 477-275_0 EXHIBIT "H" Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review 98-06 - Panda Panda Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages ( ) Land Use and Planning (v') Transportation/Circulation ( ) Public Services ( ) Population and Housing ( ) Biological Resources ( ) Utilities and Service Systems ( ) Geological Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources ( ) Aesthetics ( ) Water (v') Hazards ( ) Cultural Resources ( ) Air Quality ( ) Noise ( ) Recreation ( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: ( ) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. (v') 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 eartier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Signed: ~~, ~ ~ Brent Le Count. AICP Associate Planner JuneS. 1998- Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review 98-06 - Panda Panda 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 identffied LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal.' 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? ) ( ) (V) 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) 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture?' ( ) ( ) ( ) (V) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review 98-06 - Panda Panda Page 4 b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~') c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) ( ) ( ) (V) d) Seiche hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (¢) e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) ( ) ( ) (¢) 0 Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( ) ( ) ( ) (¢) g) Subsidence ofthe land? ( ) ( ) ( ) (¢) h) Expansive soils? ( ) ( ) ( ) (V) i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) ( ) (V) 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? ( ) ( ) (V) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ( ) ( ) (¢) 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? ( ) ( ) (¢) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) ( ) ( ) (V) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review 98-06 - Panda Panda Page 5 i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater othe~ise available for public water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (V) 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal.' a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) ( ) (¢) 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? ( ) ( ) (V) 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (V) ( ) ( ) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (V) ( ) ( ) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ( ) ( ) ' (¢) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) ( ) (,/) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (~/) ( ) ( ) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) ( ) (¢) g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ( ) ( ) (¢) Comments: a, b. and e) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review 98-06 - Panda Panda Page 6 The proposed restaurant will increase the number of vehicle trips in and out of this portion of the Foothill Marketplace Shopping Center. In particular, the restaurant will increase the number of vehicles entering the shopping center off of Foothill Boulevard onto Marketplace Drive. A traffic study (WPA Traffic Engineers, July 1995) documented on-site circulation problems. A second traffic analysis (Kimley-Horn and Associates, August 23, 1995) also confirmed circulation problems in the center, including Marketplace Drive The study recommends installation of a third southbound lane, dedicated for right turning vehicles, on the west side of Marketplace Drive to accommodate the storage of vehicles coming into the center. This would provide a better balance between the capacities of the left-turn pockets on westbound Foothill Boulevard and the southbound portion of Marketplace Drive. thereby avoiding vehicle stacking and delays within the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Marketplace Drive and at the intersection of Marketplace Drive and the first on-site east-west circulation aisle. The Planning Commission previously reviewed these traffic studies and conditioned Development Review 95-18 to implement the recommendations, All circulation improvements identified in the traffic analysis prepared by Kimley- Horn and Associates, dated August 23, 1995, shall be constructed as part of the application. The applicant shall obtain the necessary easements fFom the adjoining property owner to accommodate the improvements. The final plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City Plan ner and City Engineer prior to building permit issuance. The improvements shall be installed prior to occupancy of the building. This will mitigate the impact to less than significant. 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (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') initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review 98-06 - Panda Panda Page 7 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal.' a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ( ) ( ) ( ) (V) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? ( ) ( ) ( ) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents ofthe 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)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (V) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) (V) ( ( ) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? ( ) ( ) ( (V) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? ( ) ( ) ( (V) e) Increased fire hazard in areas with fiammable brush, grass, or trees? ( ) ( ) ( (¢) Comments: b) The increased number of vehicles entering the site off of Foothill Boulevard to use the restaurant, combined with insufficient capacity of southbound lanes on Marketplace Drive, could lead to vehicle stacking within the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Marketplace Drive. This could block emergency vehicles on Foothill Boulevard and block emergency vehicles from entering or exiting the Foothill Marketplace shopping center in case of emergency. Compliance with the recommendations of the traffic analysis approved by the Pianning Commission on August 23, 1995, will mitigate this to a ~ess than significant impact. initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review 98-06 - Panda Panda Page 8 ~ 0. NOISE. Will the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (¢) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (V) ~ ~. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered government se~ices in any of the fofiowing areas: a) Fire protection? ( ) ( ) (~) b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) (¢) c) Schools? ( ) ( ) (V) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) ( ) (V) e) Other governmental seaices? ( ) ( ) (¢) '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? ( ) ( ) d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ( ) (¢') e) Storm water drainage? ( ) ( ) (v') f) Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) (V) g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) ( ) (¢) initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review 98-06 ~ Panda Panda Page 9 AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) ( ) (V) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? c) Create light or glare? ( ) ( ) (¢) 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposah a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (¢) b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~/) 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? ( ) ( ) ( ) 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (V) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review 98-06 - Panda Panda Page 10 a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~") 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.) () ( ) ( ) (V) c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumutatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (¢) d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ( ) ( ) ( ) (V) EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis+ The following earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply): (V) General Plan EIR -- (Certif4ed April 6, 1981 ) (V) Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review 98-06 - Panda Paada Page 11 (SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989) (v') Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan EtR (SCH #87021615, certified September 16, 1987) (V) Negative Declaration for CUP 90-37 (Foothill Marketplace Master Plan) Approved by City Council August 21, 1992 (V') Negative Declaration for Development Review 9548 (Retail Building on same parcel) Approved By Planning Commission September 13, 1995. Mitigation Measures: item 6, Transpor[ation and Item 9, Hazards: All circulation improvements identified in the traffic analysis prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, dated August 2:3, '1995, shall be constructed as part of the application. The applicant shall obtain the necessary easements from the adjoining pFoperty owner to accommodate the improvements. The final plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and City Engineer prior to building permit issuance. The improvements shall be installed prior to occupancy of the building. 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: Date: Print Name and Titie: Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review 98-06 - Panda Panda Page 11 Mitigation Measures: Item 6, Transportation and Item 9, Hazards: All circulation improvements identified in the traffic analysis prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, dated August 23, 1995, sha:l be constructed as part of the application. The applicant shall obtain the necessary easements from the adjoining property owner to accommodate the improvements. The final plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and City Engineer prior to building permit issuance. The improvements shall be installed prior to occupancy of the building. APPLICANT CERTIFICATION [ certify that I am the applicant forthe 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 proposa[s and/or hereby agree te the proposed mitigation measures to avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where cleaMy no significant environmental effects would Occur. L'~ Signat,re , . Oate: Pdnt Name and T~-~>""'~?'-j''~ ' '~')""~'"" ~,,,f,~,Z,~,~<-~ htc;INAL~PLNGCOMM~ENVDOC~ZDR98-OS.PT2 · ~ '~ City of Rancho Cucamonga : NEGATIVE DECLARATION The following Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act Section 21091 and 2~092 of the Public Resources Code. Project File No.: Development Review 98-06 Public Review Period Closes: July 8, 1998 Project Name: Project Applicant: Rupert Mok Project Location (also see attached map): Located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard on the east side of the west entrance to the shopping center - APN: 229-031-45. Project Description: A request to construct a 2,800 square foot restaurant on 0.89, acres of land within the Foothill Marketplace Shopping Center in Subarea 4 (Regional Related Commercial) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. FINDING This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has conducted an Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment and is proposing this Negative Declaration based upon the following finding: [] The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, [] The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects but: (1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this proposed Negative Declaration was released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and (2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment. If adopted, the Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. Reasons to support this finding are included in the attached Initial Study. The project file and all related documents are available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division at 10500 Civic Center Drive (909) 477-2750 or Fax (909) 477-2847. NOTICE The public is invited to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration during the review period. ~ July 8. 1998 Date of Determination Adopted By CITY OF IL~NCHO CUCA~MONGA -- STAFF REPORT DATE: July 8, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Bullet, City Planner BY: Brent Le Count, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-05 - DAVIES - A request to construct two industrial buildings totaling 9,408 square feet of floor area (each building having 4,704 square feet) on 1.39 acres of land, in Subarea 3 (General Industrial) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southeast corner of Helms Avenue and 9th Street - APN: 209-03-58. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoninq: North Industrial Buildings; General Industrial District, Industrial Area Specific Plan (Subarea 3) South - Industrial Buildings; General Industrial District, Industrial Area Specific Plan (Subarea 3) East Kincaid House (Historic Landmark); General industrial District, industrial Area Specific Plan (Subarea 3) West Industrial Buildings; General Industrial District, industrial Area Specific Plan (Subarea 3) B. General Plan Desiqnations: Project Site - General Industrial North General Industrial South General Industrial East General Industrial West General Industrial C. Site Characteristics: The site has been used as a contractors storage yard. There is an existing 8-foot high split face screen wall along the north and west property lines to screen stored materials, The site slopes gently from north to south, The historic landmark Kincaid House is located on the adjoining property to the east D. Parkind CaIculations: Number of Number of Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces of Use Footaae Ratio Required Provided Office 1,180 1/250 5 8 .- Manufacturing _- 8,228 1/500 1~6 2~6 Totat 9,408 21 34 ITEI1 ~ PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 98-05 - DAVIES July 8, 1998 Page 2 ANALYSIS: A. General: This review is for environmental clearance only. The City Planner will take final action following environmental clearance, The building design is virtually identical to buildings previously approved for a site to the south of the subject site, Both buildings are proposed to have adjacent storage yard areas enclosed with 8-foot high screen walls. The site is unique in that it is located next to the historic landmark Kincaid House which is both a residence and an office. Building "M" will be located 52 feet from the Kincaid House at it's closest point. There is a storage barn located on the Kincaid House site approximately 15 feet to the south of the House. The development of the subject industrial buildings is not expected to negatively affect the Kincaid House, B, Desiqn Review Committee: The project was considered by the Committee (Bethel. Macias, Fong) on June 16, 1998, at which time the Committee requested the proiect be brought back before the Committee with clarification of proposed colors and materials. The Committee reviewed the project again on June 30, 1998, and recommended that the City Planner approve the project subject to minor modifications. C. Technical Review Committee: The Technical and Grading Review Committees have reviewed the project and recommend approval subject to conditions. D. Environmental Assessment: Part I of the initial study has been completed by the applicant. Staff has completed Part II of the Initial Study. the Environmental Checklist. Staff feels that the project will not have a significant adverse environmental impact. If the Planning Commission concurs. then issuance of a Negative Declaration would be in order. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the PIanning Commission issue a Negative Declaration for Development Review 98-05. Respectfully submitted, City Planner BB: Attachments: Exhibit "A" Site Utilization Map Exhibit "B" Site Plan Exhibit "C" Landscape Plan Exhibit "D" Elevations Exhibit "E" Design Review Committee Action dated June 16, '1998 Exhibit "F" Initial Study Part II / \ .5 .... I ' t ~ o o o o o o ~",',,, r"l ' ',, - site utilization map DAVIES INDUSTRIAL PARK - PHASE IV '  !~/~,!_,~.._-' SECTION ~ PLAZA ....... TYPICAL STREET SECTION ..... ..~ _ ........ ~,-~,,' ......... .... detailed site plan ~:~f~'~"~i,:' DAVIES INDUSTRIAL PARK "PHASE IV PLANT LEGEND conceptual landscape plan DAVIES INDUSTRIAL PARK "PHASE IV 6.ro~.,.,A..od.~. "' ........ WEST ELEVATION - Building 'L' ;,..~. ..... , . NORTH ELEVATION - Building 'L' illustrated exterior elevations ~AMIN,__S. ~,A.N~.TRE~.,S DAVIES INDUSTRIAL PARK - PHASE IV WEST ELEVATION - Building 'M' NORTH ELEVATION - Building 'M' EAST ELEVATION * Building 'M' SOUTH ELEVATION - Building 'M' illustrated exterior elevations ~]..,.? ~)" ~/'~,]~ DAVIES INDUSTRIAL PARK - PHASE IV DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Brent Le Count June 16, 1998 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-05 - DAVIES - A request to construct two industrial buildings totaling 9,408 square feet of floor area (each building having 4,704 square feet) on 1.39 acres of land, in Subarea 3 (General Industrial) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southeast corner of Helms Avenue and 9th Street - APN: 209-03-58. Desiqn Parameters: The most significant design parameter is the existing historic landmark Kincaid House, located on the adjoining property to the east. The Industrial Area Specific Plan requires a 45-foot building setback adjacent to residential, which woLId eliminate Building "M." The applicant has been advised of the need for a variance. If the house is legally being used for non-residential purposes, then no Variance would be necessary. The building design is virtually identical to buildings previously approved for a site to the south of the subject site. The site slopes at approximately 1 to 2 percent from north to south. There is ex!sting 8*foot high split faced wall atSng the north side of the site. The wall will be extended south along the west property line with a combination slump stone and smooth faced wall matching the building wall design. Both buildings are proposed with adjacent storage yard areas enclosed with 8-foot high screen walls, The storage area for Building "L" is located at the northwest corner of the site fronting both 9th Street and Helms Avenue with the slump stone and split faced block screen walls. Building "M" storage yard is at the southeast corner of the site with precision block screen walls. Two primary building materials are proposed (slump stone block and painted smooth block) consistent with Industrial Area Specific Plan Design Policy. Office entry areas are accentuated with columns and heavy beam trellises. The most visually prominent building elevation is the west elevation of Building "L." Existing landscaping along 9th Street is proposed to remain. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: The following broad design issues wiII be the focus of Committee discussion: 1. Provide required 45-foot building setback from east property line (see East Elevation on Sheet 5), In anticipation of a Variance request, 'the Committee should consider the following design elements to address a reduced setback: a. Revised Building "M" architectural style for a more residential character in form and materials. b. Reduce Building "M" mass by ~plitting into two smaller buildings or lowering height. c. Intensified landscaping as a buffer along the east elevation of Building "M." Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issjes have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following second~ ry design issues: 1. Provide minimum 1-tree per 30 linear leet of property line/building walls as required by Industrial Area Specific Plan, The south and east property lines are deficient. Note that trees can be grouped in clusters to satisfy this requirement, -2. Provide decorative masonry for screen walt along east and south property lines rather than plain precision block as proposed. DRC COMMENTS DR 98-05 - DAVIES June 16, 1998 Page 2 3. Provide landscaping within "dead" area along east side of Building "M," 4. The Committee should review the proposed colors which feature a rust color band across the top of the buildings, and two-color band (rust and pink) around the middle. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. Any storage yard security gates shall be in conformance with industrial Area Specific Plan standards and subject to review and approval by the City Planner, Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be revised and come back to Design Review Committee. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Bill Bethel, Rich Macias, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Brent Le Count The Committee requested that the project be revised and brought back for further review per staff's comments and the following: 1. Provide landscaping within the five-foot setback area on the east side of Building "M" to provide a buffer between the building and the Kincaid House properly to the east. 2. Replace slump stone wall along west property line to split faced block to match existing. 3. Provide a three-foot wide landscaped strip along the inside of the storage area screen wall along the east and south property lines and provide vine plantings along base of walls, training vines to climb through weep holes up outside su~ace of walls. 4, Eliminate red accent color, Replace with darker earth tone. Suggest use of textured block to create accent rather than color. 5. Eliminate use of precision block on building wails. Replace with textured block. 6. Committee prefers eliminating slump stone block from building walls and replacing with split face or other more visually appealing material. 7. Provide comprehensive exterior building material samples. 8. A condition of approval will require verification that colors and materials match approved plans prior to issuance of occupancy. City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: Development Review 98-05 2. Related Files: 3. Description of Project: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-05 - DAVIES - A request to construct two industrial buildings totaling 9,408 square feet of floor area (each building having 4,704 square feet) on 1.39 acres of land, in Subarea 3 (General Industrial) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southeast corner of Helms Avenue and 9th Street - APN: 209-03-58 4. Project Sponsor's Name and Addr.?ss: Albert Davies 8737 Helms Avenue Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 989-6154 5. General Plan Designation: General Industrial 6. Zoning: Subarea 3 (General Industrial) Industrial Area Specific Plan 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project site is surrounded by exis:ing industrial buildings to the north, south, and west, and by the Kincaid historic home/orange grove to the east, all within Subarea 3 (General Industrial) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. 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 Numbe ': Brent Le Count, AICP (909) 477-2750 EXHIBIT "F" Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 98-05 Davies Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. (~/) Land Use and Planning (¢) Transportation/Circulation ( ) Public Services ( ) Population and Housing ( ) Biological Resources (¢') Utilities and Service Systems { ) 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. 1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project, or agreed to, by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based upon the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Signed: ~ ~ ~' Brent Le Count, AICP Associate Planner -" June 8, 1998 ,- Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 98-05 Davies Page 3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmenlal 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? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~/) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction " over the project? ( ) ( ) ( ) c) Be incompatible with existing and use in the vicinity? ( ) ( ) (~) ( ) d) Disrupt or divide the physical ;arrangement of an established community? ( ) ( ( ) (1) Comments: c) The historic landmark Kincaid House is located on the adjoining properly to the east and. to sta~s knowledge, is used as a residence. In 1995 the City Council designated the Kincaid House as an Historic Landmark and approved an Historic Landmark Alteration Permit to allow construction of a 1.600 square foot barn to house vehicles, equipment, and supplies located 15 feet from the Kincaid House. The applicant's proposed building (Building "M") would be separated from the Kincaid House by at least 52 fe~t at it's nearest point. This separation provides an ample buffer between the appl cant's proposed industrial building and the Kincaid House· This argument is supposed by the fact that the Kincaid barn is located only 15 feet from the Kincaid House and has little or no impact on the House. The impact is not considered significant. 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal.' a) Cumulatively exceed official re.qional or local population projections? ( ) ( ) ( ) (V) ,- b) Induce_substantial growth in an area either directly, or indirectly (e.g., through proiects in an undeveloped area or extension of major - ( ) ( ) ( ) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 98-05 Davies Page 4 c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( ) ( ) ( ) 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential bpacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ( ) ( ) b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) ( ) ( ) (Y) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) ( ) ( ) d) Seiche hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) ( ) ( ) (¢) O Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~) g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~) h) Expansive soils? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~) i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) ( ) (V) 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 prope~y to water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) ( ) ( ) (Y) c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (¢) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any : water_body? ( ) ( ) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ( ) ( ) ( ) (¢) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 98-05 Davies Page 5 O 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) Altered direction or rate of fl{~w of groundwater? ( ( ) ( ) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ( ) ( ) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater othe~ise available for public water supplies? ( ( ) - ( ) Comments: a) The project will cause changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns. and the rate and amount of surface water runoff because the site is currently vacant and used for storage. Runoff will be directed to the appropriate drainage facilities which have been designed to handle the flows. The impact is not considered significant. 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal.' a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) ( ) (,,/) b) Expose sensitive receptors tc pollutants? ( ) ( ) (v') c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ( ) ( ) d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ( ) (v') 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in.' a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) ( ) (v) ( ) Initial Study'for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 98-05 Davies Page 6 b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ( ) (v') c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ( ) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) (¢) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) (,/) O Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative trans aortation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycte racks)? ( ) (~) g) Rail or air traffic ~mpacts? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~') Comments: a) The project will increase vehicle trips in the area simply by virtue of the fact that the site is currently vacant. The streets have been designed to handle traffic demands associated with development consistent with the Industrial Area Specific Plan. The impact is not considered significant 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered: threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees, eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? ( ) ( ) (V) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? ( ) ( ) (,,/) d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? ( ) ( ) (~/) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) ( ) (~/) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 98-05 Davies Page 7 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy :onseNation plans? ( ) ( ) ( ) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? ( ) ( ) ( ) 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? ( ) ( ) ( ) 9. HA~RDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion ar release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (¢) b) Possible interference witb an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) ( ) ( ) c) The creation of any health ha2ard or potential health hazard? ( ) ( ) ( ) (¢) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? ~ ( ) ( ) ( ) 10. NOISE. Will the proposal result in.' a) Increases in existing nois~ lew;Is? ) ( ) (v') ( ) b) Exposure of people to severe noise leveIs? ) ( ) ( ) (V') Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 98-05 Davies Page 8 Comments: a) The project will increase existing noise levels since the site is vacant and used for storage. The Industrial Area Specific Plan limits noise to acceptable levels. The impact is not considered significant. 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 loftowing areas: a) Fire protection? ( ) ( ) - ( ) (v') b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') c) Schools? ( ) ( ) ( ) (V) d) Maintenance of public facilities. including roads? ( ) ( ) ( ) (¢) e) Other governmental services? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or substantial alterations to the fo~owing utilities: a) Power or natural gas? ( ) ( ) (v') b) Communication systems? ( ) ( ) (v') c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ( ) ( ) (v') d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ( ) (¢) e) Storm water drainage? ( ) (V') ( ) f) Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) (¢) g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Comments: e) The project will increase the amount of surface water runoff because the site is - currently vacant and used for storage. Runoff will be directed to the appropriate drainage facili{Zes which have been designed to handle the flows. The impact is not considered significant. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 98-05 Davies Page 9 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) ( ) ( ) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( ) ( ) (V') ( ) c) Create light or glare? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) Comments: b) The historic landmark Kincaid House is located on the adjoining property to the east and, to staffs knowledge, is used as a residence. In 1995 ~he City Council _ designated the Kincaid House as an Historic Landmark and approved an Historic Landmark Alteration Permit t~ allow construction of a 1,600 square foot barn to house vehicles, equipment, and supplies located 15 feet from the Kincaid House. The applicant's proposed building (Building "M") would be separated from the Kincaid House by at least 52 feet at it's nearest point. This separation provides an ample buffer between the apl:licant's proposed industrial building and the Kincaid House. This argument is supported by the fact that the Kincaid barn is located only 15 feet from the Kincaid House and has little or no impact on the House. The project will be subject to review by the Design Review Committee to ensure that the appearance of the development is consistent with the City's design policies. The impact is not considered significant. 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resour,:es? ( ) ( ) ( ) (V') b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) c) Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) ( ) (v') ( ) 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? ( ) ( ) ( ) (¢) Comments: c) The hi'~toric lahdmark Kincaid I-ouse is located on the adjoining property to the east and, to staffs knowledge, is used as a residence. In 1995 the City Council designated the Kincaid House as an Historic Landmark and approved an Historic Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 98-05 Davies Page 10 Landmark Afteration Permit to altow construction of a 1,600 square foot barn to house vehicles, equipment, and supplies located 15 feet from the Kincaid House. The applicant's proposed building (Building "M") would be separated from the Kincaid House by at least 52 feet at it's nearest point. This separation provides an ample buffer between the appticant's proposed industrial building and the Kincaid House. This argument is supported by the fact that the Kincaid barn is located only 15 feet from the Kincaid House and has little or no impact on the House. The project will be subject to review by the Design Review Committee to ensure that the appearance of the development is consistent with the City's design policies. The impact is not considered significant. 15. RECREATION. Would the proposah a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) ( ) ( ) 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') b) Short term: Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of tong-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relativety brief, definitive period of time. Long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) ( ) ( ) ( ) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 98-05 Davies Page 11 c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that are individually timited, but cLmulatively 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 j) ( ) ( ) ( ) d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, _ either directly or indirectly? ( ) ( ( ) (V') EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR. or other CEQA process. one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards. and such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The following earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Planning Division offices. 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply): (v') General Plan EIR (Certified April 6, 1981) (,,/)Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989) (V') Industrial Area Specific Plan E:IR (Certified September 19, 1981) APPLICANT CERTIFICATION I certify that I am the applicant for the project described in this Initial Study. I acknowledge that I have read this Initial Study and the proposed mitigation measures. Further. I have revised the project plans or proposals and/or hereby agree to the proposed mitigation measures to avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point whet_= clearly no significant environmental effects would Occur. Signature: Date: Print Name and Tit~e: City of Rancho Cucamonga NEGATIVE DECLARATION The following Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act Section 2109~ and 2~092 of the Public Resources Code. Project File No.: Development Review 98-05 Public Review Period Closes: July 8, 1998 Project Name: Project Applicant: Albert Davies Project Location (also see attached map): Located at the southeast corner of Helms Avenue and 9th Street - APN: 209-03-58. Project Description: A request to construct two industrial buildings totaling 9,408 square feet of floor area (each building having 4,704 square feet) on 1.39 acres of land, in Subarea 3 (General Industrial) of, the Industrial Area Specific Plan. FINDING This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has conducted an Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment and is proposing this Negative Declaration based upon the following finding: [] The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. [] The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects but: (1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this proposed Negative Declaration was released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and (2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment. If adopted, the Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. Reasons to support this finding are included in the attached Initial Study. The project file and all related documents are available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division at 10500 Civic Center Drive (909) 477-2750 or Fax (909} 477-2847. NOTICE The public is invited to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration during the review period. July 8.1998 :Date of Determinatiorf" Adopted By CITY OF RANCHO CUC~MONGA ' STAFF REPORT DATE: July 8, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Rudy Zeledon, Planning Technician SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 98-02-CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA- A request to amend the regulations for second dwelling units for_consistency with state law changes (Continued from June 10, 1998) BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission continued this item to allow staff time to further review and research state law regarding regulations for second dwelling units. The Commission requested information on zoning that allows second dwelling units, the previous projects that have been approved and built, and consideration of additional development criteria. Staff requests a continuance of four weeks to allow more time to complete the research work. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission continue Development Code Amendment 98-02 to August 12, 1998. Respectfully submitted. Brad Buller City Planner BB:RZ:gs CITY OF RANCHO CUCAN,IONGA -- STAFF REPORT DATE: July 8, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission BY: Gall Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary SUBJECT: ELECTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION OFFICERS BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission Administrative Regulations provide for election of Chairman and Vice Chairman at the first regular meeting in July of each year. _ RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission should elect a Chairman and Vice Chairman to serve until the next regularly scheduled election at the first meeting in July 1999. Respectf submitted, City Planner ITEM E /" CITY OF R_4~NCHO CUCKMONGA ' STAFF REPORT DATE: July 8, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Gall Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS BACKGROUND: The Commission normally reviews Design Review Committee membership approximately every 6 to 10 months. Membership was last considered in August 1997. It is now time to review Committee membership. The current membership is as follows: COMMITFEE ALTERNATES (in orderS. Bill Bethel Peter Tolstoy Rich Macias Dave Barker Larry McNiel A history of Design Review Committee membership since January 1993 is attached as Exhibit "A." RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission should determine appropriate membership for the Design Review Committee. Respectf submitted, City Planner BB:GS/gs Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Design Review Committee Membership History ITE~ F DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP January 1993 to Present ALTERNATES. COMMITTEE (in order) January 1993 - October 1993: ,John Melcher Peter Tolstoy Wendy Vallette Suzanne Chitlea Larry McNiel October 1993 - December 1993: Larry McNiel Peter Tolstoy ,John Melcher Suzanne Chitlea Wendy Val[ette December 1993 - June 1994: Larry McNiel Peter Tolstoy John Melcher Heinz Lumpp Dave Barker June 1994 * December 1994: Heinz Lumpp Peter Tolstoy John Melcher Larry McNiel Dave Barker December 1994 - AuQust 1995: Heinz Lumpp Peter Tolstoy Larry McNiel Dave Barker John Melcher ~uqust 1995 to January 1996: Heinz Lumpp Dave Barker Jahn Melcher Peter Tolstoy Larry McNiel January 1996 to Auqust 1996: Heinz Lumpp Peter Tolstoy Larry McNiel Dave Barker John Melcher August 1996 to January 1997: P, ich Macias Bill Bethel Larry McNiel Peter Tolstoy Dave Barker January 1997 to present: Bill Bethel Peter Tolstoy P, ich Macias Dave Barker Larry McNiel Exhibit A '~'" ~