The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1996/01/24 - Agenda Packet CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA WEDNESDAY JANUARY 24, 1996 7:00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA I. Pledge of Allegiance II. Roll Call Chairman Barker Commissioner Melcher Vice Chairman McNiel __ Commissioner Tolstoy Commissioner Lumpp III. Announcements IV. Approval of Minutes December 13, 1995 December 20, 1995, Joint Meeting with City Council V. Consent Calendar The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine andnon-controversial. They will be acted on by the Commission at one time without discussion. If anyone has concern over any item, it shouM be removed for discussion. A. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 13835 - (DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 95-20) - SHEFFIELD HOMES - The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for a previously approved subdivision map consisting of 78 lots on 20 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at the northeast comer of Highland Avenue and Rochester Avenue - APN: 225-152-01 through 04 and 18. Related Files: Development Agreement 89-03, Annexation 89-03, and Tree Removal Permit 95-09. VI. Public Hearings The following items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice their ot~inion of the relatedproject. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address the Commission by stating your name and address. All such ot~inions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each t~roject. Please sign in after speaking. B. ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT 93-03 - FINAL SCORE - A request to conduct entertainment consisting of live bands, disc .~ockeys, and dancing in conjunction with a restaurant and bar, in the Community Commercial District within Subarea 1 of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at 8411 Foothill BOulevard - APN: 207-571-75. (Continued from January 10, 1996) C. VARIANCE 95-04 - SACRED HEART CATHOLIC CHURCH - A request to exceed the maximum height limit of 35 feet for the construction of a church facility on 20.14 acres of land in the Very Low Residential designation (1-2 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue, between Summit and Highland Avenues APN: 225-171-12, 20, 22, and 23. Associated with the application is Conditional Use Permit 95-16 and Tree Removal Permit 95-14. D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-16 - SACRED HEART CATHOLIC CHURCH - A request to construct a church facility and school consisting of a 31,017 square foot church, a 28,480 square foot community center, a 16,460 square foot education center, a 10,898 square foot parish center office, a 9,400 square foot rectory, a I0,110 square foot adult education and youth center, a 5,180 square foot chapel, and a 9,387 square foot adult center on a 20.14 acre site in the Very Low Residential designation (1-2 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue, between Summit and Highland Avenues - APN: 225-171-12, 20, 22, and 23. Staff recommends issuance of a mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts. Associated with the application is Variance 95-04 and Tree Removal Permit 95-14. VII. Director's Reports E. PLIES - A request to consider initiation of text changes to the Industrial Area Specific Plan to add Automotive Sales and Leases as a conditionally permitted use to parcels adjacent to the I-15 Freeway in Subarea 8. F. USE DETERMINATION 96-01 - A request to determine if apartments are a permitted or conditionally permitted use in the Medium Residential zone of the Victoria Community Plan. G. COMMERCIAL LAND STUDY DISCUSSION VIII. Public Comments This is the time andplace for the general public to address the Commission. Items to be discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda. IX. Commission Business X. Adjournment The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an I I :O0 P.M. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission. The Planning Commission adjourned to 7:00 p.m. on January 31, 1996, for a meeting regarding the Commercial Land Study. I, Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on January 18, 1996, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. VICINITY MAP i/ ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :. I; .................. :.:.:.:.. iI ~'~ :::::::::::i - \, ~ ~ ~ ~: . ............ ~/ ~ ' I * J ~1 I 'A' CITY HALL CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- STAFF REPORT DATE: January 24, 1996 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Steve Hayes, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 13835 - (DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 95-20/- SHEFFIELD HOMES o The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for a previously approved subdivision map consisting of 78 lots on 20 acres of land in the L'dw Residential Development District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) located at the northeast corner of Highland Avenue and Rochester Avenue -APN: 225-152-01, through 04 and 18. Related Files: Development Agreement 89-03, Annexation 89-03 and Tree Removal Permit 95-09. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Project Density: 3.9 dwelling units per acre. B. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoning: North - Vacant; Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and Flood Control/Utility Corridor South - San Bernardino County Flood Control Basin; Flood Control East - Vacant; Low Residential and Flood Control/Utility Corridor West - Existing single family residences; Low Residential (Caryn Planned Community) C. General Plan Designations: Project Site - Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) North - Low Residential and Flood Control/Utility Corridor South - Foothill Freeway and Flood Control/Utility Corridor East - Flood Control/Utility Corridor West Low Residential D. Site Characteristics: The site currently contains a few assorted structures and has a scattering of mature Eucalyptus trees across the property. No public improvements exist along the project frontages of Highland and Rochester Avenues. The site slopes from north to south at approximately 4 percent. z'rl~ A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 95-20-SHEFFIELD HOMES January 24,1996 Page 2 BACKGROUND: The subdivision of this 20-acre site into 78 single family lots was approved by the County of San Bernardino on December 19, 1988. Subsequently, a Development and Annexation Agreement was adopted to annex the property to the City to establish development standards for the subdivision. The agreement stipulated that the project shall be developed under the standards of the Low Residential District, with certain design criteria that would give this project a flavor of the Etiwanda Specific Plan area. The subdivision was designed to take access from two points along Rochester Avenue. No vehicular access will be possible off Highland Avenue. The future freeway will pass along the southern frontage of the site and a sound attenuation wall will be constructed to mitigate noise levels for homes imme_d~iately adjacent to the future freeway. The local residential cul-de-sac streets within the project were designed with only a 50-foot right-of- way while the others have a 60- foot right-of-way, typical of all new local residential streets within the City. All streets have a curb-to-curb pavement width of 36 feet. ANALYSIS: A. General: The current applicant, Sheffield Homes, is the first to process a Design Review application for development of the property. The applicant is proposing four house plans with four elevations each, ranging in size from 1,755 to 2,609 square feet. The smallest floor plan is a one-storry model, while the others are two-story. Plan 3 has a two-car garage, while all other models have a three-car garage. Plan 4 has a two-car swing-in garage and a separate front-on one car garage or a bonus room option for that area. B. Desiqn Review Committee: On December 5, 1995, the Committee (Melcher, Lumpp, Fong) reviewed the project and recommended approval subject to conditions contained within the attached Design Review Committee Action Comments. These recommended conditions have been incorporated into the attached Resolution of Approval. The Grading Committee conceptually recommended approval of the project with conditions at its meeting on January 16, 1996. "C: ' Tree Removal Permit: In conjunction with the proposed development of the property, the applicant has submitted Tree Removal Permit 95-09 for the proposed removal of 34 mature Eucalyptus trees scattered across the property. The applicant has noted that removal is necessary to develop the lots as subdivided and to construct the homes within the required structural setbacks. Conditions of Approval pertaining to their removal and replacement are included within the attached Resolution of Approval. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 95-20-SHEFFIELD HOMES JanuaW 24,1996 Page 3 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Design Review for Tract 13835 (Development Review 95-20) through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with Conditions. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:SH:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" Vicinity Map Exhibit "B" Site Plan Exhibit "C" Rough Grading Plan Exhibit "D" Tree Removal Plan Exhibit "E" Building Elevations Exhibit "F" Floor Plans Exhibit "G" Design Review Committee Action Comments Resolution of Approval with Conditions STREET ROCK QUARY ,;,o, ... [~'~:~i:~' L, '~:'~::~'~ -- WAY ~- ;'~"'+';&~.o-- "'" '===~ LINE CHUIqCH : ~ ~ MILLER ........ m "'-- ...... ~H CITY OF ,',-,.,., RAi",EFE) CLEAMO'W~ Tin_f: PL.,~N'NING DIVISION EXHIBIT: 'A' SCALE: BIGHORN PEAK CT. TIMBER MOUNTAIN CT. -r~'::';:"?"~'~'.~' Project: TRACT 13835 CITY OF R~'~':~EAMONGA Title: ..' S~TE PLAN pLAN~IN~;:b'}'~:~S)ON ~ EXhibit: B-1 Date: ~2/95 FU, TURE FREEWAY 30 . HIGHLAND AVE. ~,~-~;;~'~,?',,~ Project: TRACT 13835 CITY OF RA'N(~PtO,C~(~A ONGA "' pLANhi~":~,~:~'~,~Si Exhibit: B-2 Date: ~2/95 ~:~.,,~,~,,.~;~i~.,~!> Project: TRACT 13835 P ~ ~ ; N CITY OF R4N~',~Ld0~AMONGA Title: _CONCEPTUA_L GRADING PLAN LAN~I~'~:":b:}~S}O Exhibit: C-1 . Date: ~2/95 FUTURE FREEWAY 30 HIGHLAND AVE. i~'~%"""?~ I Project: TRACT 13835 CITY OF R~'~'~'~'~'~AMONGA Title: CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN PLANhI~'~;'~)'~S~ON Exhibit: C-2 Date: ~2/~5 ,~',',~.~:'~-,;, Project: TRACT 13835 .~--~.~.,?.- .-..%~ Title: CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN CITY OF R~AMONGA ~hibit: C-3 Date: ~/96 ~'~.,,,' · -, RANCHO CUCAMONGA S/F HOMES III REAn . LEFT FRONT -'-- RANCHO CUCAMONGA S/F HOMES / ..... :,.-: RANCHO CUCAMONGA S.F. HOMES RANCHOCUCAMONGAS/FHOMES ~,,,3e3s ~ 35 O' RANCHO CUCAMONGA S/F HOMES .--.H-t--t A., ,.,.,, ,,. ,... DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 5:00 p.m. Steve Hayes December 5, 1995 DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 13835 (DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 95-20') - SHEFFIELD HOMES - The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for a previously County approved subdivision map consisting of 78 lots on 20 acres of land in the Low Residential Development District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) located at the northeast corner of Highland Avenue and Rochester Avenue - APN: 225-152-01, 02, 03, 04 and 18. Design Parameters: The 20 acre site was approved for subdivision into 78 single family lots by the County of San Bernardino on December 19, 1988. The subdivision was then annexed to the City and a Development and Annexation Agreement was adopted relative to the development of this subdivsion. Essentially, the agreement stipulated that the project shall be developed using the development standards for the Low Residential Development District, with the exception of certain specific development standards. In addition, the City included design standards within the Development Agreement to assure that the'development of this subdivision would be somewhat consistent (albiet on smaller lots) with the design criteria specified within the Etiwanda Specific Plan area. The site currently has a few assorted structures on it with a scattering of mature Eucalyptus trees on the property. The applicant has applied for a Tree Removal Permit to remove the existing trees on the property. No public improvements exist along the project frontages of Highland and Rochester Avenues. The site slopes from north to south at approximately 4 percent. For the Committee's information, the applicant has submitted a Minor Exception application for minor setback variations on some of the most difficult lots within the subdivision. A total of 10 lots will be effected by this application and staff will review each situation induvidually to assure that the setback exceptions will not be detrimental to the neighborhood. (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. In attempting to meet the specific design guidelines included within the Development Agreement, the applicant has designed a house, the Plan 4, which has a two-car swing in garage and a separate one-car garage which faces the street. This plan is plotted on 50 percent -. · of the lots to meet the criteria of the Development Agreement. In most situations, staff~vould · ' feel that the use of a particular model on 50 percent of the lots on a project of this scale may be excessive, but in this particular instance, it is justified because of the lot constraints and the applicants effort to address the requirements of the Development Agreement. 2. For all four building footprints, the applicant is proposing four different architectural treatments. However, none of the styles directly reflect the recommended themes (i.e. Victorian, California Bungalow, California Ranch and Mediterranean) as recommended in the Development Agreement, but the agreement does allow for other integrated design themes, cc, f FFt l T 6:::-t" as deemed acceptable to the Design Review Conunittee. Therefore, the Committee may wish to comment on the architectural themes to determine whether they are consistent with the intent of the Development Agreement. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will di,scuss the following secondary design issues. 1. Where wood siding is used as a primary material on the front elevation, it should be used to a greater degree on the side and rear elevations of the residence. 2. On the Plan D elevations, the applicant should clarify the use of the window trim for the Committee to determine whether the application of the trim is acceptable. 3. The wood trellis element over the garage on the Plan 3 Model should be revised to be a more integrated element of the building. 4. The wood shutters on the Plan 4B elevations should either be eliminated for provided on both sides of the small windows above the garage. 5. In an effort to provide a more interesting streetscape, front yard setbacks should be staggered in areas where identical front yard setbacks are proposed for a long row of homes. 6. A minimum of 20 percent of the lots should be plotted to allow for recreational vehicle storage access in the side and rear yards. 7. Driveways should be paired up wherever possible to provide larger shared front yard areas for adjacent units. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion. 1. A minimum 3 foot wide landscape planter area should be provided between walls in situations where retaining walls are used to mitigate slopes (i.e. noah side of Vintage Drive). 2. Any ~valls adjacent to sidewalks should be moved back 5 feet behind the sidewalk to allow for landscaping in the area between the wall and sidewalk. 3. Any retaining walls exposed to public view should be composed of a decorative material or have a decorative exterior finish. .. ~,. Perimeter walls should have pilasters incorporated into their design. 5. Where brick and rock accent materials are used, they should be carried to a logical termination point on the side elevations of the houses. 6. Thicker of double timber elements should be used on all front porch support columns. 7. If river rock is proposed as an accent element, then real river rock should be used. r/ Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee recommend approval of the project to the Planning Commission with any unaddressed items from the issues referenced in this report as Conditions of Approval, as deemed appropriate be the Committee. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: John Melcher, Heinz Lumpp, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Steve Hayes The Design Review Committee recommended approval of the project subject to the following conditions of approval: 1. The Committee suggested that the applicant could pursue an amendment to the Development Agreement to request a reduction or xvaiver of the requirement to provide at least 50 percent of homes within the project with side-on garages without addtitional footprints being added to the project. 2. Upgraded driveway treatments shotrill be provided within all driveways, especially on lots where the Plan 4 is proposed, to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. 3. On the Plan 4 model, the third car garage space should be increased to 20 feet in depth when proposed as a garage space. 4. An enlarged detail of the wood trellis over the garage on the Plan 3 model should be provided for review and approval of the Planning Division. 5. All other secondary and policy design issues should be addressed by the applicant or these items will be included as Conditions of Approval for the project. ,,45g,' RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT NO. 13835 (DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 95-20), THE DESIGN REVIEW OF BUILDING ELEVATIONS AND DETAILED SITE PLAN FOR A PREVIOUSLY COUNTY-APPROVED SUBDIVISION MAP CONSISTING OF 78 LOTS ON 20 ACRES OF LAND IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHLAND AND ROCHESTER AVENUES, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 225- 152-01 THROUGH 04 AND 18. A. Recitals. 1. Sheffield Homes has filed an application for the Design Review of Tract No. 13835, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafier in this Resolution, the subject Design Review request is referred to as ':the application.~- 2. On December 19, 1988, the County of San Bernardino adopted a Resolution approving the subdivision layout for Tentative Tract 13835. 3. On October 18, 1989, the City Council adopted its Resolution No. 89-375 and Ordinance No. 401, thereby approving the Annexation and Development Agreements for Tentative Tract 13835, respectively, to be annexed into the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 4. On January 24, 1996, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a meetin9 to consider the application. 5. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced meeting on January 24. 1996, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and b. That the proposed design is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and the purposes of the distdct in which the site is located; and c. That the proposed design is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code; and d. That the proposed design, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to propedies or improvements in the vicinity. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 95-20-SHEFFIELD HOMES January 24,1996 Page 2 3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forlh in paragraphs I and 2 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) Where wood siding is proposed as a primary material on the front elevation, it shall be used to a greater degree on the side and rear elevations of the residence, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 2) An enlarged detail of the wood trellis over the garage of the Plan 3 model shall be provided for review and approval of the Planning Division prior to the issuance of building permits. 3) On the Plan D elevations, enlarged details of the window trims around all windows shall be provided for review and approval of the Planning Division prior to the issuance of building permits. 4) The wood shutters on the front elevation of Plan 4B shall be eliminated. 5) On the Plan 4 model, the third car garage space shall be increased to 20 feet in depth when proposed as a garage space. 6) Where brick or rock is proposed as an accent material, they shall be carried to a logical termination point on the side elevations of the houses, to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. 7) Chimney cap treatments shall be integrated and treated to be consistent with the chimney, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 8) Thicker or double timber elements shall be used for all front porch support columns, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 9) Front yard setbacks shall be staggered to a greater extent in areas where identical front yard setbacks are proposed for a long row of homes, to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. 10) A minimum of 20 percent of the lots shall be plotted to allow for recreational vehicle storage access on the garage side of the residence, to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. 11 ) On Plan 4 models where a bonus room is provided in-lieu of a third car garage space, a landscape area shall be provided in front of the bonus '-' room. Detailed landscape/irrigation plans shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 12) All units shall be plotted to allow for a minimum 15-foot fiat usable rear yard area and to meet all development standards for the Low Residential District, including, but not limited to, setbacks, to the satisfaction of the City Planner, 13) Driveways shall be paired up wherever possible to provide larger front yard areas for adjacent units, to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. A /o PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 95-20 - SHEFFIELD HOMES Janua~ 24,1996 Page 3 14) Driveway approaches shall not exceed a maximum width of 16 feet from curb to the properly line. 15) Decorative paving consisting of various patterns/textures of concrete shall be provided to all driveways and walkways leading to the front door. Detailed plans shall be submitted for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 16) A minimum 3-foot wide landscape planter area shall be provided between walls in situations where retaining walls are used to mitigate slopes, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Details of how the slopes are proposed to be landscaped shall be shown on the detailed landscape/irrigation plans, which shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division pdor to the issuance of any permits. 17) Any walls or comer side yards shall be setback 5 feet from the property to allow for landscaping*between the walls and sidewalks, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 18) Retaining walls at any comer side yard shall not exceed 3 feet in height (Lots 1, 12, 13, 24, 25, 36, 37, 48, and 49). Detailed cross-sections of these areas shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Planning Division prior to the issuance of any permits. Detail design of the transition from the block wall of the down slope lot to the retaining wall of the up slope lot shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of any permits. 19) The final design of the walls and slopes adjacent to Rochester Avenue (i.e., Lots 6, 7, 18, 19, 30, 31, 42, 43, 54, and 55) shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and City Engineer prior to the issuance of a precise grading permit. Detailed cross-sections of these areas shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Planning Division prior to the issuance of a precise grading permit. Of padicular concern are the lots adjacent to Rochester Avenue. south of Lone Peak Drive. Because of the future construction of an overpass for the Route 30 freeway and resulting Iowedng of the grade for a section of Rochester Avenue south of Vintage Drive, cross-sections for the current and future slope situations shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Retaining walls within the landscape easement area along Rochester Avenue shall not exceed 2 feet in height or as determined by the City Engineer. 20) The retaining wall along the east property boundal~, shall not exceed 4 --. feet in height. 21) Return walls between homes and retaining walls along street frontage shall be composed of a decorative material or finish, with a cap treatment, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 22) All perimeter walls shall have pilasters incorporated into their design. The final design of all walls shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of any permits. 23) The final design of the freeway sound attenuation wall shall be coordinated for consistency with other sound walls for existing development in the vicinity. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 95-20 - SHEFFIELD HOMES January 24, 1996 Page 4 24) To mitigate significant adverse noise impacts from the proposed freeway, prior to the issuance of building permits, an in-lieu fee shall be required for the future installation of a sound attenuation wall to the south of the site at freeway level. The amount of the deposit shall be to the satisfaction of the City Planner, City Engineer, and Caltrans. 25) Tree Removal Permit 95-09 is hereby approved subject to the following conditions: a) The approval is for the removal of 27 Eucalyptus Globulus trees and other assorted species of trees scattered across the project site, as shown on the proposed tree removal plan. Removal is necessary to develop the lots as subdivided and to construct homes on the lots that meet the minimum required structural setbacks. b) The removed tree~ shall be replaced at a minimum one to one ratio with minimum size 15.gallon trees. Those trees that are intended to serve as replacement trees shall be specifically noted on the detailed landscape/irrigation plans, which are subject to review and approval by the Planning Division pdor to the issuance of building permits. c) Any wood infested with Ionghom borer beetles shall be chipped, removed, and buried at a dump site. d) This approval shall be effective following a 10-day appeal period and shall be valid for a period of 90 days, which shall start from the date of issuance of a grading permit, subject to extension. 26) The final design of the pedestrian connection from Bighorn Peak Court to Rochester Avenue shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Planner and City Engineer pdor to the issuance of building permits. 27) All pedinent conditions from Resolution No. 89-375 and Ordinance No. 401 (the City Council adopted actions for the Development and Annexation Agreements for the subdivision) shall apply to this project. Enaineedng Division 1) The existing overhead utilities (telecommunications and electrical) on the project side of Highland Avenue shall be undergrounded from the first pole on the west side of Rochester Avenue to the first pole off-site --. east of the east project boundary, prior to public improvement acceptance or occupancy, whichever occurs first. The developer may request a reimbursement agreement to recover one-half the City adopted cost for undergrounding from future development (redevelopment) as it occurs on the opposite side of the street. If the developer fails to submit for said reimbursement agreement within 6 months of the public improvements being accepted by the City, all rights of the developer to reimbursement shall terminate. 2) Driveways on comer Lots 1, 13, 25, 37, 43, 47, and 72 shall be located at least 50 feet from the intersection BCR, or the maximum distance allowed by the lot size, to minimize conflicts between vehicles turning right and those backing out of driveways. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 95-20-SHEFFIELD HOMES January 24,1996 Page 5 3) Provide sidewalk easements wherever sidewalks are located outside the public fight-of-way, including all cul-de-sacs, intersection corner cutoffs, and the emergency access/paseo between Bighorn Peak Court and Rochester Avenue. 4) Provide both a storm drain easement and an emergency overflow easement between Dawson Peak Court and Rochester Avenue. 5) Shift the catch basin on the east side of Thunder Mountain Avenue a sufficient distance to be at least 5 feet from the driveway (top of "x") on Lot 64. 6) The ddveway on Lot 71 (top of "x") shall be at least 10 feet from the Vintage Drive BCR and/or intersection drain outlet. To improve visibility, do not wrap the perimeter wall around the corner. 4. The Secretaryto this Commission shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 1996. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Butler, 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 24th day of January 1996 by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: · COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT . DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS SUBJECT: C/eS~,~ ?¢v~,u} -(COP ~ ?~-/3J~ ,5'1'~/¢ ~'/y ~I VlS/o'~ f APPLICANT: ~¢~ ~J~¢J Those items chewed are Co~ions of ~proval. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 989-1861, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. Time Limits completion Date 1. Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, if building permits are / / not issued or approved use has not commenced within 24 months fromthe date of approval. 2. Development/Design Review shall be approved prior to / / J / 3. Approval of Tentative Tract No. is granted subject to the approval of __/ / . 4. The developer sh,;dl commence, partioipate in, and consummate orcause tobe commenced, ---/ / padicipated in, or consummated, a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) for the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District to finance construction and/or maintenance of a fire station to serve the development. The station shall be located, designed, and built to all specifications of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and shall become the Distrid's property upon completion, The equipment shall be selected by the District in accordance with its needs. In any building of a station, the developer shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations. The CFD shall be formed by the District and the developer by the time recordatlon of the final map occurs. · ' '/ 5. 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 Melio-Roos Community Facilities Distrial within twelve months from the date of approval of the project and ixior to the recordalion of the final map or issuance of building permits for said project, this condition shall be deemed null and void. CornD{etion Date: This condition shall be waived it the City receives notice that the applicant and all affected .school districts have entered into an agreement to privately accommodate any and all school ~mpacts as a result of this project. t/ 6. Prior to recordation of the final map or prior to issuance of building permits when no map is .._J / involved, written certification from the affected water district that adequate sewer and water facitlties 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 issuance of permits in the case of all olher residential projects. B. Site Development V/ 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which ___/ / include site plans, architectural elevations, extedor materials and colore, landscaping, sign program. and grad,ng on .,,e .. ,he P.an.,ng D,v,sicn. ':2Z s conta,ned here... Development Code regulations, and Specitic Plan and " Planned Community. 2. Prior to any use of the project site S~'business activity being commenced thereon, all _.J / Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 3. OccuPancyofthefacilityshallnctcommenceuntilsuchtimeasallUniformBuildingCodeand __/ / State Fire Marshall's regulations have been complied with· Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Division to show compliance. The building shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. V/' 4. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be __/ / submitted for Cily Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits· ~/ 5. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for ---J / consistency pdorto issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment. building, etc.), or prior to final map approval in the case 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 Plans or Specific Plans in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance. 7. A detailed on-site lighting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and .--/ / Sheritf's Department (989-6611 ) 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. Ifnocentra zod trash receptacles are provided, alllrashpick-upshall beforindividualunits J / with all receptacles shielded from public view. 9. Trash receptacle(s) are required and shall meet City standards. The final design, locations, ._J / and the number of trash receptacles shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. V/ 10. All ground-meuntod 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, betruing, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. SC- 10/94 Completion Dale: 11. Sireat names shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval in accordance with _j / the adopted Sireel Naming Policy prior to approval of the final map. 12. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in'a clear and concise manner, .__/ / including proper illumination. 13. A detailed p~'an indicating trail widths, maximum slopes, physical conditions, fencing, and __J / weed control, in accordance with City Master Trail drawings, shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval priorto approval and recordalton of the Final Tract Map and prior to approval of street improvement and grading plans. Developer shail upgrade and construct all trails, including fencing and drainage devices, in conjunction with street improvements. 14. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shall nor prohibit the keeping of equine .__/ / animals where zoning requirements forthe keeping ot said animals have been met. Individual lot owners in subdivisions shall have the option of keeping said animals without the necessity of appealing to beards of directors or homeowners' associafions for amendments to the CC&Rs. 15. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Articles of Incorporation of the ._~ / Homeowners' Association are subjectUo the approval of the Planning and Engineering Divisions and the City Attorney, They shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Map or prior to the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. A recorded copy shall be provided Io the City Engineer. 16. Allparkways, openareas, andlandscapingshall bepermanentlymaintained bytheproperty ~ / owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall be submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 17. Solar access easements shall be dedicated for the pu~:x~se of assuming that each lot or .--/----J dwelling unit shall have the right to receive sunlight across adjacent lots or units for use of a solar energy system. The easements may be contained in a Declaration of Restrictions for the subdivision which shall be recorded concurrently with the recordation of lhe final map or issuance of permits, whichever comes first. The easements shall prohibit the casting of shadows by vegetation, structures, fixtures or any other object, except for utility wires and similar objects, pursuant to Development Code Section 17.08.060-G-2. 18. The project contains a designated Historical Landmark. The site shall be developed and __.J / maintained in accordance with the Historic Landmark Alteration Permit No. · Any further modifications to the site including, but not limited to, extedor alterations and/or interi~raiterati~nswhicha~ecttheex~eri~r~fthebui~dings~rstructures~rem~va~f~andmark trees, de mo!ition, reiocation, reconstruction of buildings or structures, or changes to the site, shall require a modification to the Historic Landmark Alteration Permit subject to Historic Preservation Commission review and approval. C., Building Design' 1. An alternative energy system is required to provide domestic hot water for all dwelling units .--/ / and for heating any swimming pool or spa, unless other alternative energy systems are demonstrated Io be of equivalent capacity and etticiency. All swimming pools installed at the time of initial development shall be supplemented with solar heating. Details shall be included in the building plans and shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 2, All dwellings shall have the fronl, side and rear elevations upgraded with architectural ~ / treatment, detailing and increased delineation of surface treatment subject to City Planner review and approval pdor to issuance of building permits. SC- 10/94 A3~7 ComI~letion Date: 3. Standard patio cover plans for use by the Homoowners' Association shall be submitted for j / City Planner and Building Official review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. V/ 4. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or __/ / projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered trom adjacent properties and slreels as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the salisfaction of the City Planner. Details shall be included in building plans. D. Parking and Vehicular Access (Indicate details on building plane) 1. All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet and shall __/ / contain a t2-inch walk adjacent to the parking stall (including curb). 2. Textured pedeslrlan pathways and textured pavement across circulation aisles shall be J / provided throughout the development to connect dwellings/units/buildings with open spaces/ plazas/recreational uses. 3. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, J / entrances, and exits shall be striped pe_r._City standards. 4. All units shall be provided with garage door openers if driveways are lesslhant8feet in J / depth from back of sidewalk. 5. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall restdct the storage of recreational vehicles /----/ on this site unless they are the principal source of transportation for the owner and prohibit parking on interior circulation aisles other than in designated visitor parking areas. 6. Plans for any security gates shall be submitted for the City Planner, City Engineer, and / / Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District review and approval priorto issuance of building permits. E. Landscaping (for publicly maintained landscape areas, refer to Section N.) 1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscap- / / ing in the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval priorto the issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. 2. Existing trees required to be preserved in place shall be protected with a construction barrier .__/ / in accordance with the Municipal Code Section 19.08.110, and so noted on lhe grading plans. The location of those trees to be preserved in place and new locations for transplanted trees shall be shown on the detailed landscape plans. The applicant shall follow all of the arborist's recommendations regarding preservation, transplanting and trimming methods. . 3. Aminimumof treespergrossacre,cempdsedofthefollowingsizes,shallbeprovided .--/ / · ' within the project: % - 48- inch box or larger, % - 36- inch box or larger, __ % - 24- inch box or larger, % - 15-gallon, and __% - 5 gallon.- 4. A minimum of % of trees planted within the project shall be specimen size trees - __J / 24-inch box or larger. 5. Within parking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-gallon tree for every three ._J / parking stalls, sufficient to shade 50% of the parking area at solar noon on August 21. 10/94 8. Trees shall ~ plant~:R~ in areas o~ publ~ view adjaGent to a~ alon~ slm~ures at a rat~ of one Ir~ p~f $0 linear ~eet off buiMi~. 7. Allpr~at~s~p~banksS[e~torlessinve~alh~hia~ot5:~ or~reaterslope,bufiessthan a:l 81o~, $hall ~e, at minimum, irri~ated aM la~aped wRh appropriate ~round ~vef ~or ~ros~n ~ntrol. Slo~ planti~ r~uired by this se~n shall inClude a permanent irri~ation system to be installed by tha deve~r pr~r to ~upan~. 8. Al{privat~slopesinexc~ssofSf~t,butlesslhan8 {eel inv~alhei~hlandof~:l or~rsat~r slop~ shall ba landward aM irfi~at~d for eros~n ~nirol and to so~en their appeara~a as tollows: one ~ S-~a{~n or la~r 8iz~ Iree ~f ~aCh ~ SO sq. ~. of 8~ ar~a, 1-~allon or larOer siza shrub p~r ~a~h ~ O0 $q. ~. of s~ araa, and ~priale flrou M ~var. In a~ition, banks in ex¢ss8 of 8 [eel in vafl~l heiOht aM of 2:~ or fireafar s~pe shall also i~lu~ on~ S-~allon or lar~r 8iza tr~ ~r aa~h aSO ~. ~. of s~p~ ar~a. Tr~ss aM shrubs shall plantad in 8ta~ered clusters to 8o~en aM va~ s~p~ plan~. 81o~ plantin~ r8quired by this s8~ion shall i~lud~ a p~rman~nt irr~at~n system to ~ inMall~d by th~ d~veloper prior to occupanCy. ~. For sidle [amily residential d~v~lopm~nt, all slo~ planti~ aM irfi~at~n shall be ~ntinu- ously maintained in a h~aRhy aM thfivin~ ~n~it~ n by th8 d~v~r until each individual unR is ~Mando~upied byth~y~r. Pr~rlO_r~laasi~o~upa~y[orihoseunBs, an insp~n shall ~ ~Mu~d by Ih~ Plannin~ Division to ~tsrmine that ih~y ar8 in sati~a~o~ ~Mit~n. ~ O. For muRMamily residential and ~n-r~sM~ntial ~eve~pm~. p~ ownera am sibl~ lot th~ ~ntinual ~i~na~ o[ all laM~ap~ ar~a$ on-sHe, as w~ll a~ ~nli~uou8 planted area$ wRhin lh8 ~blio r~M~I-way. All laM~a~ ar~a8 shall ~ kept fre~ from w~s aM d~bris aM ~intain~d in a h~aRhy aM lh~in~ ~Mil~n, and shall regular pmnin~, [~ffilizi~, ~wi~, aM trimmi~. Any damaged, dea~, disease~, ~e~yin~ pla~ material shall ~ r~pla~ wRhin aO days from th~ dat~ of damage. 11. Fronl yard la~sca ing shall ~ re~u red ~r the Deve~p~m C~e a~/or ~[a~+ ~ ~-0~. This require~nt shall be in a~ition tothe required s~eet treds a~ s~ planti~. 12. The final design of the peri~ter pa~ways, walls, la~i~, a~ s~ewalks shall be i~lud~ in the requir~ la~a~ plans a~ shall ~ subj~ to C~y Planner review a~ a~roval and ~inat~ for ~nsiste~y w~h any ~ay la~api~ plan wh~h my required by the E~ineering Divis~n. ~13. Special la~sc~ features such as mu~ing, alluvial r~, ~ecimen size trees, meander- 14. La~i~a~imgation syste~requir~to~install~w~hinthe~blic r~ht-of-wayon the perimeter of this pmje~ area shall ~ ~ntinuously maintained by the developer. 15. AII walls shall ~ provided w~hde~rative treatment. lf~at~ in public mai~ena~e areas the des~n shall ~ ~rdinated with the E~ineed~ Divis~n. 16. Tree maintenan~ c~eria shall be deve~ a~ subm~ for C~y Planner review a~ a~roval pr~r to issua~e of ~ildi~ ~rm~s. ~ese cr~efia shall e~urage the natural gro~h ~ara~eri~s of the seized tree ~ies. 17. La~api~ and irr~at~n shall ~ design~ to con~e water through the principles ol Xeris~ as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Ran~o Cu~nga Municipal C~e. SC - 10/94 F. Signs Comvledon Date: 1. TheSignSindiCatedontheSubmiftedplanSarecOnCeptualonlyandnotapartOf thisapproval. .--J / Any signs proposed for this development shall comply with the Sign Ordinance and shall re. quire separate appiicat!on and approva by the Planning Division prior to installation of any S~gns. 2. A Uniform Sign Program for this development shall be submitted for City Planner review and .__/ / approval prior to issuance of building permits. 3. Directory monument sign(s) shall be provided for apartment, condominium, or townhomes .__/ / prior to occupancy and shall require separate application and approval by the Planning Division pdor to issuance of building permits. G. Environmental ~/' 1. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Fourth Street Rock __J / Crusher project in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. 2. The developer shall provide each pro_s~pective buyer written notice of the City Adopted ~ / Special Sludies Zone for the Red Hill Fault, in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior Io accepting a cash deposit on any property. 3. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Foothill Freeway .__J / project in a standard formal as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. 4. A final acoustical report shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the ._J / issuance of building permits. The final report shall discuss lhe level of interior noise attenuationto below45CNEL, thebuilding matedalsand constructionlechniquesprovided, and if appropriate. verify the adequacy of the mitigation measures. The building plans wiif be checked for conformance with the mitigation measures contained in the final report. H. Other Agencies '/ 1. EmergencysecondaryaccessshallbeprovidedinaccordancewithRanchoCucamongaFire ~ / Protection District Slandards.' '/" 2. Emergencyaccessshallbeprovided, maintenancefreeandclear, a minirnumof26feetwide ~ / at all times during construction in accordance with Rancho Cucamonga Fire Prutection District requirements. ' / 3. Prior to issuance of building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be ~ / submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District that temporary water supply for fire protection is available, pending completion of required fire prolectlon system. · ¢ 4. The applicant shall contact lhe U. S. Postal Service lo determine the appropriate type and ..._J / 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 lhe design of the overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. For projects using septic tank facilities, written certification of acceptability, including all ---/ / supportive information, shall be obtained from the San Bernardino County Department of Environmental Health and submitted to the Building Official prior to the issuance of Septic Tank Permits, and prior to issuance of building permits. sc- ~o/~, 6,/~w APPLICANTS SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 989-1863, FOR 'V/ 1. The appl~am shall ~mply w~h the latest a~pt~ Unifo~ Bui~ing Code, Uniform Mechani- cal Code, Uniform Plumbi~ ~e, National Electr~ C~e, and all other appli~ble ~des, ordinates, and regulations in effe~ at the ti~ of issuance of relative permits. Please ~ma~ the Bui~ing and Safety Divis~n for ~pies of the Code Adoption O~inance and appl~able handouts. ~ 2. Prior to issuan~ of building permits Wor a new res~ential ~elling un~(s) or major addSion to existing un~(s), the applicant shall pay develop~nt fees at the established rate. Such fees may i~lude, but are ~t lim~ to: C~ Beautff~tion Fee, Pa~ Fee, Drainage Fee, Systems Deve~pment Fee, Perm~ a~ Plan Checking Fees, a~ Sc~ol Fees. 3. Pr~r to i~ua~e of bui~ing pe~s for a new ~mmercial or industrial development or addition to an existi~ deve~p~nt, the ~pli~ shall ~y deve~pment fees at the established rate. Such fees may i~lude, ~t are ~t limited to: Syste~ Deve~pment Fee, Drainage Fee, ~ol Fees, Perm~ a~_Plan Choking Fees. / 4. Streetaddressesshall~pmvidedbytheBuildi~Off~ial,a~ertra~parcelmaprecordation and pr~r to i~ua~e of building ~rm~s. J. Exl~lng Stru~ures 1. Prov~e ~lia~e with the Uniform Bui~i~ C~e for the prope~ line clearances considering use, area. a~ fire-resi~ivene~ of existi~ ~i~i~s. 2. Existi~ ~i~ings shall ~ rode to ~mply wKh ~ ~i~i~ a~ zoning regulat~ns for the i~e~ed use or the buildi~ shall ~ demlis.h~ 3. Exisli~ sewage di~osal facil~ies shall ~ re~v~, fill~ a~or cap~d to ~mply with the Un~orm Plumi~ C~e a~ Un~orm Bui~ing Code. 4. Unde~mu~ on-site ~il~ies are to be ~at~ a~ s~wn on ~i~ing plans submi~ed for ~ildi~ ~rm~ appleton. K. Grading / 1. Gradi~ of the subje~ pm~y shall ~ in a~rda~e w~h the Uniform Building C~e, C~y Gradi~ Sta~ards. a~ a~ept~ grading pra~i~s. ~e final grading plan shall ~ in substantial ~ormn~ w~h the ~prov~ gradi~ plan. t/ 2. A ~ils rein shall ~ prepar~ by a qualified engineer I~ens~ by the State of California to -. ~do~ such wo~. ' / 3. The deve~pment is ~at~ w~hin the soil eros~n ~mrol ~undaries; a ~il Distu~a~e Pe~ is required. Please ~ma~ San Bemardino Coumy Depa~ment of Agr~uHure at (714) 387-2111 for permit a~li~t~n. ~umemation of ~ch ~ shall ~ subm~ted to the C~y pr~r to the issua~e of rough gradi~ ~. / 4. A geo~g~al rein shall ~ prepar~ by a qual~ied e~ineer or geol~ist a~ submitted at the time of ~pl~al~n for gradi~ plan check. ~ 5. Thefinalgradingplansshallbe~mpleteda~prov~pr~rtoissua~eofbuilding~rm~s. ~- ~o/~4 7~ E~ ~ RECEIVED J.~.N 2 2 1996 January 18, 1996 city of Rancho Cucamonga Ranning Division Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: Entertainment Permit 93-03 - FINAL SCORE I am writing to oppose the permit being requested in the above referenced establishment. We are residents of Rancho Villas HOA and think the Final Score bar is already a detriment to our neighborhood. The people who frequent this bar are of questionable character. The patrons frequently hang out outside on the railroad tracks and parking lot making a lot of noise and in one incident shot a bullet into our neighborhood through a homeoWners window. If they start having live bands, D.J., etc... there will be even more people and more noise. Even if they make repairs to the building to keep the noise level down, there will still be noise every time they open the door. We will be very disappointed in the City if this permit is granted. This part of town see. ms to be continuously neglected. We moved to Rancho Cucamonga 5 years ago and have seen all of our tax dollars going into making the east side of town attractive. The section of Rancho Cucamonga west of Vineyard and south of Foothill is a embarrassment to the city. If Final Score is granted this permit, this side of town will only get worse. Sincerely --.Diane and Timothy Atherton 8475 Lemon Grove Drive · Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 RECEIVED JAN .? City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division i6July 1994 .... · ." · ~plann!ng Commission' Chairma'q - · " · - 'and Members o~c the Board' ' ' ' "" ' . '~' " A~ention: Nancy' FOn~l/'R Ch~rd'Alcorn . . R~ncho Cuc~mon~8 Ci~ H~[t. .. R~ncho Cucam'0n~a, CA 91729 ' .' · Dear Sks: · ' · .Regarding Ente~a~nment Permit'93-03 ~r.the FinaiSc0re, I ~ant you ~o k.now'why I ~m : unconditionally opposed ~o the permi~'s ~p~r0v.~l;' Th~ iS,' unless ~h~ ~gree to .build'~ new soundproo~ structure ~nd agree ~okeep t~e. Windo~s ~nd doors closed when they have loud music. I doub~ ~hat they would ~gree to 'such ~n ~nves~men~, ~s ~hey h~ve so ~r demo'nstr~ted no concern ~or t~e' SurroUnding cOmmUni~. . In ~, G~R~us~ ~hd hi.s .em~l~e~ h~ve spo~ed an ~i~Ude r~ng~ng ~rom "unwilling to c6oper~te' ~o "u~e[[y rude".: I live dire~ly behind h~s ~r, Within..150 ~eet by my ~s~imst~n, ~nd ~he.k~nds o~ d~sturb~nces ~ h~ve experienced ~n ~he p~s~' during ~.~ b~nd peHofm~nces ~re as ~ollows: loud ~humpin~ music,: noisy p~trons talking ~ndyelling,. noisy psffons br~w~ng, helicopters 'overhe~d~ thunde~ing .mo~er~cles s~ng ~n~ rewing up, thundering motoracles r8cin~ o~ up ~nd' down Route ~; bo~[es braking while being dumped into dumpster .in back . ~ro~tinely be~een'the hours o~.9:00 p~m~a~3:~ a-m-~, m0stly.on weekends. I have personally * " C~lled ~he b~r' m~ny ~mes~ 'asking~h~m ~o please keep~he ~olUme down so I.c0uldget'~o sleep" .. wi~h no result. '1 t~uly believe they could c~e less i~ I slept. ~a~'s when. Ibe~n ~c~llin~ the Sherr~'s D'ep~men~. They at le~s~ h~d 8 ~ymp~he~c ~ar, ~l~hough ~hey go~ I~le more co0perat~on from ~he b~r th~n '1 d~d. ' I ~eel like ~h~S'~s al~ a waste o~ ~aXp~yers~ money, since th~S business ~s operated with so ~i~le concern ~or. i~s neighbors, has Cooperated wi~h the Police only. ~o ~he m~nimum extent required. And they did this when they didn'.~' eyen h~ve a license ~or ~ I~ve' b~nd~ Let'S ~ce the' ~ ~hese people ~re I~wbre~kers ~nd, in.my op~n~on~ shoul~n'~ even ~ve ~ bus~ness ~Cense muc~ less a ~icense ~o 0peruse' ~ live ~nd. .Their ~ind o~ ~iv~ m~y h~ve been' ~ppropri~te 'd~c~des. . ~go when ~here were ~e~ inhabit~n~s~n th~ Bea~ Gulch ~re~..Bu~ to~y ~he~ ~re surrounded people who' w~n~ to sleep' ~ nigh~~ ~h~.point being that they' don'~ seem to c~re. ~ ~ . ~ ~eel c.e~n ~ha~ i~ yOU give t~em ~h~s Ijcen'se, ~hey will be depr~v~ng ~11 o~ us o~ Our sleep~ ~nd · we~ ~n turn, will becaliing .~he Police out here eve~ weekend. · .. , .' . ,~.'. . '. , ... . 8426 Ced~oOd L~ne · · . ' ' .-. . · . ..-,.:. . .~ .. . . .... .. . .- .~- . · CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- STAFF REPORT DATE: January 24, 1995 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Nancy Fong, AICP, Senior Planner SUBJECT: ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT 93-03 - FINAL SCORE - A request to conduct entertainment consisting of live bands, disc jockeys, and dancing in conjunction with a restaurant and bar, in the Community Commercial District within Subarea I of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at 8411 Foothill Boulevard - APN: 207-571-75. (Continued from January 10, 1996) , BACKGROUND: On July 24, 1994, the Commission conducted a public hearing to review the above application. The Commission received public testimony including a petition from the residents of the adjacent townhouse complex who objected to the Entertainment Permit because of nuisance problems such as noise, loud music, loitering activities in the parking lot and along the railroad embankment, etc. The Commission felt that additional information was needed to address the noise impact. The applicant was directed to submit an acoutiscal study that assesses the noise level generated by the proposed entertainment and identifies the necessary mitigation. Copies of the July 24, 1994, staff report and minutes are attached to this report for reference. A final noise study was completed on November 13, 1995, as shown in Exhibit "C." A chronology of the application is shown in Exhibit "1." ANALYSIS: A. Proposed Entertainment: The applicant proposes to offer entertainment along with the serving of food and alcohol. The proposed entertainment consists of live bands, disc jockeys, and dancing. It will be offered four nights a week from Thursday through Sunday, between the hours of 8 p.m. and 12 midnight. The area for dancing is 110 square feet as shown in Exhibit "G." According to the applicant, rhythm and blues, jazz, and rock and roll are the types of music being offered. -- B. Neiqhborhood Concerns: At the July 27, 1994, public hearing, residents from the adjacent townhouse complex raised their objections to the proposed entertainment. Their concerns were loud music, noise, disturbances from activities in the parking lot, and loitering activities on the railroad embankment. Public hearing notices for this meeting were mailed to the same list of residents. At the preparation of this report, staff received a letter from a resident from the adjacent townhouse complex who raised the same concems (see Exhibit "B"). The townhouse project (TR 10762) did not prepare a noise study for addressing the noise impact from the railroad tracks because the line was abandoned. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT EP 93-03-FINAL SCORE JanuaW 24,1996 Page 2 C. Results of the Noise Study: The City's noise consultant, Mr. George E. Leighton, conducted a site survey on August 27, 1995, between 6 a.m. and 7 a.m. to assess the building construction and measure the noise level inside and outside the building. Recorded music was played inside the building at a sound level of 95-100 Decibels (dBA) to simulate live entertainment so that he could measure the noise level inside the building at various points and outside at three points each at the top of the railroad embankment and at the property line of the adjacent townhouses. Exhibits "C7~ and "C13" show the locations where the readings were taken. The highest decibel reading was 55 dBA at Location 3 of the railroad embankment. The City's Noise Standard has a maximum interior noise level of 40 dBA between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m., and 45 dBA between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. for residential area, as shown in Exhibit "H." Subsequently, the applicant insulated the attic over the bar and sealed the east-facing door. On October 8, 1995, the consultant measured the noise level again at the same locations. The decibel reading was 43 dBA at L~ation 3. According to the consultant, this affirmed his conclusion that noise-control measures are effective in reducing the ambient noise. The following are additional noise-control measures recommended by him to further reduce the noise level to meet the City's Noise Standards: 1. Add acoustic door seals to all exit doors. (Permit not required) 2. Add interior ceiling with R-11 insulation over the pool room. (A building permit has been issued and work is complete) 3. Isolate speakers from the structure. (Permit not required) 4. Remove the two speakers from the roof ceiling and only hang one speaker' down from the roof ceiling. (Permit not required) 5. Upgrade the interior of the windows. (Permit required) 6. Close doors during entertainment. 7. Limit operating hours. D. Compatibility of Use: At the last public hearing, the Commission raised several concerns with the proposed entertainment at this location. One of the concerns was the close proximity -.- of the site to a residential neighborhood. The City has experienced nuisance problems with similar cases where well-intended mitigation did not work. Another concern was the lack of information on whether the building structure could be modified to attenuate noise, and the types of noise-control measures. A third concern was to determine what mitigation would be successful in preventing the loitering and other unwanted activities on the railroad embankment which would negatively impact the adjacent residents. The results of the noise study show that noise-control measures done to the interior of the building can effectively reduce the loud music and noise to an insignificant level that has negligible impact to the adjacent residential neighborhood. However, noise from loitering or other unwanted activities within the parking lot and on the railroad embankment could still be a negative impact to them. A possible control measure to address this concern is to require PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT EP 93-03 - FINAL SCORE January 24, 1996 Page 3 a solid wall along the property line that abuts the railroad embankment. However, staff believes that a solid wail on one hand may deter the unwanted activities but on the other hand may invite graffiti inside and outside the wall, which creates another neighborhood problem. Staff recommends that a decorative wrought iron fence with dense shrub massing and trees could deter someone from getting onto the railroad embankment and reduce the opportunity for graffiti and unwanted activities. Another control measure to address the loitering activities is to have security personnel stationed outside to patrol the parking lot. Limiting the hours and days for entertainment is another control measure that could reduce the intensity of the use. The combination of all these control measures should address the concerns raised by the adjacent residents. The success of these measures will depend upon the management of the business. E. Public Safety Concerns: A concern with any entertainment use is the potential for an increase in the need for fire and po.91ice resources. Based on the floor plan, the Fire Department established the maximum number of occupants allowed in the bar, restaurant, and dance areas to be 44 and the area designed for pool tables to be 12. If the number of occupants exceeds the above maximum, then the applicant shall obtain a separate permit and approval from the Fire Department Comments and records from the Police Department regarding this site were not available at the time of preparation of this report. Staff will present the information at the meeting. F. Site and Buildina Improvements: Staff met with the applicant and the consultant on November 2, 1995, to discuss the noise study and the ongoing interior building improvements. The applicant acknowledged that he did the interior upgrades on his own with the understanding that he may have the risk of not receiving an approval for the Entertainment Permit and the consequence of additional cost for redoing the upgrades if they were not done according to City codes or for complying with further noise control measures. In addition to the interior upgrades, the applicant resurfaced (added a slurry seal coat) and restriped the parking lot, as recommended in the July 27, 1994, staff report. Staff commended him for his effort to address the property maintenance issues, but the recommended improvements were intended to be subjected to City Planner review and approval for compliance with the current codes. Staff found that the dimensions of the parking spaces and the width of the drive aisle do not meet current standards. Other improvements include a wrought-iron fenced patio area for serving food and alcohol at the north side of the building and two satellite dishes at the northwest side of the building which were not approved. Staff recommends that the applicant submit a Minor Development --. Review application to show all the improvements to date so that staff can verify that they are in compliance with City codes. This is placed as a condition of approval. G. The Servinq of Food and Alcohol in an Outdoor Patio Area: Related to the Entertainment Permit application is a Conditional Use Permit (CUP 93-39) application for the building expansion and the outdoor patio area for serving food and liquor. This application has an incomplete status as of March 10, 1994. In his letter dated December 20, 1995, the applicant requested a withdrawal from a CUP application because he is not pursuing the expansion of the building but requested the serving of food, beer, and wine in the fenced patio area. The serving of food outside is considered ancillary to the restaurant use but the serving of alcohol, whether beer, wine, or distilled liquor, is considered as an expansion of the bar use. This expansion would still require a Conditional Use Permit. The concern with serving alcohol PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT EP 93-03-FINAL SCORE January 24,1996 Page 4 outside is the increase in the nuisance problems such as noise that may negatively impact the adjacent residents. Staff does not recommend the serving of alcohol outside because of the close proximity of the site to the residential neighborhood. Outdoor seating may increase the likelihood of doors being left open during entertainment which would exacerbate the noise problem. H. Conclusion and Mitiqation: Based on the above analysis, staff believes that there are control measures that could minimize and reduce the potential nuisance problems to an acceptable level. These control measures are as follows: additional noise-control measures done to the interior of the building as recommended by the City's noise consultant; adding decorative fencing and dense landscaping along the property line that abuts the railroad embankment to prevent unwanted loitering activities; limiting the days and hours of entertainment to 12 midnight on Friday and Saturday only; providing security personnel inside the building and outside in the parking lot during the days and hours of entertainment; no serving of alcohol outside on the patio at all times; and no serving of food or non-alcoholic beverages in the outdoor patio area after 9 p.m.; and, establishing a maximum occupancy of 44 persons in the restaurant, bar and dancing areas and 12 persons for the pool table area. FACTS FOR FINDING: The Commission must make all of the following findings in order to approve this application: A. That the conduct of the establishment or the granting of the application would not be contrary to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare. B. That the premises or establishment is not likely to be operated in an illegal, improper, or disorderly manner. C. That the applicant, or any person associated with him as principal or partner or in a position or capacity involving partial or total control over the conduct of the business for which such permit is sought to be issued, has not been convicted in any court of competent jurisdiction of any offense involving the presentation. exhibition, or performance of any obscene show of any kind or of a felony or of any crime involving moral turpitude or has not had any approval, permit, or license issued in conjunction with the sale of alcohol or the provisions of entertainment revoked within the preceding five years. D. That.the granting of the application would not create a public nuisance. · . -- E.' That the normal operation of the premises would not interfere with the peace and quiet of any surroundings residential neighborhood. F. That the applicant has not made any false, misleading, or fraudulent statement of material fact in the required application. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property has been posted, and notices were sent to the adjacent property owners within 300 feet of the project including those residents who signed the July 18, 1994, petition to the Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT EP 93-03-FINAL SCORE JanuaW 24,1996 Page 5 RECOM.___MENDATIO__N: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct a hearing to receive public testimony. If the Commission concurs with staffs analysis and findings, including the control measures, then approval of Entertainment Permit 93-03 through the adoption of the attached Resolution would be in order. Respectfully submitted, BB:NF/jfs Attachments: Exhibit "A" Applicant's letter dated December 20, 1995. Exhibit "B" Resident's letter Exhibit "C" Noise Study Exhibit "D" July 27, 1994, Planning Commission Staff Report and Minutes Exhibit "E" Location Map Exhibit "F" - Site Plan Exhibit "G" - Floor Plan Exhibit "H" Residential Noise Standards Exhibit"l" - Chronology Resolution of Approval with Conditions 8411 F~hll! B~vc~. . R E C E I V E D ~anct~ .cucomonga Ca~fc~ 917~ ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' D~ C ~ 0 t995 HOME V1S~O~ Oily ot Ra~ho Gucamonga SAT~LITE SPORTS planning Division ~) g545 ]5 ~OD · GAMES F~ (909) 985-7~8~ Dear Nancy Fong We are asking for a contiuance due to a prior out of state, Engagment. We would appreciate our hearing date on Jan 24,1996, To better prepare ourselves. Also we would like to drop our C.U.P.And we are requesting a variance,to allow us too serve breakfast,lunch & Dinner. From the hours of 8am to 10pm Mon-Sun.We are approved by the A.B.C. to Serve Alcoholic beverges. We would like to serve beer & wine only in our outside area. from the hours of 8am-10pm. There will be 10 to 15 Tables with a capacity,of 25 for dinning 90 for viewing sporting events Thank you very much for your time in this matter. Garry Rausa,Mgr; FINAL SCORE _~,~.~ RECEIVED Planning Division ~EC'>o 1995 city of Rancho Cucamonga P. O- Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 j~lyoi~ancho Cucamon~e December 21, 1995 planning Division This letter is in response to the Notice of Public Hearing posted on our property regarding a request for an Entertainment Permit 93-03 for the Final Score Bar located at 8411 Foothill Blvd. in Rancho Cucamonga. This meeting is to be held January 10, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. I understand from my neighbor, Helen Defina, who has called you, that we will be receiving this notice also in the mail telling us that the bar owners have made some changes to their establishment that should take care of some of the complaints we had in 1994 when they also had requested this entertainment permit. I am writing this to you before receiving the letter as I will be leaving on vacation. I am enclos- ing copies of letters of July 1994- A petition was sent to your office, signed by 50 home owners in Rancho Villas, also at that time, requesting that the entertafKment permit not be issued to the Final Score Bar. You listened to us at that time, please LISTEN TO US AGAIN- Even if the improvements, or changes, made to the Final Score Bar building do cut down on the level of sound and the vibrations from the percussion instruments, we still have the nuisance of additional patrons leaving the bar's parking lot early hours in the morning making so much noise that it wakes us up from our sleep. We have ex- perienced the patrons with too much to drink even coming up onto the railroad tracks, which are practically in our back yards, arguing, using foul language, smoking "pot" and having fist fights. I assume that Garry Rausa is still the owner of the Final Score Bar. He definitely has shown in the past that he has no concern whatsoever for his neighbors. Going ahead and having live bands play knowing full well that he did not have a permit to do so from the city in 1993 certainly should be a big point against him. As his neighbors, we do have a right to a peaceful, safe neighborhood. We have appreciated the past 17 months without any problems from the bar. Please consider our wishes very carefully and do not issue an entertainment permit to the Final Score Bar. Thank you all. Charles and Shirley Kovar 8438 Cedarwood Lane Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 bY 982-0628 GEORGE E. LEIGHTON CONSULTANT, NOISE CONTROL '~ECEIVED ACOUSTICAL ANALYSIS REPORT/f709 N0~,! 1995 [or ~ LIVE BAND MUSIC ,,.: c, P, ancno Cucamonga ~'l,~nning Division at FINAL SCORE ULTRA SPORTS BAR Prepared for' NANCY FONG, AICP Senior Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga Prepared by Certified Acoustical Consultant 11-6-95 1307-A SOUTH EUCLID STREET · ANAHEIM, CA 92802 ° (714) 535-8648 FAX (714) 535-8649 (800) 570-3666 P,c. CONTENTS Pa.~e Forward 1 Summary Preliminary Analysis 2a Preliminary Noise Survey_r 2b Preliminary Conclusions 2d Preliminary Recommendations 2e Preliminary Cost Estimates 2f Follow-On Acoustical Inspection Resulis 3 Conclusions 4 Appendix 5 1. George Leighton, Consulting Services 2. Noise Survey Data Sheets 3. Calculations 4. Brochure - National Council of Acoustical Consultants F Btr C FORWARD This ~eport was prepared for Nancy Fong, AICP,. Senior Planner, City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. Its purpose is to identify potential community noise problems at the Final Score Sports Bar associated with live band music. A further purpose is to answer the following questions: 1. Can live band music be played without: a. Violating the community noise ordinance? b. Imposing disturbing sound upon the adjacent residents? 2. What noise-control measures are required to make this possible? Noise surveys were made, noise problems were identified, and on-site solutions developed. Recommended solutions are documented in this report. It is intended that the recommendations be presented in a clear, logical manner with sufficient explanation of acoustic theory, practice and supporting data to allow the reader to understand the specific noise problems and the specific noise-control measures necessary to resolve them. As will be shown, with the recommended noise-control measures, the live band music can be accommodated without neighborhood disturbance and at modest cost ($1,500.00) to the owner of the sports bar: NOISE LEVELS - dBA LOCATION EXISTING MODIFIED *ALLOWABLE Rear Yard 41 27 50 1st Floor 41 27 50 2rid Floor 51 37 50 2nd Floor interior, windows open 39 25 35 *10:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m., with 5 dBA penalty for impulse noise NOTE: Above noise levels based upon actual on-site noise measurements SUMMARY Preliminary Analysis The Final Score Ultra Sports Bar is located in a single-story frame building with an attic over the bar and lounge, and a plain flat roof over the pool room with no interior ceiling. Three 1-3/4 inch solid core exterior doors provide public access and emergency exits. Two small windows are covered with interior shutters to exclude outside light. Superficially it appeared that the structure was inadequate to contain 100. dBA interior band music without extensive renovation. This proved to be an erroneous assumption. Preliminary Noise Survey On 8-27-95, a noise survey was conducted at the Final Score Ultra Sports Bar. It involved two phases: 1. Recorded music was played through the sound system at normal levels (85 dBA) in the bar. Noise levels outside along the top of the railroad tracks were barely audible against an ambient noise level of 42-45 dBA. This would have rendered it inaudible at the nearby residences. 2. Music levels were set at maximum power - 97 dBA in the bar, 103 dBA in the pool room. Maximum noise level of 55 dBA was measured at the top of the railroad tracks. This would result in 51 dBA at the second-story windows and 41 dBA in the rear yard of the most seriously affected residence. It should be noted that interior noise levels of 95-100 dBA are usual in a bar with live bands. Hence, the tests realistically simulated a live band. These results were totally unexpected. It was expected that these neighborhood noise levels would have been much higher, precluding the use of live band music. Instead, it showed that with additional noise-control measures bands could successfully play here. It is due to two factors. 1. Acoustical Up~rades In my preliminary survey performed for the purpose of defining the proposal to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, it was pointed out to the owner that among necessary upgrades would be: a. Attic Insulation over Bar b. Window UO_,2rades Subsequent to this and prior to the above survey, he insulated the attic and sealed the east-facing window in the bar. 2. Buildin~ Interior Layout Except for part of the east-facing bar wail, all of the east-facing and south-facing walls had interior rooms (rest rooms, offices, and storerooms) which insulated the outside walls from interior noise. An exterior building noise survey was then made to define high-noise locations and thereby identify further noise-control measures: 1. Add Door Seals New solid-core doors were installed in the past year or two, but acoustic door seals are required. C5 2. Add Pool Room Ceilin~ There is no ceiling ... the roof deck and beams are exposed. An interior ceiling with R-11 insulation is required to reduce roof-radiated noise. 3. Isolate Speakers from Structure In the pool room, two large speakers are rigidly attached to the roof. Tests showed that o~ly one speaker is needed. This would cut the noise energy in half. Isolating it from the roof would eliminate structure-borne noise through the roof. 1~'/'~3 ot~ 4. Up~rade ~,6~ie-Windows The remaining windows should be upgraded. With the above upgrades, exterior noise levels were expected to be reduced by an additional 10-12 dBA. Preliminary Conclusions 1. The noise problems can be resolved using straightforward acoustical techniques. The spegific acoustical materials and hardware items, however, must be imaginatively selected and designed to achieve the desired acoustical objectives in the most cost- effective manner. 2. After incorporating the recommended noise-control measures, exterior noise levels at the adjacent residences would be reduced below 40 dBA. This is far below the 50 dBA Residential Noise Standard, well below the expected 42-45 dBA late-night ambient noise levels, and vimally inaudible at all nearby residences. 3. By following the report recommendations, live band music can be permitted in the sports bar. b~ (~2d Preliminary Recommendations 1. Buildin,a Modifications a. Install acoustical door seals b. Install ceiling in pool room c. Upgrade remaining outside windows d. Remove one speaker, pool room e. Isolate speakers from building structure 2. Follow-up Noise Survey After incorporating above modifications, conduct a follow-up noise survey to verify the noise predictions. With successful testing, allow live band performances subject to below operating procedures. 3. Operating Procedures a. Outdoor Patio (1) Limit operating hours (2) Close door during live band performance b. Other Outside Doors Normally closed Note: The owner plans to immediately incorporate the recommended changes. Costs are reasonable. Installing attic insulation over the bar has reduced air conditioning costs significantly. Installing the pool-room ceiling with R-11 insulation provides economic justification for this expenditure. The same would apply to the windows. l'~ 2e Preliminary Cost Estimates 1. Acoustic Door Seals $1,504.00 Installed (3 doors) Heavy duty, commercial 2. CeilinK, Pool Room 1,683.00 22 x 17 = 374 sq. ft. @ $4.50 3. Windows, Pool Room 150.00 Sub Total $3,337.00 4. Speakers - Isolate 300.00 Total $3,637.00 Subsequent to the above estimates the owner completed the above changes with the help of qualified contractors. Total costs, including the rear door upgrade are estimated at $1,500.00, a modest sum. Because of the prior noise complaints by neighbors, the modest cost, and the savings in air conditioning by insulating the attic and pool room ceiling, the owner decided to make the recommended changes immediately irrespective of the status of the application for entertainment permit. This proved to be a wise decision because it allows us to demonstrate the acoustic success of the recommendations before appearing before the Planning Board. We have proved definitively that live band music will be far below the City's noise ordinance limits and will be inaudible at the nearby residences. FOLLOW-ON ACOUSTICAL INSPECTION RESULTS 1. Visual Inspection - On 10-2%95, a visual inspection was made of the Sports Bar prior to making the early morning acoustical analysis. The following were observed: a. Ceiling Installation Pool Room - The gyp board ceiling was installed as directed but installation was incomplete at this time. Caulking and trim strips had not yet been installed. b. Windows - Windows were modified as directed. c. Acoustic Door Seals - Acoustic door seals were installed on all three exterior doors, however, inspection revealed that the seals had not been adjusted properly leaving gaps for the escape of noise. d. Speakers - As directed, one speaker was removed from the pool room and the remaining speaker was suspended from the ceiling surface. 2. Noise Survey - Sunday morning, 10-8-95, at 6:00 a.m. a noise survey was conducted which was identical to that conducted earlier. Recorded Country and Western music was played at full volume through the existing sound system. Noise levels were 100 dBA in the bar area, 97 dBA in the pool hail. The bar area noise was 2 dBA above that previously measured and the pool room noise was 3 dBA below that previously recorded because of the removal of one of the two speakers. As expected exterior noise levels measured along the railroad trace were reduced by 10 to 12 dBA to 39-43 dBA: This is far below the required 50 dBA at the property line. 3. Additional Modifications Required a. Pool Room Ceiling - Complete the installation of the ceiling. b. Acoustic Door Seals - Adjust as required. c. Rear Door to Patio - During testing this door appeared to be deficient in noise barrier properties. 'This will be upgraded acoustically in accordance · ' ' "' with the attached sketch. Note: In the 11-2-95 meeting with Nancy Fong at the Planning Department, Gary Rousa, son of the owner, indicated that all of the above modifications had been completed or were in process. CONCLUSIONS 1. Successful acoustical upgrades could be made at modest cost. 2. FolloWing installation of these upgrades sound surveys confirmed their success. 3. The presence of the elevated railway constitutes a 13 foot high noise barrier between the Sports Bar and the adjacent homes. This reduces noise in the rear yard by an added 10 dBA. 4. Calculated noise levels based on the above are far below allowable levels and will be inaudible to the adjacent residential neighbors. APPENDIX 1. George Leighton, Consulting Services 2. Noise Survey Data Sheets 3. Calculaiions 4. Brochure - National Council of Acoustical Consultants GEORGE E. LEIGHTON CONSULTANT, NOISE CONTROL CONSULTING SERVICES Mr. Leighton is an acoustical consultant with an impressive list of clients. Some of the more well known are listed below: Chevron Texas Instruments Digital Equipment Textron General Electric 3M Gulf Oil U.S. Navy International Harvester United Technologies He has over 35 years of professional engineering experience with over 25 years exclusively in the field of industrial, commercial, and residential noise control: lndustr i a I ,s~mdustrial experience covers the entire range of noise abatement. He has worked with OEM's (Original Equipment Manufacturers) to design quiet equipment and provide field retrofit kits. He has designed, built and installed noise--control systems involving single items of equipment through entire plants for the metalworking, automotive, construction, printing, chemical and petrochemical industries. Techniques ranged from initial noise surveys through computer prediction and computer modeling to insure compliance with in-plant and community noise standards . . . OSHA compliance experience ranges from noise surveys, corrective action to meet OSHA standards, consulting with clients and attorneys under OSHA citations, and negotiating with OSHA to develop abatement plaAts for ci'ted clients. Commercial His commercial experience covers new construction and corrective action for churches, recreation halls, existing schools, restaurants, factory and office buildings, hospitals, hotels and motels. Code-compliance reports prepared for interior and exterior (community) noise requirements. Mechanical systems analysis provided for new construction and corrective action for existing systems. Residential .. His residential experience covers new and existing apartments, condominiums, and · ' private homes. Acoustical Analysis Reports prepared for Title 2It, building and grading permits. He specializes in analysis and correction of problems in existing buildings. Expert-witness testimony provided in court actions. Typical clients are industrial firms, architects, developers, contractors, homeowners, attorneys, consulting engineers, schools, city and national governments. 1307-A SOUTH EUCLID STREET -ANAHEIM, CA 92802 · (714) 535-8648 FAX (714) 535-8649 (800) 570-3666 GEORGE E. LEIGHTON PROFESSIONAL OUALIFICATIONS · BOARD-CERTIFIED ACOUSTICAL CONSULTANT · REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER (MA) · GRADUATE ENGINEER, MASTER'S DEGREE · 35 YEARS' PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING EXPERIENCE · 25 YEARS EXCLUSIVELY IN NOISE CONTROL · MEMBER: Acoustical Society of America Institute of Noise Control Engineers National Council of Acoustical Consultants National Society of Professional Engineers Society of Testifying Experts 0 2 4 6 8 lO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TOTAL NOISE AMD BACKR6UND ~B FIG. 13.6 Chart For Correcting Noise Levels For Ambient Backround F-xl~Yb~L C2-- I Workchart6 Noise Barrier F~ 1.5 ~ ~o F 035 / ~ _ D/R (or R/D) ~ USE WHICH EVER 0.5 RATIO IS SMALLER OF GROUND ATTENUATION R LESS THAN 1.3 0 1.3 to 2.0 '.1 2.l to 5.2 5.1 or more -4,' then, ~,ff~K' r:ojec{ ~',~J~___z~:~~,.)'./~/CONSULTANT, NOISE CONTROL P ~ ~ ~ ~ 7 - - , at no time during the discussions regarding the Olive Garden Restaurant had re been any such condition discussed. He said so far as he was aware, this the first time they were being made aware of such a future He noted that Terra Vista Town Center and this development are owned by different entities, even though they are both related to Lewis Homes. Me the appropriate time to deal with the matter would be when the owner of sta Town Center proposes development of the northwest corner of the center. Mr. James agreed the potential condition for the southbound right-turn lane had not been ht up until the technical review comments on this project had been to the applicant. Chairman Barker asked if Mager was now aware that future development on the Terra Vista Town Center will trigger such a condition. Mr. Mager affirmed that he was. Chairman Barker again closed '~he 3lic hearing. He said he was not comfortable with the condition being .ed to this project. Me felt the minutes would provide a sufficient paper Lil. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by ~o issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution approving ~al Use Permit 93-49 with modifications to delete Planning Condition and Engineering condition No. 7 and require City Planner approval of the ]cape and landscape along Building 9 frontage prior to the issuance of the of Occupancy. Commissioner Lumpp requested that the traffic study req ired in Engineering Condition No. 8 look at the traffic circulation as it re~ tes to the master plan including the west side of Spruce. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: , COMMISSIONERS: NONE - The Planning Commission recessed from 9:10 p.m. to 9:25 p.m. E. ENTERTAINMENT pERMIT 93-03 - FINAL SCORE - A request to conduct entertainment consisting of live bands, disc jockey, and dancing in conjunction with a restaurant and bar, in the Community Commercial District within Subarea i of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at 8411 Foothill Boulevard - APN: 207-571-75. Brad Buller, City planner, stated that he had placed before the Commission and given to the applicant a copy of the minutes from the City Council Meeting of Planning commission Minutes -14- July 27, 1994 · May 4, 1994. He observed that following discussions on Sam's Place and Babe's Club 66, Mayor Pro Tem Buquet had suggested that anytime there is a sale of alcohol at a business or an entertainment permit, the matter should go before the full City Council for approval. He noted that Council Member Gutierrez had concurred with the suggestion. Mr. Buller said he was bringing this to the attention of the Planning Commission, applicant, and residents to show that the City Council is seriously concerned about where these uses occur and any neighborhood concerns. He stated that under current City Codes, the Planning Commission has the authority to approve, deny, or approve with conditions the application before them. He suggested that the Commission might consider taking no formal action and instead referring the matter up to the City council with a resolution recommending the Commission's position. Chairman Barker stated he had read the minutes and he appreciated the concern of the City Council. He said he also understood Mr. Buller's desire to follow the direction Of the city Council; but that it was his opinion that because no changes have yet been made to the code, it is currently the obligation of the Planning Commission to act on the matter. He noted he had also discussed the matter with the Mayor a few m~Kutes before the meeting when Mr. Stout had happened by and that the Mayor had been of the same opinion. Chairman Barker said the Commission would hear the matter. He said that although the Commission could then either make the decision as they had.made such decisions in the past or simply forward with a recommendation to the City Council, he believed it was the Planning Commission's duty under current regulations to fulfill their obligation to hear the matter and make a decision. He said the matter could always be appealed to the City Council by anyone, including the City Council. Commissioner Melcher shared Chairman Barker's opinion and felt the applicant was entitled to an action by the Planning Commission. He commented he was entirely amenable to referring the matter up to the Council when and if the City Code is changed. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed the Commission should proceed as before. Commissioner McNiel concurred that the Commission is charged with that responsibility until the Code is changed. Commissioner Lumpp concurred. Nancy Fong, senior Planner, presented the staff report and indicated that an additional letter of opposition had been received following preparation of the staff report and a copy had been given to the Commissioners and the applicant. Commissioner Lumpp asked if there had been any problems related to police activity when the business operated as The Cub. Ms. Fong responded that she had not asked the Police to go back that far for records. Commissioner Melcher observed that Paragraph 3.a of the resolution states that the Commission finds "That the conduct of the establishment or the granting of Planning Commission Minutes -15- July 27, 1994 · the application would not be contrary to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare." He reported that Ms. Fong had stated that language is directly out of the Entertainment Permit. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Greg Dorst, attorney, 818 North Mountain Avenue, Upland, introduced Mr. and Mrs. Rousa, the owners, and their son Garry Rousa, the manager. He said the Rousas are part of the community and they have 38 years of experience in the hospitality bar/restaurant business. He presented a letter from the Executive Director of the Boys & Girls Clubs of the Inland Empire indicating that the Final score had donated proceeds and food to the clubs. He said they wish to work with the neighbors. He stated they have spent a considerable amount of time going over the problems and they have some solutions. He noted that staff had also proposed appropriate conditions of approval. He said the main concerns raised have to do with noise. He acknowledged that staff is correct that mitigations to contain the noise inside the business will not work if doors and windows are left open. He said the establishment currently does not have outside security personneF~ssigned to the parking lot. He pointed out the conditions proposed by staff call for parking lot security and he felt approval of the entertainment permit would make the situation better because there would be supervision in the parking lot and supervision of the doors. He said the permit was also conditioned to cease entertainment at midnight and he felt the crowd would leave earlier and that would also cut down on the late night noise. He observed that sound attenuation measures would be required with approval of the entertainment permit and he proposed a second set of entry doors on the east side to act as a buffer zone. He hoped that the residents and condominium owners would go to either he or the Rousas to discuss any concerns. He pointed out that the entertainment permit can be revoked at any time if it is found to be a nuisance. He felt approval of the entertainment permit will give the City control over the establishment where such control does not now exist, but would also allow the Rousas to utilize their property to its fullest extent. Commissioner Lumpp questioned the occupancy rating of the facility. Mr. Dorst thought it is currently 52. He noted the proposal is for 44 people in the dance area and 12 in the pool table area. Commissioner Lumpp observed that Mr. Dorst had proposed another set of doors on the east side and he questioned when those doors would be installed. Mr. Dorst replied it would be prior to entertainment being offered. Commissioner Lumpp questioned how the applicant plans to comply with Condition No. 6, which calls for the restriction of parking in certain parking spaces. Mr. Dorst responded that currently the trash dumpsters are in that particular location and a structure will be built for the dumpsters. He said the area would be blocked off at all times. He indicated the Final Score does not need that parking area and they proposed blocking it off with a low railing or a chain. Planning Commission Minutes -16- July 27, 1994 'Bob Fleming, 8434 Cedarwood Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he is the Vice President of the Board of Directors for the Homeowners' Association and he was speaking for his neighbors and the majority of the association. He commented that the attorney had said they had been in business for 38 years, but they had opened the establishment and provided live entertainment without obtaining the City's approval. Me said the music went until 2:00 a.m. and rattled the walls of his condominium which is located 100 feet away with a railroad embankment between- He said their clientele tends to drive motorcycles and they tend to sit in the parking lot and rev up their engines when they are leaving. He felt the residents should not be disturbed by the noise emanating from the establishment just as contractors have to comply with certain regulations regarding noise during certain hours. He said there have also been problems with loitering on' the railroad embankment. He stated that one of his neighbors had distributed a letter in the neighborhood regarding tonight's meeting and when the manager of the club heard about it, he called her up and used profanity. He felt that did not show a willingness to work with the neighbors. He thought the doors are left open because the ventilation is poor. He said the Homeowners' Association does not want live entertainment to be permitted ~d'ring any hours. He did not feel it would be physically possible to soundproof the building- " Commissioner Melcher asked if the building had been a bar the whole time that Mr. Fleming lived there. Mr. Fleming responded affirmatively. Commissioner Melcher asked if the primary problems had occurred when there was entertainment- Mr. Fleming said that was correct. He said there is a normal nuisance from the bar, but the main problems have been with live entertainment. He said that he had called the police and the police had been out there several times in response to noise complaints prior to the cessation of live entertainment- Gary Johnson, 11626 Mt. Hood court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he has known the Rousas for about two years during which time he has patronized their establishment. He said they have taken security measures during the last three months, such as installing surveillance cameras that show the parking lot. He said the manager does not allow people to get drunk or disorderly. He felt the entertainment permit should be approved so that young people would have a place to go at night. Steve Scharry, 8414 Cedarwood Lane, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that he lives in the condominium project south of the bar. He commented that all of the bedrooms in the complex that face the bar are the second and third bedrooms and are typically occupied by children. He did not feel it is good to have children looking out their bedroom windows and seeing the type of activities that go on in the parking lot of a bar. He stated there had been a shooting incident in the parking lot several years ago and one of the stray bullets went through his neighbor's bedroom window when young children were sleeping in the bedroom at the time. He thought that the current owner has made attempts to get rid of the biker crowd but he felt that live entertainment would be a hazard to public safety and morals. -17 July 27, 1994 planning Commission Minutes -17- 'Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. Commissioner McNiel asked when the condominiums were built. Mr. Buller replied they were built in the early 1980s. Commissioner McNiel stated that it has been fairly consistent practice to give business people an opportunity to operate while retaining the right to withdraw such permission based upon whether there have been sufficient complaints, police reports, etc. He said the matter could also be potentially reviewed by the City council. He stated he understood the concerns of the residents and he felt them to be valid. He thought the vast majority of potential complaints had been considered and attempts had been made to provide mitigations for those problems. He said the tragedy has-been that in the past, the City has too many times experienced problems. He supported the application. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he supports the opening of a sports bar as it provides a service to the community. He said that in recent entertainment permit applications, the City has looked at the buffer between the use and the neighborhood. He observed that years ago a bar was allowed to operate in a neighborhood center quite close to residences and it has not worked. He said several other entertainment permits were recently approved on the basis that they were well buffered from the neighborhood. He did not feel this particular location is sufficiently buffered from residences and he therefore hesitated to vote for it. Commissioner Melcher felt that both Commissioners McNiel and Tolstoy had presented compelling arguments. He did not feel the Commission had sufficient information upon which to base its decision. He thought the proposed mitigation measures need to be thought out more carefully and he felt an acoustical report should be prepared to be sure that proposed soundproofing measures would work. He said he had visited the site and gone up to the railroad tracks and was promptly apprehended by Garry Rousa because he had seen him on the video system. Commissioner Melcher felt that was proof that the video system works. He thought the Rousas want to make the project work. He felt an acoustical study should address what would be needed so there would be no additional noise heard at the condominium project and the study should consider whatever measures were built into the condominium project because at the time the condos were built the railroad was operating. He said he was not prepared to act this evening. Commissioner Lumpp stated he had always been in favor of allowing business -. people to try to make a living in the community. He felt the applicant's proposal to install a set of double doors should be further investigated through a noise study which looks at the interior and the exterior. He was not convinced that the benefits of interior mitigations would not be negated by a tendency to leave doors open because of a lack of proper ventilation. He agreed that there was not enough information to support the project. He suggested that staff look at the possibility of installing a fence that would prevent people from climbing up or loitering on the railroad tracks. He said he did not want to be in a position of having staff spend money and time to try to revoke a permit because the applicant has not complied with conditions. planning Commission Minutes -18- July 27, 1994 · Chairman Barker said he does not have a lot of sympathy for people who move next to an existing condition and then are upset. He stated this situation is one where there is a pre-existing non-conforming use which has caused some problems through the years, but now the Commission was being asked to add entertainment which may exacerbate the problem. He did not feel the proposed attenuation measures are sufficient to handle the problem. He said it will be difficult to satisfy him because he has experienced the scars of watching the Commission and City Council go out of their way to attempt to make something work which will not work. He stated he will have to be shown that attenuations could be made so the expanded intensity of use would not create an increased irritant to the neighborhood. Commissioner Melcher asked if it is truly an existing non-conforming use. Mr. Bullet stated it is an existing non-conforming site development structure and therefore a conditional use permit is required for expansion. Chairman Barker said it was something that would not have been approved but it was already built before the ci~fwas formed. Commissioner Melcher asked if a sports bar is a permitted use on the site. Mr. Buller replied it would be a conditionally permitted use. Commissioner Melcher stated he was not convinced Of the adequacy of the sound attenuation measures. He said he had been told by the applicant that there are further plans for the development of the site and he felt an acoustic study should be necessary for not only an entertainment permit but also any additional changes. He felt that sound is a very specialized area. He commented that it was noisy when he was up on the railroad tracks not because of the bar, but because of Foothill Boulevard. He noted that the railroad line has been abandoned and in the future the berm may be removed and the land may be developed. He felt a more comprehensive approach to solving the problem is needed. He noted the berm was constructed to elevate the trains to get over Foothill Boulevard and he thought part of the problem is currently solved by the berm but it should not be relied on to solve the problem as the berm may be removed one day because the railroad is abandoned. Chairman Barker stated that a berm will not stop sound, it will only redirect it. He stated he was not at all sure that he would ever be satisfied that the noise could be adequately mitigated. Commissioner Lumpp stated he was not ready to approve or deny the project. He suggested that the matter be continued until the conditional use permit application and a sound study are ready for the Commission's consideration. Chairman Barker asked if the project were to be denied without prejudice, if the applicant would have to pay a second application fee if they wished to resubmit the project. Mr. Bullet confirmed that a second fee would be required. He suggested asking the applicants if they would be willing to continue the matter until the study is completed. Planning Commission Minutes -19- July 27, 1994 .Commissioner Tolstoy stated that when he visited the bar, he talked to Mr. Rousa and he indicated there were future plans including a patio, enlarging the area with the pool tables, and placing a double door on the east side. He said he then talked to Garry Rousa and his plans were a little different. He said it appeared they may not be sure what their plans really are. He felt a patio could certainly present some noise problems. He thought an acoustical study should include what their plans are. He said the building has been expanded several times and he felt some parts of the building may have to be treated differently. Chairman Barker reopened the public hearing. Mr. Dorst stated there had been live entertainment back in the 1960s and that had been approved by the County. He said that was why the Rousas thought that entertainment was a permitted use. He commented that the people who spoke in opposition to the entertainment permit were addressing problems that currently exist and those problems will not improve unless the entertainment permit is approved because conditions would then be imposed. He questioned what noise level was expected When the cond~minium project was approved. He said at that point a train was running and Foothill Boulevard is a very noisy street. He said he did not know if the entertainment permit would create a noise level that would be above that expectation level. He asked what levels would be set. He requested that the Commission approve the permit, keep a watchful ear to see if problems develop, and stop the use if there are problems. Chairman Barker stated the applicant was advocating a change in the status quo and the Co~ission would need to be convinced that taking such an action would not have a negative effect. Me said the majority of the Commissioners had indicated that the proposed conditions are insufficient to make them comfortable in making those findings. Mr. Dorst noted that Planning Condition No. 5 calls for sound proofing and indicates that whatever is necessary must be done before commencement of entertainment. Chairman Barker said he was not willing to dump the matter on staff. Commissioner Lumpp stated he was also concerned about the the possibility that the air conditioning does not operate properly and the doors are propped open for ventilation. Mr. Dorst said that the doors have been closed in the recent heat wave, which would indicate that the ventilation is adequate. He said that could also be investigated. Me proposed that the matter be continued to a time when they can present sound attenuation measures based on a competent professional study. Mr. Buller indicated that staff may have the acoustic study validated by an independent consultant at the applicant's expense. He suggested that the matter be tabled until the study is complete and verified. He said the matter would then be readvertised. Planning commission Minutes -20- July 27, 1994 .Mr. Fleming stated the condominiums are not sound proofed and have single pane glass. He said the train had only served a lumber yard and went by only once a week. He stated the problems had not existed until live entertainment was brought in. Commissioner McNiel stated he supported Commissioner Lumpp's suggestion for a fence to restrict access to the railroad tracks. Chairman Barker again closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Lumpp, seconded by McNiel, to table Entertainment Permit 93-03 to allow the applicant to prepare an acoustical study. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Chairman Barker stated the applr~tion had been tabled to allow the applicant an opportunity to provide additional information. He said that when the matter is rescheduled for Planning Commission consideration, it would be readvertised and a public hearing notice would again be mailed to the same group as before. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-16 - AIRTOUCH CELLULAR - A request to construct 90-foot cellular antenna adjacent to an existing building in the General :trial District (Subarea 14) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, at 9272 Hyssop Drive - APN: 229-283-12. Nancy Fong, )r Planner, presented the staff report and suggested that the resolution be ~d to require the installation of street trees. Chairman Barker e public hearing. Marie Landall, D. E. Architects, 160 Newport Center Drive, #112, Newport Beach, stated they prepared to comply with the conditions of approval including the street Commissioner McNiel asked why the Ls to be 90 feet tall. Ms. Landall replied that is the minimum height to adequately pass signals to neighboring cel sites. Commissioner Lumpp asked if the applicant would to changing the gate to another material from the proposed chain link gate redwood slats. Ms. Landall felt that would not be a problem. h~r Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Barker closed t ~ng Planning Commission Minutes -21- July2~7,94 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: July 27, 1994 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission ~'- )f' FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Nancy Fong, AICP, Senior Planner SUBJECT: ENTERTAINMENT pERMIT 93-03 - FINAL SCORE A request to conduct entertainment consisting of live bands, disc jockey, and dancing in conjunction with a restaurant and bar, in the Community Con~mercial District within Subarea 1 of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at 8411 Foothill Boulevard - APN: 207-571-75. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Site Characteristics: The site is located at the junction of Foothill Boulevard and San Bernardino Road. It contains the Final Score building, several structures such as carports and garages, and an office for an auto repair shop- The existing improvements are non-conforming because the ultimate public improvements are missing and the on-site improvements, setbacks, percentage of on-site landscaping, and parking are not up to current standards- B. Surrounding Land Use: West of the site is vacant and zoned for commercial uses. North of the site is the Sycamore Inn and zoned for con=nercial uses. South of the site is a railroad track which is no longer in use. Beyond the south side of the tracks are townhouses and single family homes. C. Proposed Entertainment: The applicant proposes to offer entertainment along with the serving of food and drinks. The proposed entertainment consists of live bands, disc jockeys, and dancing. It will be offered four nights a week from Thursday through Sunday, between the hours of 8 p.m. and 12 midnight. The area for dancing is 110 square feet. According to the applicant, rhythm and blues, jazz, and rock and roll are the types of music ~eing offered. "' D. Parking Calculations: Number of Number of Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces of Use Footage Ratio Required Provided Final Score 2,400 1/100 24 Auto Repair 3 bays 2/bay 6 __ TOTAL 30 41 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT EP 93-03 - FINAL SCORE July 27, 1994 Page 2 ANALYSIS: A. General: According to the Foothill Boulevard Specific plan, a Conditional Use permit (CUP) is required for the operation of a bar. Final Score ( formerly The Cub) does not have a CUP because the business was established prior to the City ' s incorporation and the adoption of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. Since the applicant would like to expand the building and add a patio area for outdoor seating, besides offering entertainment, he has submitted a Conditional Use permit as well. Because the application has been deemed incomplete, the applicant has requested that the Entertainment Permit be forwarded to the Commission for review first. He stated that he intends to pursue the CUP and will submit revised development plans in the near future. B. Compatibility of Use: In__r_eviewing this application, the primary issue identified by staff is the compatibility of the proposed entertainment with the surrounding land uses. South of the site, beyond the abandoned railroad line, is all residential uses including single family and townhouses. The proposed entertainment could negatively impact these residents. Loud music and noise from within the building and loitering activities in the parking lot, in combination with the likely late evening and early morning hours of a night club business, will impact these residents. Possible mitigations to the impacts noted above include: improving the sound attenuation of the building, adding inside and outside security personnel, and limiting the hours of operation- The effectiveness of these mitigations is largely dependent on the property and business management. Building improvements for additional sound attenuation could be negated by an open door or window. The City's Code Enforcement personnel could monitor this to ensure compliance and failure to comply would be cause for revocation of the entertainment permit- C. Neighborhood Concerns: In May of 1993, the City received a letter collectively signed by several homeowners of the townhouse complex complaining abut the loud music coming from the Final Score on the weekends. In addition, the City continued to receive complaints whenever entertainment was conducted. As a result of Code Enforcement action, the oQner of the Final Score agreed to cease offering entertainment until an Entertainment Permit is approved by the City. Since July of 1993, neither the City nor the Police Department have received any more complaints- After the mailing of the public hearing notices for the application, staff received several letters, as well as a petition from some of the residents at the southerly townhouse complex, objecting to the Entertainment Permit- Concerns raised relate to their experience with the previous entertainment including: loud music, loud noises, and other disturbances from activities in the parking lot in the late evening hours (see attached letters and petition, Exhibit "D"). They felt that the granting of the Entertainment Permit would result in having more of the same nuisance problems. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT EP 93-03 - FINAL SCORE July 27, 1994 Page 3 D. Public Safety Issues: Another concern with the entertainment use is the potential for an increase in the need for police and fire resources. The Fire Department stated that they have not responded to any calls for service at the business. Based on the floor plan, the Fire Department established the maximum number of occupants allowed in the bar, ~ restaurant, and dance area to be 44 and the area designed for pool tables to be 12. If the number of occupants exceeds the above maximum, then the applicant shall obtain a separate permit and approval from the Fire Department. Records from the Police Department indicate that they have responded a total of four times to this location from January of this year to the present. The Police reports filed range from battery to robbery to public drunkenness. During this _period of time, the Final Score did not have live entertainment. E. Parking and Other Site Improvements: Based On the floor area Of the Final Score and the number of bays for the auto repair shop, the site exceeds the minimum number of required parking spaces (see Parking Calculations section of this report). However, a field inspection of the site indicated that the parking lot is in need of maintenance, such as restriping the parking spaces, a new slurry seal coat, parking lot lights for safety and security, etc. Staff also found two trash bins within the parking lot which are unscreened. These recommended improvements have been placed as conditions of approval in the attached Resolution. F. Conclusion and Mitigation Measures: Based on the above analysis, staff believes that there are mitigation measures that could minimize and alleviate the potential nuisance problems to an acceptable level. These mitigation measures are listed as conditions of approval in the attached Resolution. To name a few, some of the mitigation measures are: limiting the hours of entertainment to 12 midnight for Thursday through Saturday; providing interior Sound attenuation; prohibiting patrons from parking in spaces closest to the residences during the evening hours; providing security personnel in the parking lot for nights that they have entertainment; and establishing a maximum occupancy of 44 persons in the restaurant, bar, and dancing areas and 12 persons for the pool table area. .. '-' FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The Conunission must make all of the following findings in order to approve this application: A. That the conduct of the establishment or the granting of the application would not be contrary to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare. B. That the premises or establishment is not likely to be operated in an illegal, improper, or disorderly manner. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT EP 93-03 - FINAL SCORE July 27, 1994 Page 4 C. That the applicant, Or any person associated with him as principal or partner or in a position or capacity involving partial or total control over the conduct of the business for which such permit is sought to be issued, has not been convicted in any court of competent jurisdiction of any offense involving the presentation, exhibition, or performance of any obscene show of any kind or of a felony or of any crime involving moral turpitude or has not had any approval, permit, or license issued in conjunction with the sale of alcohol or the provisions of entertainment revoked within the preceding five years. D. That the granting Of the application would not create a public nuisance. E. That the normal operation of the premises would not interfere with the peace and quiet of any surrounding residential neighborhood- F. That the applicant has no? made any false, misleading, or fraudulent statement of material fact in the required application- CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property has been posted, and notices were sent to the adjacent property owners within 300 feet of the project. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct a hearing to receive public testimony- If the Commission concurs with staff's analysis and findings, including the mitigation measures, then approval of Entertainment Permit 93-03 through adoption of the attached Resolution would be in order. BB:NF/jfS Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map -.. Exhibit "B" - Site Plan · Exhibit "C" - Floor Plan Exhibit "D" - Letters and Petition From Residents Exhibit "E" - Entertainment Permit Application Resolution of Approval Planning Division JU~ 1 91994 city of Rancho Cucamonga P. o. Box 8 o 7 ' Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 July 18, 1994 This letter is in follow up to my telephone conversation with Nancy Fong on this date reporting a harassment telephone call made to me from Garry Rausa, an owner of the Final Score bar located at 8411 Foothill Blvd., Rancho Cucamonga, CA. As one of the many concerned homeowners of Rancho Villas located to the south of this bar, I had recently distributed, to the home owners in Rancho Villas, a copy of the Notice of Public Hearing dated July 6, 1994 from the Planning Commission as I was told that it had only been mailed to residents living within 300 feet of the Final Score. My neighbors living on Cedarwood Lane, my husband, and I felt it was our duty to alert the other residents of our complex of the fact that the Final Score was applying for an Entertainment Permit 93-0~ We had been greatly disturbed last year when this bar had live entertainment, without a permit, and we did not want to have to put up with this nuisance again. I, therefore, with the approval of Nancy Fong and the agreement of my neighbors distributed a copy of the Notice of Public Hearing along with a letter of explanation from myself. As I left these letters with the homeowners in our complex I also asked them to sign a petition against the owners of the Final Score being grant- ed an Entertainment Permit. If no one was home I taped these two letters to the windows at their entrances. Sunday, July 18, 1994, approximately 3:15 p.m. I received a phone call from Garry Rausa of Final Score. He was very intimidating with his tone of voice, four letter word language, and his message to me. He told me that a Rancho Villas homeowner, who is a cus- tomer of the bar, gave him the letter I had left on his property. He told me that I had no business leaving such a letter telling people that he has a bad place, if I could leave a letter at the doors, then so could he and he just might do that. He went on and on without my being able to get hardly a word in. He said that he has a lawyer and I should get my lawyer and we could get together and fight it out. He said he is going to show up at the public hearing with 200 patrons of his bar to stand up for him and that I had better watch out. Believe me by the time I could get through to tell him that I did not care to listen to him and tell him I was .hanging up, I was extremely nervous and upset. Our bedroom faces --' the rear of the Final Score and I envisioned having rocks thrown at our house during the night as Garry Rausa was that intimitating to me. I am waiting for the police to come to my home today to make out a report on this harassment matter. 8438 Cedarwood Lane Rancho Villas Copies Letter to homeowners from Shirley Kovar, July 13, 1994. Enclosed: Notice of Public Hearing, Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission, -- ~ECtlVED -- Girt a~ ~^NCHO CUCAMONGA P~ANNtNG OlVISI~I JUL 9 1994 The attached letter from the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission, dated July 6, 1994, regarding the Final Score bar filing f6r. a live entertainment license is being distributed, by me, with the permission of the Project Planning Coordinator, Nancy Fong. This letter was mailed to the homeowners within a 300 foot radius of the Final Score bar located at 8411 Foothill Blvd., Rancho Cucamonga, CA. Some of you will remember that a petition went around on May 21, 1993 due to the fact that this bar was having live music entertainment, which was very disturbing to the homeowners of Rancho Villas, especially those living closest to the bar. It was learned that the owners of this bar were providing live entertainment without a proper entertainment permit from the city. At that time the City Code Enforcement Department was very cooperative, and succeeded in stopping the live entertainment at the Final Score bar. Now it is time for us all to rally round the cause again. Please sign the petition that I will be coming by with, o~ Z~m:ft2 ~Yd~ to sign it, should I miss you at your home. But, o 1 something on your own -- call the Planninq Division at 909-989-1861, AND/OR write a letter to the Planninq Division with your objections. IMPORTANT: ATTEND THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THE CIVIC CENTER JULY 27, 1994 7:00 P.M. If we are to succeed in having the live entertainment permit turned down by the city, we must show our disapproval. Nancy Fong told me that the more imput she receives from the homeowners, the better our cause will be served. You can take all three steps: CALL, WRITE, ATTEND THE PUBLIC HEARING. Keep in mind, that having this type of bar so close to our complex could very well lower the value of our properties. Homeowner - Shirley Kovar . , ,.~j~CL,/jL Dated: July 13, 1994 · 8438 Cedarwood Lane \!~. ~t~ 9s -o628 TM <k SPa-Fff{cpoP't' vz 644 RANCHO VILlaS HOHE OWNERS SIGNATURE SHEET. NE HEREBY VOICE OUR OBJECTIONS TO .AN EN'FERTAINNENq' PERFlIT 93-03 BEING GRANTED ~0 FIt~'~6~_~,"~fi"~OO~LE'~L~D~'~'-~ANCHO- CUCAHONGAS, CA. THIS 1S IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE O~r~ HEARING TO BE HELD ON JULY 27 1994 A~ THE RANCHO C CAM ' U CIVIC CENTER. ' ~NG ~ JUL I 9 1994 j ., ',2 /'~z/'W ~ ~w,.%C. '7 .. ~- (r/C~r3/ /~/B~5,-~F Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 ~/ ~< Rat ho Cucamonga, CA 91730 RANCHO VIJ 5 HOME OWNERS SIGNATURE SHEET CT "* MarCliVED WE HEREBY ~OICE OUR OBJECTIONS TO A~ ~N'I'ERTAiNNENT ['ER~I~t~"~OIUCA~ONGA BEING GRANTED q'O F1N~i~6~l"~'~ii CUCAMONGAS, CA. THIS 1S IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE OF PUB ~C HEARING TO BE HELD ON JULY 27, 1994 AT THE RANCHO CU ~Z~)DOb ~-'~J~ Rancho Cucamonqa, CA 9~73Q ~ (~bzeR~looD ,~d Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 .. . . /..8~ 7+ed> m Ff s l:h ,, l l ; P~ " t..q~.cS<( C-/'~e4' - Dated: July 18, 1994 RANCHO VI! 3 HO?.[E OWNERS SIGNATURE SHEET. C~rY~'r~CiI~'ED ~ WE HEREBY vOICE OUR OBJECTIONS TO .~4 EN"ER"AIN~E~'T ['ER~,II'I'P ~ SI~ BEING GRANTED TO F1NAL SCORE, 8411 FOOTHILL BLVD. RANCHO --- , CUCAMONGAS, CA. THIS IS IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE OF [' L~h. I 9~9~ ~ HEARING TO BE HELD ON JULY 27, 1994 AT THE RANCHO CUCA{~ c~-;I~-[[CD') t'~fi",,Q.\] (~ RO ~)~, Rancho Cucamonqat CA 91730 _ ,~2Q, FQ.[7_~F-ST q'~tO~..)~. L-F,/ Rancho Cucamonga, CA 9~730 ,.,/'/,/,,' F/ I , .---.::',. . "" I:' u', Dated: July 18, 1994 RANCHO VII ~ HONE OWNERS SIGNATURE SHEET WE HEREBY ~UICE OUR OBJECTIONS TO BEING GRANTED TO F1NAL 5CO~, ~i'i"'FOOT~fL~"~F~B.';'~A~e~6~%~O~G~ CUCAMONGAS, CA. THIS 1S f~ESPONSE TO THE NOTICE OF PUBLIC ' HEARING TO BE HELD ON JULY 27, 1994 AT THE RANCHO CUCA~NG~H 3 / ~" '- ~ k... .._.j I~ C~ t.,~ ~ Rancho Cucamonqa, CA 91730 %~/ ('~ ~ Ra.cho Cucamonga, CA 9~30 ~. ~E2)zl/~/~ LAf Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 ~ D /t/ ~ / , ., . {- ') /t/ · L e_s Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 ~ P '% ~r&',rr~'r'r',r'( Lq Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 _ ,. r . RANCHO VII 3 HOME OWNERS 'SIGNATURE SHEET WE HEREBY ~3ICE OUR OBjECTfONS q'O ,~N E~%'['ER'~AI?]~-!ENT PERNfT 9,3~Q~ H~AR1NG TO BE HELD O~ dULY 2V~ 199~ AT THE RANCHO CUCANONGA CIVIC CSNTER, ~d//J/~ ~ ~ Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 . Dated: July 18, 1994 -- h~ECEIVED -- .~,ngelo R. &Emily V. ~ardel CiTy OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ,S430 Codre-,rood Lane PLANNrNG DIV/SI~I Rancho Cucamonga, CA 9i JUL I 9 Yulv !~. 1994 Planning Div!sion (.'.it}' of Rar. cho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga. CA 91729 RE: ENTERT.&I.:N.'3, IENT PEP,.XEIT 93-03 - FINAL SCORE .As homeowners. we are very concerned. if the Final Score were to receive an entertainment permit. We ask that the city of Rancho Cucamonga's Planning Commission not gant a permit based upon previous problems and complaints made against the Final Score. During 1992 and 1993 the Final Score began having live entertainment, we would like to address the fact that they did not have a pern~it. but the city permitted them to continue despite the numerous complaints from most of us homeowners on Cedanvood Lane. The music being played was loud enough to cause vibrations (,pictures moving) to our walls. The Final Score is located only 100 t~,et Erom two of our bedrooms (See Pictures Enclosed). Even with our windows closed. television viewing or sleeping was impossible until after 2 o'clock in the morning. This went c not only on weekends. but also during me week ~ "band breaks", we have also observed patrons smoking n:.cu-i.iuana under the pLn. e tree, south of the proper'q,., line. We have had conl~'ontations with some of these patrons - several tunes. Occasionally there have been gunshots (l~recrackers?) and loud profardty heard. We have been ird'ormed. but cannot substantiate about drugs and prostitution on the premises, this in itself is a very serious problem. Ln an attempt to placate the homeowners on Cedam'ood Lane. one of the co-ov,'ners of the Final Score .Ok. Rausa) began placing notices of upcoming Fisml Score events into our mailboxes. These notices also requested the homeowners to call the Final Score and not the police if the music were too loud. Phone calls to the Final Score about the loudness were ignored, so we continued to call the police. Nil'. Rausa also approached/invited homeowners over to the Final Score 1br a drink in his effort to show us the sound prool~ng that he claimed was installed. We do not believe an}' homeowner obliged him. Current annoyances associated'with the Final Score have been cars racing around the parking lot and continuing out onto Foothill Boulevard without stopping and motor cycles re, wing up their unnmffied pipes for 2 lull minutes ' 'aii'fiost ever,.,' day during the early morning hours. We suspect that were the Final Score to be ganted a live entertainment permit and operate knL3wing they are now in compliance, and that area homeowners would have no recourse, the noise and disturbances would be louder than before. .16July 1994 -- RECEIVED -- CITy OF RANGHO CUCAMONGA Planning Commission Chairman PLANNING DIVISIC/TN Members of the Board . All 'JUL. 18 1994 Attention: Nancy Fong./Richard Alcorn 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho.Cucamonga, CA 91729 "~ Dear Sirs: Regarding Entertainment Permit 93-03 for the Final SCore, I. want you' tO ·know why I am unconditionally opposed to.the permit's approval. That is, unless they agree to i3uiId a new . soundproof structure and agree to keep the w~ndows and doors closed when they have loud music. I doubt that they would agree to such 'an investment, as they have so far . demonLstrated ho concern for the surrounding community. ': In fact, Gary Rausa and his employees h~ve-sported an attitude ranging from "unwilling'to : cooperate" t~ "utterl)) rude'L I live dkectly behind his·baG Within ~150 feet by'my estimation, and the kiads of disturbances I have experienced in the p~st during live band pencormances are as follows: loud thumping music, noisy patrons talking and yelling, noisy patrons I~rawling;. helicopters overhead, thundering motorcycles starting and' rewin9 up, thundering .m'otorcycles racing oK up and down Route 66, bOttleS breaking while being dumped into du.mpster in back' 0fthe baG'and bO~les breaking'while being thrown, presumably,. by pat~on*s. This went on outinely between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 3:00 a.m., mostly on weekends. I have personall Ijalled the bar many times, asking them·to please keep the vol[~me down so I ~ould get to sleep, with no results. I truly believe·they could care .less if I.Slept. That's when I beg~n calling the Sherrif's Department. They at least had a sympathetic ear, althoug.h they .got little more' cooperation from the bar than I did. I ~eel like this is all a waste of taxpayers' monkey, Since this business ~a~ Operated with so little- concern for its neighbors, has cooperated with the Poli'ce .oniy to the minimum extent required· And they did :this when they didn't eve~ have a license for a live band! Let's face the fact. that these people are lawbreakers and, in my opinion shouldn't even have a business license, much less'a license to operate a live band. 3'heir kind of activity may h:~ve been appropriate decadeS' ' ago when there were few inhabitants in the Bear Gdich area. But today they are 'sUrrounded by. people Who w~nt to sieep at night; the point being that. they don't Seem to care. I feel'certain that if you give them'this license, they will' be depr.iVing all of us Of our.sleep:, and we, in*turn, will be calling the Police out here ev~yweekend. .. {elen M. DeFina .TT/~7 ~ . Cedarwood Lane ' '~9/'~-~ Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730' (909) 985-7033 ' ' 8475 Lemon Grove Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 July 14, 1994 Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission 10400 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 To Whom It May Concern: SUBJECT: Entertainment Permit 93-03-Final Score We are homeowners in Rancho Villas which is the housing complex directly behind the Final Score Bar. We strongly urge you not to grant an entertainment permit to the above referenced establishment. Loud music, bar fights and partying in the parking lot will undoubtably disrupt our peaceful complex. If this permit is granted, it will also lower our property values considerably. Please vote NO on July 27! Sincerely , j,.,.L t } t ,-,-,. '..~" Diane and Timotl~y AtherDn CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMON~.-,, PLANNING DIVISIO~I Planning Division JUL 18 1994 City Of Rancho Cucamonga ~ ~ Rancho Cucamonga CA 91729 July 15, 1994 Thank you for your Notice of Public Hearing concerning the request for an Entertainment Permit 93-03. by the establishment known as the Final Score, 8411 Foothill Blvd., Rancho Cucamonga. We live almost directly behind the Final Score and have exper- ienced what has occurred with live entertainment there last year. For many reasons we object to this bar having a permit for live entertainment and dancing, etc. Vibrations from the live music seemed to have just shaken our walls. The volumn of the music was in excess to the point of disturbing our sleep. __ Having live entertainment seems to draw a "rough" type of patron. There have been fights in the parking lot and on top of the railroad tracks. Loud talking and yelling as patrons are leaving the bar. Persons have been seen on top of the raised railroad tracks smoking what appeared to be a "joint", and then return to the bar. Tracks lay between the bar and a row of homeowners. The noise of motorcycles being re~"ved up is very disturbing. Even the noise of the empty liquor bottles being dumped into the dumpster located at the rear of the bar's property (close to our home) can be very disturbing and irritating. All these complaints have the potential for increasing with addi- tional patrons being drawn to the bar because of live entertainment. The disturbances mentioned accelerate as the closing hour for the bar approaches, being the early morning hours when we are trying to sleep. The fact that last year the Final Score did have live entertainment WITHOUT A PERMIT, we feel, should be held against them. The owners do not seem to have good characters. The persons operating this bar are not very considerate of their neighbors. They had been called with complaints of the recorded music being too loud and were asked to turn the volumn down and close the back door to the bar. Their responses were always very rude and sometimes the music then would be turned up even louder. Page l 653 Planning Division City of Rancho Cucamonga July 15, 1994 One night last year Gary Rausa was on top of the railroad tracks and saw us in our back yard. He asked if the volumn of live music was too loud. We replied that it was and he said that he would take care of it, but it instead got even louder. We do not know if Final Score has a permit, or needs one, for what is going on there now. We are disturbed now by afternoon affairs. Beginning this past Easter Sunday, and several week ends since, there have been some sort of activities being held outside to the east of their building. From what we heard it seemed to be contests with games and prizes being awarded. On driving by on Foothill Blvd. we could see that drinks and food were being served outside. We thought we would keep an eye on future activities of this sort and see what happened before complaining to the City. We sincerely hope that you will HEAR THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE and deny the Final Score's request for an Entertainment Permit 93-03 or any other permit for entertainment, not just because the bar is a nuisance in so many ways to its neighbors in Rancho Villas, our complex, but also due to the fact that our property value would be depreciated with a live entertainment establish- ment so close to our homes. This request by the Final Score should be denied in the best interest of the homeowners, community and the City. 8438 Cedarwood Lane Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 909-982-0628 P.S. We will not beable to attend the public hearing on this matter as we will be out of town. I have been in touch with both' Nancy Fong and Richard Alcorn via the telephone, voicing our objections to granting this permit. ,. '-' Shirley Kovar CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT JUL 1 81994 ancho cucamonga, cs ifor ia 1n9-0.0 Gentlemen: For a period.of many months, phone calls have been made, most every weekend, either to your department, the sheriff's station# or to the bar directly, complaining of the extremely loud live music in the evening coming from the: FINAL SCORE BAR 8411 Foothill Boulevard Rancho Cucamonga, Californ'ia 909-985-4515 OWNERS: Dorothy, Chuck and Garry Rausa We, the undersigned owners of homes living tehind or near the Final Score Bar, are writing to request that the nbise level being emitted' from said establishment be considered completely un- acceptable during the late evening hours. We strongly ask something be done immediately to avoid an~ legs, actio~ we have to c~sider to solve this problem. The vibrations and volume of the music is to the point where it is impossible to sleep at night. Even with doors and Windows closed in their units, the sound and vibrations are coming through. The police have been very cooperative in going to the bar and alerting them of the complaints, but the response is very negative, Copy of the bar's business card with message on the reverse side is included in this letter to show you that the bar owners were aware of homeowner's complaints to the sheriff's station of disturbing loud music. Still they have not rectified the problem. These business cards were left in the homeowners mailboxes, the night before the party. The Owners of this bar are DISTURBING THE PEACE and SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE. For having live music at any time, we would.appreciate the Final Score Bar's LICENSE NOT BE RENEWED- Also, consider not renewing the license for operating a bar at this location, This would solve not only the loud music problem, but also eliminate the disturbance caused especially at closing time by the sound of the motor vehicles leaving and the occasional fights between the patrons. Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter. Signed, d~u~t~/~f~ Shirley Kovar ' 8438 Cedarwood Lane (SEE ATTACHED SIGNATURE SHEET) Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 cc: sheriff Station cc: Planning Commission 9333 Ninth Street P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamon9a, CA 91730 Rar~cho Cucsmonga, Ca 91729-0807 L.~ L.~ ........ ' ' 16 91729-0807 0 --' HECEIVED -- CiTY OF RANCHO CUCA,MOINGA PLANNING 91vlSlOTl ,~i JUL ~, 0 1994 July 20, 1994 8454 Autumff Leaf Dr. Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Nancy Fong City Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Dr. '~ Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Dear Ms. Fong: I am writing to express a strong objection to the granting of Entertainment Permit 93-03 to the Final Score Sports Bar. As a homeowner living in close proximity to this establishment, live entertainment would be especially disturbing. In addition, my neighbors and I are concerned that having a bar such as this in our neighborhood will s~gnificantly lower the value of our properties. I am a voting member of this community and would appreciate your consideration in this matter. Sincerely yours, · 3-o3 IF YOU CHALLENGE A~ OF THE FOREGOING ACTIONS iN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR FINAL ACTION DESCRIBED IN THIS NOTICE, OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE PUBLIC HEARING. July 6, 1994 Rancho Cucamonga Plannin Commission Date '7~2~~ OF ~CH(:5:"CUCAMONGA i:: ,:.-. :...- ... s;:~-i TITLE: :N :, :-.:. ......... ...! ! ZT)' ! .: .: · EXHiBiT: ,..,::: .,..; 6S' ~9518, M(~B. 134/35-37 Rancha. C:ucamonga · ',, Or:. roC O. Tax Role: Area T ' 15009-15012 -- ~e~A~o ROAD ~ -- ® ® ® / p'C' TIn,E: L~ ~ CI~ OF ~CHO CUC~ONGA ,- ,, PINNING D~SION E~IIBIT: .~ SCALE: Section 17.08.080 Section 17.08.080 Performance Standards A. Intent. The intent of this section is to protect properties in all residential districts and the health and safety of persons from environmental nuisances and hazards and to provide a pleasing environment in keeping with the nature of the residential character. The performance standards set maximum tolerability limits on adverse environmental effects created by any use or development of land. B. Administration and Measurement. The standards of this section shall be enforced by the City Planner. Upon discovery of any apparent violation of these standards, the City Planner shall investigate using such instruments as may be necessary. If a violation is found to exist, the violation shall be abated as a nuisance as prescribed in the Municipal Code. C. Exemptions. The following sources of nuisances are exempt from the provisions of this section. 1. Emergency equipment, vehicles and devices. 2. Temporary construction, maintenance, or demolition activities between the hours of 6:30 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., except Sundays and National holidays. D. Noise. No operation or activity shall cause any source of sound at any location or allow the creation of noise on property owned, leased, occupied, or otherwise controlled by such person, which causes the Ambient Base noise levels to exceed the following standards, and as contained in Section 17.02.120. TABLE 17.08.080-D RESIDENTIAL NOISE STANDARDS LOCATION MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE OF MEASUREMENT 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 1. Exterior 55dBA 60dBA 2. Interior 40dBA 45dBA Notes: (a) It shall be unlawful for any person at any location within the city to create any noise or to allow the creation of any noise which causes the noise level when measured within any other fully enclosed (windows and doors shut) residential dwelling unit to exceed the Interior Noise Standard in the manner described herein. (b) If the intruding noise source is continuous and cannot reasonably be discontinued or stopped for a time period whereby the ambient noise level can be determined, the same procedures specified in Section ND~5 A-SAT~-P~r[17.02.120 shall be deemed proper to enforce the provisions of this Section. (c) Each of the noise limits above shall be reduced 5dBA for noise consisting of impulse or simple tone noise. ~. C - t- 2 ~t- '~,~ CHRONOLOGY FOR EP 93-03 AND CUP 93-39 - FINAL SCORE 1993-1994 Date Status 8/24/93 The applicant, Garry Rousa, submitted the two applications. 9/20/93 Staff sent a notice of incompleteness to him. 9/21/93 Staff met with Garry and went over the incompleteness comments with him item by item. Staff suggested to him that he should hire a professional to prepare the development plans. 3/17/94 Staff received a progress print from the applicant. 3/20/94 Applicant re, submitted plans for the two applications. 4/4/94 Staff sent a notice of incompleteness to the applicant. 5/11/94 Staff informed the applicant that he can proceed with the EP application if the detailed site plan and floor plan are provided. 6/7/94 Applicant submitted a site plan and a floor plan. 6/13/94 Staff scheduled the EP 93-03 for the 7/27/94 Planning Commission meeting. 7/18 to 7/25/94 Over 10 letters objecting to the EP were received. Also, petitions objecting to the EP from the residents who lived at the southerly condo complex were received. 7/27/94 Planning Commission tabled the item and directed the applicant to submit an acoutiscal study to determine the noise level generated by the proposed entertainment and the necessary mitigation. 8/29/94 Staff sent a letter to the applicant verifying that he preferred the option where the City selects and hires a registered Acoustical ·. "' Engineer to prepare the study at his expense. 9/12/94 Staff obtained two verbal estimates (Gordon Bricken & Associates and J.J. Van Houten & Associates) - $3000 to $5000. 9/19/94 Verbally informed the applicant about the cost of the study. He stated this is way beyond his budget. P. C, CHRONOLOGY FOR EP 93-03 AND CUP 93-39 - FINAL SCORE 1995-1996 5/4/95 Applicant provided a consultant's name (George E. Leighton) who will do a noise study for a cost of $300 and $400. 5/16/95 Staff sent a letter to three consultants inviting them to submit a proposal for a noise study. The three consultants are Gorden Bricken & Associates, J.J.Van Houten & Associates and George E. Leighton (Applicant' s suggested consultant) 5/30/95 Staff received proposals from all three consultants. The cost ranges from a high of $7,700, to $3,200 to a low of $800. 5/31/95 Staff notified-the applicant that once a consultant is selected he must submit the money to the City before staff would give notice to the consultant to begin work. 6/5/95 George E. Leighton submitted supplemental information to clarify his scope of work. 6/12/95 Staff informed the applicant and George E. Leighton that the latter is selected as the consultant to do the noise study. Staff also informed the applicant that he must submit $800 before staff would authorize the consultant to begin work. 7/10/95 Staff received $800 from the applicant. 7/18/95 Staff notified the consultant to begin work with a 30-days deadline. 8~8~95 Staff called and left a message for the consultant to find out the status of the noise study. 8/10/95 ditto 8/17/95 ditto 8/21/95 Staff called and connected with the consultant. He stated he would be · . "' doing the report next week. When staff questioned him on the delay, he stated that it was due to the relocation of his office which affected his productivity. Staff reminded him that he needs to let staff know when he could perform the work because staff has to make the proper arrangement for him to be on the site or at the site of the adjacent townhouse complex. He stated it would be most likely next Thursday and he would call to contim the date. Staff did not receive a confirmation date. CHRONOLOGY FOR EP 93-03 AND CUP 93-39 - FINAL SCORE 1995-1996 CONTINUED 9/11/95 Staff received a preliminary report from the consultant. 10/9/95 Staff notified the consultant that his report is incomplete and inadequate. Staff also found that the applicant has been doing improvement to the interior of the building according to the recommendations of the consultant, ahead of the procedures and without authorization from the City. 10/16/95 Staff met with the consultant to discuss the noise study. Staff told him that the proper procedures were as follows: the consultant to submit a completed noise study, which identify the existing building constructionrthe projected noise level with the entertainment on, and the noise-control measures to reduce the noise to an insignificant level; staff to review the completeness and adequacy of the study and determine which noise-control measures require building permits; and, only after the' approval of the Entertainment Permit (EP) can the applicant process plan check for those noise-control measures that require building permits and begin construction. 11/2/95 Staff met with the consultant and the applicant. At this meeting, staff emphasized to both that the applicant chose to do the improvements on his own. This could result in the following risks: the approval of the EP is not guaranteed and/or the work done are not according to City codes. The consultant agreed to revise the preliminary study to address the identified deficiencies and submit a final noise study. 11 / 13/95 Final noise study received. 11/20/95 Based on a review, staff determined the study to be complete and adequate. Because of a need to re-advertise the EP for a public hearing and the next available Commission meeting was too close to the holiday season, staff, with the consent of the applicant, scheduled the hearing for the January 10, 1996 meeting. 12/20/95 Applicant requested a continuance to the January 24, 1996 meeting because of a time conflict. 1/10/96 The Commission continued the item to January 24, 1996 meeting at the request of the applicant. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT NO. 93-03, A REQUEST TO CONDUCT ENTERTAINMENT CONSISTING OF LIVE BANDS, DISC JOCKEYS, AND DANCING IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT AND BAR IN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (SUBAREA 1) OF THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED AT 8411 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 207-571-75. A. Recitals. 1. Garry Rousa of the Final Score has filed an application for the issuance of Entertainment Permit No. 93-03, 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 27th day of July, 1994, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application, concluded said hearing on that date, and took no action pending the submittal of a Noise Study from the applicant. The Commission directed staff to advertise said application for a new public hearing once the Noise Study information was submitted and ready for their review. 3. On January 10 and continued to January 24, 1996, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A. of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on January 24, 1996, including written and oral staff reports. together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: · . '- ·a. The application applies to property located at 8411 Foothill Boulevard with a street frontage of 545.21 feet and lot depth of 150 feet and is presently improved with several buildings and structures; and b. The property to the north contains a restaurant, the properties to the south contain an inactive railroad track and single family homes and townhouses, the property to the west is vacant; and c. The applicant proposes to offer entertainment consisting of live bands, disc jockeys, and dancing in conjunction with a restaurant and bar, from Thursday through Sunday, between the hours of 8 p.m. and 12 midnight; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. EP 93-03-FINAL SCORE January 24,1996 Page 2 d. Adjacent residents on the south side of the site have submitted a petition objecting to the granting of the Entertainment Permit because of the nuisance problems of loud music, loud noise, and other related disturbances; and e. To address the nuisance problems, a Noise Study was done to assess the noise impact and determine the noise control measures. The applicant has sound proofed and/or agreed to sound proof the building in accordance with the noise-control measures listed in the Noise Study. The noise-control measures are added as conditions of approval contained in this resolution. f. Additional control measures are added as conditions of approval contained in this resolution to alleviate and minimize other nuisance problems such as noise and disturbances from the loitering activities within the parking lot and/or the railroad embankment. These control measures included providing fencing along the property line that abuts the railroad tracks, providing secudty personnel inside and outside the facility, limiting the days and hours of entertainment, etc. g. With all the control measures in place, the potential nuisance problems can be minimized to an acceptable level. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission dudrig the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. That the conduct of the establishment or the granting of the application would not be contrary to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare. b. That the premises or establishment is not likely to be operated in an illegal. improper, or disorderly manner. c. That the applicant, or any person associated with him as principal or padher or in a position or capacity involving partial or total control over the conduct of the business for which such permit is sought to be issued, has not been convicted in any court of competent jurisdiction of any offense involving the presentation, exhibition, or performance of any obscene show of any kind or of a felony or of any crime involving moral turpitude or has not had any approval, permit, or license issued in conjunction with the sale of alcohol or the provisions of entertainment revoked within the preceding five years d. That the granting of the application would not create a public nuisance. e. That the normal operation of the premises would not interfere with the peace and quiet of any surrounding residential neighborhood. · .. -. · f. That the applicant has not made any false, misleading, or fraudulent statement of material fact in the required application. 4. This Commission hereby finds and determines that the application identified in this Resolution is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereafter, pursuant to Section 15061 b-3 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1.2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. EP 93-03- FINAL SCORE Janua~ 24,1996 Page 3 Plannina Division 1) Approval is granted for the following entedainment uses: a) live bands; b) disc jockeys; and c) dancing within a floor area of 110 square feet. Any expansion of entedainment shall require modification to this permit. 2) The days and hours of operation for the entertainment shall be limited to between 8 p.m. and 12 midnight, Friday and Saturday. Any expansion of days and hours shall require modification to this permit. 3) No adult entertainment, as defined in the' Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, Section 17.04.090, shall be permitted. 4) A minimum of two duly licensed, certified or trained, and regulady employed secudty guards from a reputable secudty firm shall be required to be on the premises from 8 p.m. until two hours after the conclusion of any entertainment. One of the guards shall be in "peace officer' attire and shall remain on duty in the parking area and outside adjacent areas of the facility to aved problems such as loud noise, disorderly conduct from patrons or anyone in the parking lot, loitering activities, and any other nuisances or disturbances. 5) All noise control measures contained in the Final Noise Study and as listed below shall be completed: a) Add acoustic door seals to all exit doors. b) Add interior ceiling with R-11 insulation over the pool room. c) Isolate speakers from the structure. d) Remove the two speakers from the roof ceiling and hang only one speaker down from the roof ceiling. e) Upgrede the interior windows. Detailed plans and/or specifications shall be submitted within 60 days for City Planner and Building Official review and approval, and the building inspected for compliance prior to commencement of entedainment use. 6) Decorative fencing together with dense landscaping of shrubs and trees along the property line that abuts the railroad tracks shall be provided. Detailed plans shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted within 60 days for City Planner review and approval. The fence and the landscape shall be completed and inspected to the satisfaction of the City Planner prior to commencement of entertainment use. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. EP 93-03 - FINAL SCORE January 24, 1996 Page 4 7) The row of parking immediately located southwest of the building (parking spaces numbered 1 through 9 and 35 through 41) shall not be used by the patrons of the Final Score between 8 p.m. and 6 a.m. RESTRICTED PARKING signs shall be posted prior to commencement of entertainment use. 8) Sewing of food and non-alcoholic beverages in the outdoor patio area shall cease on and after 9 p.m. The serving of alcoholic drinks is not allowed at any time in the outdoor patio area. 9) All parking and outdoor seating areas shall have a minimum maintained one-foot candle power security lighting. All parking lot light fixtures shall not exceed 15 feet as measured from the finished surface to the top of the light fixture. The light fixtures shall have shields for reducing the glare and shall be odented away from residential areas. A detailed lighting plan shall be submitted within 60 days and the lighting installed prior to commencement of entertainment use. 10) A trash enclosure, per City Standards, shall be provided and completed pdor to commencement of entertainment use. 11) Detailed plans to show the completed improvements to date and required new improvements or upgrades such as, but are not limited to, the outdoor patio area. the parking lot, the satellite dishes, the trash enclosure, etc., shall be submitted as a Minor Development Review application within 60 days for City Planner review and approval prior to commencement of entertainment use. 12) All doors and windows shall remain closed during the business operating hours except in the case of emergency. 13) The maximum number of occupants shall not exceed building and fire codes. The maximum occupancy for each room shall be posted as determined by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and/or the City's Fire Prevention Unit Division. 14) The building shall comply with all requirements of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. Plans shall be submitted for the Fire Distdct's review and approval within 60 days. The building shall be inspected for compliance pdor to the commencement of the entertainment use. 15) The building shall comply with all requirements of the Uniform Building Code. Plans shall be submitted for the Building Official's review and approval within 60 days. The building and the site shall be inspected for compliance prior to commencement of entertainment use. 16) If the operation of the business creates public safety problems such as but not limited to: loitering and disturbances, noise, overcrowding, blocked fire exits, etc., this entertainment permit shall be brought before the Planning Commission for consideration of modification and/or revocation. Failure to comply with the conditions of approval and applicable City Ordinances shall cause the suspension and/or revocation of the Entedainment Permit by the Planning Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. EP 93-03-FINAL SCORE January 24,1996 Page 5 17) All conditions of approval shall be satisfied prior to commencement of the entertainment use. Engineering Division 1) The issuance of a building permit for the trash enclosure and the parking lot lighting will require an irrevocable offer of dedication for the Foothill Boulevard frontage which will total 64 feet from the street centerline to the properly line in accordance with the Municipal Code, Chapter 12.08. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 1996, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE GITY OF RANGHO GUCAMONGA 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 24th day of January 1996, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: FAX i ........ ~ Date 1/23/96 ~ Number of pB~qes indudin~t cover sheet 1 TO: Scott Murphy FROM: THEODORE KOTONIAS Rancho Cucamonga 9335 Sibelius Dr., Vienna, Cafif. VA 22182 Phone (909) 989-1851 Fax (909) 477-2847 Phone (703) 281-4096 Phone Fax (703) 281-4096 Phone ~CC: REMARKS: [] U~gent [] Foryourreview [] ReplyASAP [] Please Comment Mr. Ssott Murphy, Reference Permit 95-16 - Sacred Heart Catholic Church I am the owner of Parcel 225-171-13 which is the ten acre parcel fronting on Etiwanda and which shares its north and west boundaries with the Sacred Heart Church property, I have reviewed the plans forthe Sacred Heart property and request that the wall planned along the Sacred Heart south border that abuts my properties north border, be extended along the east border of the Sacred Heart property that abuts the west border of my property. Sincerely, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ' STAFF REPORT DATE: January 24, 1996 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Scott Murphy, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: VARIANCE 95-04 - SACRED HEART CATHOLIC CHURCH - A request to exceed the maximum height limit of 35 feet for the construction of a church facility on 20.14 acres of land in the Very Low Residential designation (1-2 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue, between Summit and Highland Avenues - APN: 225-171o12, 20, 22, and 23. Associated with the application is Conditional Use Permit 95-16 and Tree Removal Permit 95-14. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-16 - SACRED HEART CATHOLIC CHURCH - A request to construct a church facility and school consisting of a 31,017 square foot church, a 28,480 square foot community center, a 16,460 square foot education center, a 10,898 square foot parish center office. a 9~400 square foot rectory, a 10,110 square foot adult education and youth center, a 5,180 square foot chapel, and a 9,387 square foot adult center on a 20.14 acre site in the Very Low Residential designation (1-2 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue, between Summit and Highland Avenues - APN: 225-171-12, 20, 22, and 23. Associated with the application is Variance 95-04 and Tree Removal Permit 95-14. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoninq: North - Single family residences; Very Low Residential (1-2 dwelling units per acre), Etiwanda Specific Plan South - Vacant; Very Low Residential (1-2 dwelling units per acre), Etiwanda Specific Plan East - Single family residences; Very Low Residential (1-2 dwelling units per acre), Etiwanda Specific Plan West - Vacant; Very Low Residential (1-2 dwelling units per acre), Etiwanda Specific Plan B. General Plan Desiqnations: Project Site - Very Low Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) North - Very Low Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) South - Very Low Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) East Very Low Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) West Very Low Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) ITEMBC&D PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 95-16 & VA 95-04 January 24,1996 Page 2 C. Site Characteristics: The site is currently vacant with an average slope of 5 percent from north to south. The site is bounded on the north, south, and west by Eucalyptus windrows. Two windrows enter the site at the southern half of the property. An access easement exists at the northwest corner of the site allowing access to Summit Avenue. D. Parkino Calculations: Number of Number of Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces Of Use Footaae Ratio Required Provided Church 31,017 I space/ 357 618 (Sanctuary) 4 seats (661 future) ANALYSIS: A. General: The applicant is proposing to develop a church, school, and related structures on the 20-acre site located on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue between Summit and Highland Avenues. Access to the site will be obtained from Etiwanda Avenue via two access points. An emergency access is provided at the northwest corner of the site to provide access to Summit Avenue. Vintage Ddve, a future public street, is planned along the southerly property boundary. The church building is proposed in the central portion of the site, on the east side of an interior courtyard. The community center is located on the west side of the courtyard. The courtyard is bounded on the north by the parish office building and on the south by the RCIA building. The rectory and adult center buildings are located at the northwest and northeast corners of the site, respectively. The school is located at the southwest portion of the site. The chapel is located in the eastern portion of the site and is the closest structure to Etiwanda Avenue at 95 feet from the Etiwanda curb location. The majority of the parking is provided at the west side of the project. A small number of parking stalls are proposed on the east side of the site between the chapel and the church. No parking is proposed along the Etiwanda frontage. The church facility is proposed to be constructed in phases. Phase I will consist of the church, community center, adult education and youth center (RCIA) building, parish offices, school, and rectory. The adult center and chapel will be constructed with a subsequent phase(s). All the drive aisles and parking will be constructed with the first phase with the exception of the two parking rows and the drive aisle immediately to the west of the chapel. · ' "' This parking will be provided with the chapel construction. Another future phase includes a convent, communications center, and playground in the southwest corner of the site (see Exhibit "B"). The buildings within the development are designed using stucco, stone and brick veneer, rough-sawn timbers, and tile roof material. The buildings are designed with low roof pitches (4:12) to maintain a lower profile. Arches, bordered by brick, are provided throughout the project. The stone veneer is used primarily at building corners and lends a more European flavor to the building design. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 95-16 & VA 95-04 January 24, 1996 Page 3 B. Desiqn Review Committee: On September 19, 1995, the Design Review Committee (Barker, Melcher, Fong) reviewed the application and expressed concern about the compatibility of the facility's design with the requirements and intent of the Etiwanda Specific Plan (ESP). The Committee felt the project's design did not meet the rural character of the Etiwanda area. Also, the tallest/largest building (i.e., church sanctuary) was proposed at the narrowest, most constrained portion of the site. The applicant was asked to explore shifting the structure to the west. The Committee suggested a Planning Commission workshop might be appropriate to discuss the application and possible solutions/directions. On November 29, 1995, the Planning Commission conducted a workshop to review the design proposed by the applicant. To address the concerns raised during the Design Review Committee meeting, the applicant presented revised plans for the Commission's consideration. The changes to the plans included, but were not limited to, the following: 1. A 12-foot reduction in the sanc~tuary building height; 2. The replacement of arched windows with dormer style windows; 3. Greater use of stucco to create a more residential flavor; and 4. The use of tile roof material. The Planning Commission generally found the plans acceptable. The Planning Commission requested that the final plans be reviewed by the Design Review Committee prior to scheduling for final Planning Commission action. On January 2, 1996, the Design Review Committee (Lumpp, McNiel, Fong) considered the revised plans prepared by the applicant. The Committee recommended approval of the application subject to the following: 1. Additional brick work should be provided at the planter areas around the base of the building. 2. The glu-lam fascia should receive a stain finish. 3. The columns should be pre-cast and of a high quality appearance. 4. The rear elevation of the Community Center building should receive additional · ' "· architectural treatment. 5. The walls on both sides of the rotunda on the sanctuary's rear elevation should receive additional architectural treatment. The placement of statues was suggested for these areas. 6. The Committee was split on whether the bell tower should be increased in height, The applicant was asked to prepare a sketch showing the increased height for consideration by the Planning Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 95-16 & VA 95-04 January 24, 1996 Page 4 The plans attached as exhibits include revisions to the plans made after the Design Review Committee meeting. The revisions include the stone corner treatment, additional relief on the community center's rear elevation, replacing the arches on the gable ends of the smaller buildings (rectory, parish offices, RCIA building, etc.) with windows matching the roof pitch, use of stone over the arches, and increasing the height of the tower. C. Gradino Committee: One of the issues raised during the Planning Commission workshop was the grade separation between the church and the property to the south. Originally, the plans called for an 8-foot differential. With the revisions to the plans, the grade differential has been reduced to 5 feet. The applicant indicated they will be contacting the adjacent property owner to determine if a slope easement can be obtained rather than constructing a retaining wall. The slope easement is preferable to the retaining wall. If, however, the applicant is unable to obtain the easement, staff believes a 5-foot retaining wall is acceptable provided it receives a decorative finish. Staff recommends that a decorative block wall be constructed on top of the retaining wall in order to provide buffering/screening and maintain privacy of future single family residents to the south. A condition of approval has been included to address this issue. D. Variance: In conjunction with the Conditional Use Permit application, the applicant has submitted a Variance application requesting a waiver on the maximum building height allowed within the residential zone. The ESP permits a maximum building height of 35 feet within the Very Low Residential designation. The church design provides a roof height of 47 feet. The community center is designed with a 45-foot high roof line. The chapel is designed with a roof height of 36 feet. The Development Code allows architectural projections, such as towers, to exceed the maximum height up to 15 feet. The tower proposed by the applicant is 72 feet from finish grade, exceeding the maximum tower height of 50 feet. The site sections in Exhibit "F" illustrate the sight-line and visual impact of the proposed buildings upon future residences on surrounding properties; however, these sections do not reflect the reduced heights of the final elevations. As with any Variance application, there are findings that must be made in order to approve the request. Generally, these findings take into account special circumstances that apply to a property, whether it be size, shape, topography, etc. Staff believes that there are unique circumstances in this case which support granting a Variance: 1. The parcel is unusual in its configuration. The parcel's 'q~' shape has a frontage of 331 feet along Etiwanda Avenue and opens up to 1,970 feet across the rear of the site. · ' "' 2. Historically, churches are very large structures which depict their prominence in the community. The ESP, however, considers church height limitations the same as the height limits on single family residential structures. 3. The church and community buildings are located at the central portion of the site. The church is set back 60 feet from the property line. If residences were provided on the adjoining property, the structures would have to be set back 20 feet from their rear property line. This would result in a separation between the church and the residences of roughly 80 feet. If two-story single family residences were located back-to-back, the PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 95-16 & VA 95-04 January 24, 1996 Page 5 separation between the structures could be as little as 40 feet. Hence, the visual impact of two residences would be greater than the church and a future residence. Also, a 35-foot tall church could be located at the setback and have a greater visual impact than the proposal. 4. The applicant has proposed the buildings with a 4:12 roof pitch. This pitch is more characteristic of residential structures and was done to minimize the impact to adjacent propedies. 5. The ridge of the church (at 47 feet) is located approximately 170 feet from the property line. The ridge is oriented to be parallel to the property line rather than perpendicular to the property line. As a result, the highest part of the building is at the furthest point from the residential properties. E. Tree Removal Permit. As part of the-development application, the applicant has submitted a Tree Removal Permit application requesting removal of roughly 145 Eucalyptus trees (see Exhibit "G"). Some of these trees are located on the church site while others are located in very close proximity to the church's property lines. While not on the church properly, the proximity to vadous improvements (e.g. wails, paving, structures, etc.) could ultimately result in the destruction of the trees. The applicant has submitted an arborist report to address the condition of the trees. The arborist's findings indicate that 94 percent of the trees are in poor health and should be removed. Many of the trees contain insect infestation and are declining rapidly. Other trees are sucker growth from damaged trees and have poor growth structure and attachment. Still others are already dead. Removal of off-site trees will require permission from adjoining property owners. Staff believes the analysis conducted by the arborist accurately depicts the condition of the trees. Based on historical data, many of the trees were planted 50 to 75 years ago to provide protection for the citrus crops from the harsh Santa Ana winds. With most of the citrus industry vacating the premises decades ago, the trees have been without proper pruning and irrigation for equally as long. The ESP allows removal of windrows subject to replacement planting. The one exception to the removal of the trees would be the trees along Etiwanda Avenue. These trees are designated by the ESP for preservation. There are 11 trees located along the Etiwanda frontage. Of these, the arborist is recommending removal of five of the trees because of the leaning nature, insect infestation, and potential safety considerations to the public. Four of the five trees are located in the middle of the frontage. Because of the ,. "' potential safety considerations, staff recommends removal of those five trees and replacement as stipulated by the ESP. The ESP requires replacement planting of the windrows with 5-gallon Eucalyptus maculata (Spotted Gum) trees at 8 feet on center along the 330 x 660 foot grid pattern. This will require modification to the plant palette shown in the conceptual landscape plan (see Exhibit "C"). The final location will be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to building permit issuance. Irrigation will also be provided for the replacement trees. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 95-16 & VA 95-04 January 24, 1996 Page 6 F. Environmental Assessment: In completing the Initial Study Part II (see Exhibit "1"), staff identified a few potential environmental impacts as a result of the proposed development. First, the establishment of a church facility could impact the traffic of the area. Based on trip generation factors used in the City's traffic model, churches generate roughly 7.7 trips per 1,000 square feet of sanctuary area. Applying this factor to the current proposal, approximately 239 trips could be expected with the church development. These trips will primarily occur on the weekends, Saturday night, and Sunday, because of the times of masses conducted. Since the school operates during the week, a second analysis was prepared to address potential impacts occurring on weekdays. Again using the City's traffic model criteria, a school generates about 1.03 average daily trips (ADT) per student. With the school's ultimate enrollment expected to be 290 students, the average number of daily trips would be roughly 299. A comparison to single family residential development trip generation puts the numbers into perspective. Assuming a density factor of 1.25 dwelling units per acre for the properly (the property is zoned 1-2 dwelling units per acre), 25 homes could be constructed on the site. The City's traffic model estimates 13 average daily trips generated per single family residence. This would generate 325 daily tdps. The number of trips for the single family residential development is greater than the trip generation factor of the church facility. Therefore, staff feels the traffic generated by the church is not significant. The second environmental concern identified by staff is the removal of mature trees. As previously mentioned, the applicant is requesting removal of 145 Eucalyptus trees that are within or border the property. Because of the age and condition of the trees, staff believes removal of the trees to be the appropriate action to avoid safety concerns with falling limbs or falling trees. As required by the ESP, replacement planting is an acceptable mitigation. The third and final area of concern is noise. The church currently operates bells that chime on the hour, between 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., at their facility on Foothill Boulevard. With the commercial setting of their current facility, little impact is felt by the adjacent property owners. Also, noise generated by Foothill Boulevard and Interstate 15 helps conceal some of the noise. The location proposed by the applicant, however, is a much quieter rural residential area. The noise generated by the bells could be considered by the neighborhood as a nuisance. Staff has included a condition prohibiting the operation of the bells. FACTS FOR FINDING: In order for the Planning Commission to approve the Vadance application, · ' "facts to support the following findings must be made: A. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulations would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Development Code. B. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances 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. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 95-16 & VA 95-04 January 24, 1996 Page 7 C. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. D. That the granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. E. That the granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. As noted in the previous Vadance section, staff believes there are facts to support the required findings to approve the Variance. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Variance 95-04 and Conditional Use Permit 95-16 through adoption of the attached Resolutions, approve Tree Removal Permit 95-14 through minute action, and issue a mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. Respec submi d, BB:SM/jfs Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Utilization Map Exhibit "B" - Site Plan Exhibit "C" - Conceptual Landscape Plan Exhibit "D" - Conceptual Grading Plan Exhibit "E" - Building Elevations Exhibit "F" - Site Sections Exhibit "G" - Tree Removal Plan Exhibit "H" - Planning Commission Workshop Minutes of November 29, 1995 Exhibit "1" Initial Study (including arborist report) Resolution of Approval for Variance 95-04 · . "' Resolution of Approval for Conditional Use Permit 95-16 E <~.> __, ~ ....... ~" :[ __. "*' ,__, ~ SITE P~N I B.EAST - WEST SITE SECTION CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONCA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting November 29, 1995 Chairman Barker called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 9:25 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains Room at the Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga California. COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Barker, Heinz Lumpp, Larry McNiel, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: John Melcher STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner There were no announcements A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-16 - SACRED HEART CATHOLIC CHURCX] - A request to construct a church facility and school consisting of a 31,017 square foot church, a 28,480 square foot community center, a 16,460 square foot education center, a 10,898 square foot parish center office, a 9,400 rectory, a 10,110 adult education and youth center, a 5,180 square foot chapel, and a 9,387 square foot adult center on a 20.14 acre site in the Very Low Residential designation (1-2 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue, between Summit and Highland Avenues - APN: 225-171-12, 20, 22, and 23. Brad Bullet, City Planner, gave a brief overview of the project status. Scott Murphy, AICP, Associate Planner, identified the issues/concerns raised by the Design Review Committee. Father Fred Gaglia, Pastor of Scared Heart Church, presented an overview of the Church's design process and the changes that have been made to the plans. He presented building elevations to show the progression of the changes. He acknowledged the Design Review Committee's concerns and presented revised plans to address those concerns. Father Gaglia noted that the building elevations have been modified to reduce the overall height of the church building 12 feet. He noted the changes that have been incorporated into the building design including, but not limited to, the replacement of the arched windows with dormer style windows. Commissioner Tolstoy questioned the grade differential between the church site and the property to the south. Mr. Murphy indicated that the property to the south would be 8 feet lower than the church at the property line. Commissioner Tolstoy was concerned about the grade differential. He feared the grade separation will create a "basement" feeling for the property to the south because the southerly property owner will be looking at slope rather than the sky, the mountains, or the landscaping. Father Gaglia stated that any project will require slopes because of the fall of the land. Con~nissioner Tolstoy stated he did not appreciate Father Gaglia's comments about the Planning commission not wanting churches in Etiwanda. Chairman Barker stated that the City did not create a church area or zone in order to allow dispersement of the churches throughout the community. Father Gaglia presented the revisions to the other elevations of the church building. Chairman Barker asked what roof m_a~terial was proposed. Father Gaglia indicated his concern about roof tile safety because of the children at the school and said he would prefer to use a metal material. He asked if the Commission would allow use of a metal roof that looks like tile. Father Gaglia referenced the roof material around the Upland Hills golf course and stated that material comes in sheets and has a wind resistance factor of 200 miles per hour. Mr. Buller asked the commission if the revisions provided by the applicant address the Design Review Committee's conunents and any concerns of the Planning Commission. Chairman Barker appreciated the applicant's effort in providing the overlay revisions. Commissioner Tolstoy thanked the applicant for the height reduction. He felt the height reduction provides a better building design. He was still concerned about the grade differential to the south. He believed the architecture to be headed in the right direction. He said the design is a large church but it is sited on a large lot. Commissioner McNiel stated that the Planning Commission has gone to great lengths to work with churches. He said there were several things that he did not understand about the design. He felt the church is the predominant building yet it will not be seen because of the large setback and landscaping. He asked why the majority of the parking is in the rear of the site. He was also concerned "about the vehicles going by the school buildings and the potential conflicts with pedestrians. Father Gaglia indicated that the school operates at different hours than the church so there would be no conflict. He stated that the large amount of parking at the rear of the site was intentional to encourage parishioners to exit the church through the courtyard and to encourage some social interaction. He said many of the design considerations they are working with are dictated by the diocese. Commissioner McNiel felt that the parking was located too close to the south and north property lines and that the church should be pushed to the west to provide a greater setback. He noted that the trees along the property lines will be removed with the grading of the site and new trees will be planted. He liked the architecture proposed with the revisions. He asked if the drive aisle at the south end Of the project could be relocated south of the school building. Mr. Murphy indicated that the drive aisle was necessary at the south end of the adult center building in order to allow Fire Department equipment within 150 feet of all sides of the building. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if there was a second means of access to serve the parking area in the rear. Father Gaglia identified the emergency access at the north end of the site that provides access to Summit Avenue and noted a future street is planned for the south side of the lot that will connect to Etiwanda Avenue. Commissioner Lumpp asked if the church is open during the day~ Father Gaglia responded that becau3_e of the amount of theft, the church is locked during the day. Commissioner Lumpp stated that he had spent part of his life in Europe with churches. bigger than this. He appreciated the design revisions provided by the applicant. He was, however, disappointed in the Design Review Committee and staff direction to reduce the building mass. He was disappointed that the tower is facing the courtyard rather than Etiwanda Avenue. He said the residential area adjoining the site will be one-half acre lots, 200 feet deep. He observed that if the site were not proposed for a church, a residential development would be required to provide a perimeter wall that would impact the view more than the slope and open fencing proposed by the applicant. He thought houses built on the adjoining property will probably be set back further than the 20 feet required. He was satisfied with the building location proposed by the applicant. Me did have concern with the use of metal roof material and felt the roof material should be concrete tile. Commissioner Tolstoy asked how the chapel area will be treated since it will be constructed with a later phase. Father Gaglia indicated that the area 'will be landscaped in the interim. Chairman Barker stated that the building mass was not a concern of his during the Design Review Committee meeting. He was concerned about the design of the buildings as they related to the Etiwanda specific Plan. He felt the applicant had made great strides with the revisions. He stated that the Etiwanda area is a wind tunnel and that would create serious problems for a metal roof. In "' addition, he felt the roof material will have a tremendous impact on the design of the facility. He said he would hate to see the design come so far only to · lessen its impact with a metal roof. He felt that now is the time to build the church before any housing is developed in the area. Mr. Buller stated that given the acceptance of the revisions, staff would schedule the application for Design Review Committee in December to review the final details with the application scheduled for Planning Commission in January. He asked the Commissioners if they were comfortable with the setback from the adjoining residential properties. PC Adjourned Minutes (CUP 95-16) -3- November 29, 1995 Commissioner Lumpp stated he was satisfied. Chairman Barker agreed with Commissioner Lumpp. Mr. Buller indicated that staff will continue to work with the applicant on refinements to the grading plan to minimize the grade differential impacts. Commissioner McNiel stated his concern about parking stalls being too close to the church building. He felt this would create traffic and pedestrian conflicts. Commissioner Tolstoy found the site plan acceptable with refinements to the grading. Commissioner McNiel stated that two years ago the city initiated the pre-Application Review process. He said the process is intended to address the revision sequence experienced by the Church over the past years. Commissioner Lumpp asked about the seating of the church. Father Gaglia stated that the church will seat 1,400 people. There were no public comments ~QMMISSION BUSINESS The Commission agreed to a workshop on December 19, 1995, with Lewis Homes to discuss Town Center square revisions. AD_J_Q_U3~iE~ The meeting was adjourned at ll:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Secretary PC Adjourned Minutes (CUP 95-16) -4- November 29, 1995 ENVIRONM'NTAL INFORMATION FORM The purpose of this form is to inform the City of the basic components of the proposed project so that the City may review the project pursuant to City policies, ordinances, and guidelines; the California Environmental Quality Act; and the City's Rules and Procedures to Implement CEQA. It is important that the information requested in this application be provided in full; INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE PROCESSED. Please note that it is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that the application is complete at the time of submittal; City staff will not be available to perform work required to provide missing information. CENERAL INFO~4ATION Application Number for the project to which this form pertains: Project Title: e~-~ ~4~F_T ~-~]'4~t~C. c~40~4 Name & Address of project owner(s): ~{0C~ O~ ~,,A~. ~SE~-~t~lk~O N~e & Adeess of developer or project s~nsor: P~. ~D ~'~1 ~'P. Contact Person & Ad~ess: ~ EO~O~/A~. Telephone N-~her: C I T Y o f R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A' '7-" C pROJECT INFORMATION & DESCR/PTION Information indicated by asterisk (*) is not required of non-construction CUP'S unless otherwise requested by staff. '1) Provide a full scale (8-1/2 X ~1) copy of the USGS Quadrant Sheet(s) which includes the project site, and indicate the site boundaries. 2) Provide a set of color photographs which show representative views into the site from the north, south, east and west; views into and from the site from the primary access points which serve the site; and representative views of significant features from the site. Include a map showing location of each photograph. 3) Project Location (describe): V4/5 ~/~ ~V~ , J~ ~ 4) .Assessor's Parcel Numbers (attach additional sheet if necessary): ;-2-r~- 1~1-1~,7-D, z~ Z~HD ZS. '5) Gross Site Area (ac/sq- ft.): Net Site Area (total site size minus area of public streets & proposed dedications): 7) Describe any proposed general plan amendment or zone change which would affect the project site (attach additional sheet if necessary): 8) Include a description of all permits which will be necessary from the City of Rancho Cucamonga and other governmental agencies in order to fully implement the project: 9) Describe the physical setting of the site as it exists before the project including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, mature trees, trails and roads, drainage courses, and scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on site (including age and condition) and the use of the s~ructures. Attach photographs of significant features described. In addition, site all sources of eol ' ~ information (i.e., g oglcal and/or hydrologic studies, biotic and archeological surveys, traffic studies): Response to question #9: Site topography consists of near planar terrain, which slopes to the south at approximately five percent, with a 50' - 60' fall in elevation from the northern end of the site to the southern end. The soil consists of silty sands underlain by poorly graded sands and additional silty sands. A significant amount of cobbles and boulders ranging in size from 4 to 14 inches were found in the trenches to the depth of the testing levels. No on-site fill was encountered in the trenches, but may be present at the base of the tree windrows, or at the existing water lines. There are around 250 existing eucalyptus trees located on the site in parallel windrows, ranging in size from 6" to 45". Graded dirt roads transverse the site at the southern end, through the center of the site, and across the finger portion of the property at the northernmost end adjacent to Summit Ave. Natural site runoff drains in the south/southeast direction. " The site is vacant with the exception of refuse, tree limbs and trunks,rocks, and abandoned machinery and trash. The sources are: 1994 Preliminary Grading Plan (Anacal Engineering Co.), 1989 Contour Map (L.D. King, Inc.), 1992 Preliminary Soils Investigation (C.H.J. Inc.). 10) Describe the known cultural and/or historical aspects of the site. Site all sources of information (books, published reports and oral history): Describe any noise sources and their levels that now affect the site (aircraft, roadway noise, etc.) and how they will affect proposed uses: 12) Describe the proposed p~oject in d~tail. T~is should provide an adequate description of the site in t~rms of ultimate use which will result from the proposed project. Indicate if there are proposed phases for development, the extent of. development to occur with e~ch phase, and the anticipated completion of each increment. Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary: ., 13) Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use '(residential, commercial, etc. ), intensity of land use (one-family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc-) and scale of development (height, frontage, setback, rear yard, etc. ): , , 14) Will the proposed project change the pattern, scale or character of the surrounding general 8re8 of the project? 15) In~cate the type of short-tem and long-te~ noise to ~ generated, inclu~ng so~ce and ~o~t. How will these noise levels affect adjacent properties and on-site uses- ~at methods of sound proofing are proposed? · 16) Indicate pro~sed removals and/or replac~ents of mture or scenic trees: Response to question #16: Etiwanda Ave.: Trees will remain unless impacted by the line of' sight review after submittal to the City. North and South Sides of Entry Ddves: Trees are not on the church's property, but on the neghbodng parcels, and will therefore remain unless adversely affected by the grading during Phase One. North and South Property Lines Parallel to Etiwanda: North section is as yet undefined as to ownership. The south section has no trees along the property line. Nodh Properly Line: Trees to remain unless impacted by grading during construction. South Property Line: All trees to remain, as the southerly portion of the property will remain undeveloped. -- West Property Line: Trees are not located on the church's property, but on the adjacent property to the west and will remain unless affected by grading. All trees subject to removal will be replaced according to the replacement policies of the Efiwanda Specific Plan. A large portion of the land at the south end of the new church property has also been specifically allocated for a higher ratio of replacement if necessary. 17) Indicate any bodies of water (including domestic water supplies) into which the site drains: 18) Indicate expected amount of water usage. (See Attachment A for usage estimates) · For further clarification, please contact the Cucamonga County Water District at 987-2591. a. Residential (gal/day) Peak use (gal/day) b. Commercial/Ind- (gal/day/ac) Peak use (gal/min/ac) 19) Indicate proposed method of sewage disposal. Septic Tank Sewer. If septic tanks are proposed, attach percolation tests. If discharge to a sanitary sewage system is proposed indicate expected daily sewage generation: (see Attachment A for usage estimates). For further clarification, please contact the Cucamonga County Water District at 987-2591. a. Residential (gal/day) b · Industrial/Commercial ( gal/day/ac ) RESIDENTIAL PRfkTECTS 20) Number Of residential units: Detached (indicate range of parcel sizes, minimum lot size and maximum lot size: Attached (indicate whether ~its are rental or for sale units): 21) Anticipated range of sale prices and/or rents: sa~e ~rice~s) ~ ~/~' to $ ~/~, Rent (per month) $ ~/~ to $ ~/A 22) Specify number of bedrooms by unit type: 23) Indicate anticipated household size by unit type: 24) Indicate the expected number of school children who will be residing within the project: Contact the appropriate School Districts as shown in Attachment B: a · Elementary: b. Junior High: c. Senior High: (X3MMMRCIAL, IND{JSTI~IAL AMD INSTI'lvrIOMAL PMOJMCTS 25) Describe type of use(s) and major function(s) of commercial, industrial · - or institutional uses: · '26) Total floor area of commercial, industrial, or institutional uses by type: 28 ) N~er of employees: Total: Maxim~ Shift: Time of Maxim~ Shift: 29) Provide breakdo~ of anticipated job classifications, inclu~ng wage and sala~ ranges, as well as an indication of the rate of hire for each classification (attach additional sheet if necessary): 30) Estimation of the number of workers to be hired that currently reside in the City: '31) For co:tmercial and industrial uses only, indicate the source, type and amount of air pollution emissions. (Data should be verified through the South Coast Air Quality Management District, at (818) 572-6283): N/A 32). Have the water, sewer, fire, and flood control agencies serving the project been contacted to determine their ability to provide adequate service to the proposed project? If so, please indicate their response. (?,,+'b'57' 33) In the known history of this property, has there been any use, storage, or discharge of hazardous and/or toxic materials? Examples of hazardous and/or toxic materials include, but are not limited to PCB'S; radioactive substances; pesticides and herbicides; fuel, oils, solvents, and other flanunable liquids and gases. Also, note underground storage of any of the above. Please list the materials and describe their use, storage, and/or discharge on the property, as well as the dates of use, . if known. 34) Will the proposed project involve the temporary or long-term use, storage or discharge of hazardous and/or toxic materials, including but not limited to those exa]~ples listed above? If yes, provide an inventory of all such materials to be used and proposed method of disposal. The location of such uses, along with the storage and shipment areas, shall be sho. wn land labeled on the application plans. I hereby certify that the statements fuxnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for adequate evaluation of this project to the best of my ability, that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional information may be required be submitted before an adequate evaluation can be made by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Date: ~'/~-5/~ Signature: ~ ... Title: . ~c.~//i~,~ D {E. ~-~%~/~,~_ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM IINITIAL STUDY - PART II BACKGROUND 1 ) Project File #/Name: ~/P/Z2~/~"Z (~-./c~r,~,z/F ~'-/~' 2) Related File(s): ~-~c 3) Applicant: ~p ~J/~ (~:~,'~ E~:;s~ Address: /~2{~V/E~/E ~Vb [~ (~ ¢/Z Y Telephone ~: (~) ,~¢-/~'~'y 4) Proje~ Description: [~-d'~ F~d>z/~ ~ ~[~z~/'. ~,~/L/M/~' ~'v~ 5) Proje~ Accepted as Complete (date): ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ursuant to Se~ion 15063 of the California Environmental Quality A~ Guidelines, explanation of the ~tential impels identified as "Yes" or "Maybe" answers are required on a~ached sheets. An explanation shall also be provided in each instance where a potentially significant e~e~ has been determined not to be significant and is marked "No." Yes ~a~ ~o I. EARTH. Will the proposal result in: a) Unstableeanhconditionsorinchangesinthegeologicstm~ure? b) Disruptions, displacement, compaction or over covedng of the soil? c) Change in the topography or ground su~ace relief features? ~' Q Q d) The dest~ion. covering, or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? Q Q e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? Q Q f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sand, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modi~ the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake?QQ g) Exposure of people or prope~y to geologic hazards, such as eaChquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? '~ Q Q CITY OF C,, 'F'~,~O CUCAMONGA Yes Maybe I1. AIR. Will the proposal result in: a) Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality?QQ b) The creation of objectionable odors? Q c) Alteration ~f air movement, moisture; or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? El IlL WATER. Will the proposal result in: a) Cha~gesincurrents, orthecourseofdirectionofwatermovements, in either marine or fresh waters? Q b) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? ',~ Q c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any body? Q Q e) Discharge into surface waters~_or in any alteration of surface waterquality, including, but not limited to, temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? Q f) Alteration of the direction or rate of ground waters? Q Q g) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions orwithdrawals, orthrough interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? Q Q h) Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? Q Q i) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal pools? IV. PLANT LIFE. Will th, e proposal result in: a) Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)?/~Q b) Reduction of the number of any unique, rare, or endangered species of plants? rn Q c) Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a harder to the normal replenishment of existing species? '~' a d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? Q ~/j ANIMAL LIFE. Will the proposal result in: a) Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of animals (birds; land animals, including reptiles; fish and shellfish; benthic organisms or insects)? Q Q b) Reduction of the number of any unique, rare, or endangered species or animals? Q CITY OF ~__/,~L..B.~NLT(~)O CUCAMONGA Yes Maybe c) Introduction of new species of animals into the area, or result in a barrier tQ the migration or movement of animals? Q Q · d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? Q Q VI. NOISE. Will the proposal result in: a) Increase in existing noise levels? .:)~[' Q b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? Q Q VII. LIGHT AND GLARE. Will the proposal: a) Produce new light and glare? VIII. LAND USE. Will the proposal result in: a) Substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? Q Q IX. NATURAL RESOURCES. Will the proposal result in: a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? Q Q X. RISK OF UPSET· Will the proposal involve: a) A dsk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limitedto: oil, pesticides, chemicals, orradiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? rn Q b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? Xl. POPULATION. Will the proposal: a) Alter the location, distribution, density or growth rate of the human population of an area? Q XlI. HOUSING.. Will the proposal: a) Affectexistinghousing,orcreateademandforadditionalhousing? XIII. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Will the proposal result in: a) Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? --. b) Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? ~Q c) Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? d) Alterations to the present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? Q Q e) · Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic'? f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians? Yes Maybe No XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES. Willtheproposalhave an effect upOn, orresultin a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? c) Schools? d) Parks and other recreational facilities? e) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f) Other governmental services? XV. ENERGY. Will the proposal result in: a) Use of substantial amounts of_fu_el or energy? b) Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? XVI. UTILITIES and SERVICE SYSTEMS. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? b) Communications systems? c) Water? d) Sewer or septic tanks? e) Storm water drainage? f) Solid waste disposal? XVII. HUMAN HEALTH. Will the proposal result in: a) Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b) Exposure of people to potential health hazards? XVIII. AESTHETICS. Will the proposal result in: a). The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public? "'b) Creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? XlX. RECREATION. Will the proposal result in: a) Impact upon the quality of existing recreational opportunities? b) Restdct the religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? Yes Maybe No XX. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Will the proposah a) Result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archeological site? Q b)Result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? c) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? Q Q ,,~ XXI. 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 pedods of California history or prehistory? b) Shod-term: Does the project have the potential to achieve short- term, to the advantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A shod-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definite period of time. Long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect on the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XXII. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. (Attach additional sheets with narrative description of the environmental impacts.) XXIII. DISCUSSION OF LAND USE IMPACTS. (An examination of whether the project would be consistent with existing zoning, plans, and othe applicable land use controls.) XXIV. DETERMINATION. (To be completed by Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: a) I find that the proposed project coz~l~Z ,ot have a significant effect on the environment, and A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared ........... ................... ~: b) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environmerit, there will not be a significant effect in this case because mitig~ztio~z rna~sz~res described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared ............................. .~ c) I find the proposed project n~,,y have a significant effect on the environment, and An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required ......................... Q ' Signature/' ' '/~ Print Name For Date CITY OF RANCH O CUCAMONGA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKlIST Initial Study - Part II Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Project Description: Conditional Use Permit 95-16 Sacred Heart Catholic Church W/s Etiwanda btwn Summit & Highland I. Earth: a) The site is not within any known unstable earth condition area. b) The site will be graded to accommodate the building pad for the proposed church facility. The grading will be conducted under the supervision of licensed surveyor or registered geologist. The impact is not significant. c) The topography of the site will be altered slightly to accommodate the building pads. The grading will be supervised by a licensed soils engineer or registered geologist to ensure compliance with Building Code requirements. The impact is not significant. d) No known or unique geologic or physical features exist on this site. e) Upon completion, the site will be landscaped and/or paved to prevent soil erosion. f) The church facility will not affect any river, channel, ocean, lake, or bay. g) The majority of Califomia is susceptible to earthquakes. The project is not within any known special study zone that will require additional studies or that poses a unique hazard. The impact is not significant. II. Air: a) The proposed church will result in less air emissions than single family residential that is currently planned for the site. The impact is not significant. b) The proposed church facility will not create any objectionable odors. c) The proposed church facility will not result in alteration to the climate or air movement. III. Water: a) The development of the church facility will not affect the currents or course of water movement· b) The absorption rate will be altered because of the paving and hardscape proposed. All · . "' waters will be conveyed to approved drainage facilities. The downstream channel does require concrete lining in order to handle the additional runoff. A condition of approval has been included to address this issue. The impact is not significant. c) The project will not alter the course or flow of flood waters. d) The development of the church facility will not affect the amount of surface water in any body. e) The project will not be discharging into any surface waters. f) No alteration of groundwater is expected to occur with this project. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT INITIAL STUDY - PART II CUP 95-16 Page 2 g) No direct additions or withdrawals of ground water are proposed. h) The project is anticipated to use only that amount of water necessary to handle sanitary conditions of the bathrooms and a single residence. The amount of water usage is not significant. i) The project is outside of the established flood plain. IV. Plant Life: a) Vegetation on site consists of grasses and Eucalyptus trees. The trees were planted to provide windbreaks for the citrus crops formally grown on the site. An arborist report has been prepared which indicates the majority of the trees (94%) are in a declining or dead state. The applicant will remove the trees and replace them with another species of Eucalyptus. This replacement will continue the windrow planting of the area. The impact is not significant. b) ' There are no known rare, unF~ue, or endangered species on-site. c) Landscaping introduced to the site will be compatible with existing landscaping material. Similar materials have been used throughout the area with no impact to native species. d) No agricultural crops exist on-site. V. Animal Life: a) There are no known animals that currently occupy the site on a regular basis. b) There are no known rare, unique, or endangered species on-site. c) No new species will be introduced as a result of the project. d) The project is surrounded by development on the east and north. In that no animals currently use the site on a regular basis, the development of the chumh facility will have no impact on fish or wildlife habitat. VI. Noise: a) The development of the church facility will increase the noise level by the mere fact that the property is currently vacant. The church does operate bells at its existing facility that chime on the hour. In that the church is relocating to a residential area, the bells may create a nuisance factor for the existing residents of the area. To eliminate the nuisance, the bells should be prohibited from this site. b) The noise levels will not exceed the allowable noise levels for this zone. .... VII. Li ht and Glare: a) New light and glare will be created because the property is currently vacant. A condition of approval requires the applicant to submit a lighting plan for review and approval to ensure the light does not spill over on to adjacent properties. The impact is not significant. VIII. Land Use: a) No land use alteration is proposed with the application. The church facility is a conditionally permitted use in the Very Low Residential designation of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. o,,,L'B 4G ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT INITIAL STUDY - PART II CUP 95-16 Page 3 IX. Natural Resources. ,___ : a) The construction of a church will result in less gas consumption than residential development planned for the area.. The usage is not considered significant. X. Risk of Unset: a) The church will not be storing any hazardous or explosive material. b) The church construction will not interfere with emergency response. XI. Population: a) The project is using land that would otherwise be developed as single family residences. Because of the relatively small size of the parcel, the project will have minimal impact on the population of the City. The impact is not significant. XII. ~ a) The project will not create the need for additional housing. XIII. Transportation: a) The project will generate additional trips because of the new construction and the type of business. The number ofttips, however, is less than that generated by single family residences planned for the site and, therefore, is insignificant. Single family residential development would generate about 390 trips per day compared to 239 trips generated by the church. b) Additional parking will be necessary to handle the parishioners and staff of the facility. The site is sufficient in size to provide the parking spaces to meet the parking requirements. c) The proposal is consistent with the Etiwanda Specific Plan and General Plan for which the street widths were evaluated at a build-out condition. d) The project will maintain the existing circulation patterns for the movement of goods. e) The project will not affect air, water or rail traffic. f) The application is expected to increase the risk of traffic hazards because of the new construction. The driveways have been spaced to provide maximum safety available and pedestrian amenities (sidewalks) will be installed as part of the project. The impact is not significant. XIV. public___Services: -- · a) The project will require additional permitting and inspection by the Fire District to · ' ensure Code compliance. The impact is not significant. b) No substantial new services are expected with the project. c) The school districts having jurisdiction have notified the City of the current impaction problems. The project, however, will not increase the number of students. d) The project will have no impact on existing park facilities or result in the need for additional facilities. 3 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT INITIAL STUDY - PART II CUP 95-16 Page 4 e) The site abuts a road that is being maintained by the City. No additional impacts on public facilities are expected. f) No other government services are expected to be affected by this proposal. XV. Energy_ a) The project is not expected to use substantial amounts of fuel or energy. b) The development is not expected to result in substantial increase on the demand of existing energy sources or the need for new energy sources. XVI. Utilities and Service Systems: a) The facility will not result in the need for new power or natural gas systems. b) The facility will not result in the need for new communication systems. c) The facility will use water readily available in Etiwanda Avenue. d) The discharge from the site ~iil be handled by the existing sewer facilities. e) The additional storm water drainage can be accommodated by a new on-site facility which will convey waters to ~xisting, acceptable storm drain facilities· The impact is not significant. f') No significant solid waste disposal will be necessary to serve the site. XVII. Human Health: a) ' The development is not expected to create any health hazard. b) No exposure of people to potential health hazards is expected. XVIII. Aesthetics: a) The project will not obstruct any view or vista currently available to the public. b) The project will conform to the strict design guidelines of the City thereby eliminating any offensive site visible to the public. XIX. Recreation: a) No existing recreational facilities will be impacted by the facility. b) No known religious or sacred uses are presently conducted on-site. XX. Cultural Re.__.__.~sources: a) No known prehistoric or historic site exists within the project boundaries. b) No known prehistoric or historic site exists within the project boundaries. · , -- · c) The project should not impact any unique ethnic cultural values. XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance: a) No known animal or wildlife species are expected to be substantially adversely impacted by the project. b) There are no known long-term environmental impacts that are expected to occur as a result of the project. c) It is not anticipated that the cumulative impacts of the project will have a substantial impact as a result of the project. d) It is not anticipated that the project will have any adverse impacts on human beings. 4 Teble 1 RCTH PEAK HOUR AND ADT TRIP RATE SUMMARY 1. Single-F~m Detached OU .20 .55 ,75 .63 .37 1.00 13,00 2, Apartment OU .10 ,~3 .53 .46 .21 .67 6.10 ' 3. Condomtnh~q DU .07 .38 .45 .38 .18 .56 5.86 4. Mobile Home OU .12 .29 .~1 .35 .21 .56 4.81 5. Elderly/Retirement DU .11 .29 .40 .25 .15 '.40 3.30 6. General Commercial lSF .76 33 1.O9 1.79 2.01 3.80 ~7.50 7. Regiona( ConT~erciat TSF .50 .22 .72 1.42 1.60 3.02 34.40 8. Community tcnTnerciat TSF .85 37 1.22 2.00 2.28 4.28 52.85 9. Neighborhood Con~erctel TSF I.~2 .51 2.03 3.66 3:80 7.46 84.50 10. Convenience Commercial TSF 2,09 .89 2.98 5.85 6.10 11.95 117.90 11. Restaurant TSF .82 .09 .91 5.00 2.25 7.25 95.62 12. Fast Food Restaurant TSF 27.92 27.92 55.84 16.96 16.30 33.26 632.13 13. Hotel/Motel ROCH .26 .44 .70 .31 .31 .62 10.19 1~. Office (0-99 TSF) TSF " 2.03 .30 2.33 .38 1.98 2.36 18.14 15. Office (lO0 TSF +} TSF 1.62 .24 1.86 .29 1.Sl 1.SO 12.02 16. Medical Office TSF .91 .72 1.63 .98 2.65 3.63 34.17 17. Government Office TSF t..94 .94 5.~8 2.87 8.16 11.03 68.93 18. Office Park TSF 1.67 .21 1.88 .19 1.28 1.47 ll.40 19. Business Perk [SF 1.31 .23 1.54 .28 1.07 1.35 12.42 20. Light, Industrial iSF .82. .12 .96 .12 .92 1.04 6.97 21. gatehouse TSF .39 .'18 .57 .24 .50 .74 4.88 22. Elementary/Middle School STU .14 .09 '.23 .01 .01 .02 1.03 23. High School STU .26 .14 .~0 .01 .03 .04 1.39 24. College STU .lS .03 .18 .04 .08 .12 1.55 · 25. Day Care STU 30 .27 .57 30 .32 .62 3.35 26. Hospital BED .,'7 .30 1.07 .46 .76 1.22 11.75 27. Nursing/Congregate Care HED .04 .02 .06 .05 .16 .21 2.60 28. Theater SEAT .01 .80 .01 .24 .02 .26 1.76 29. Health Club TSF .88 .88 1.76 .76 .76 1.52 15.94 30. Library TSF .55 .55 1.10 2.61 2,31 4.92 45.50 31. Post Office TSF 2.81 2.49 5.30 3.45 3,31 6.76 86.78 32. Nursery . TSF .85 37 1.22 1.91 1.98 3.89 36.17 33. Auto Sates/Repair TSF 1.83 2.25 3.88 1.97 2.61 4,58 ~7.52 34. Service Station PUMP 1.00 .75 1.75 1.89 1.74 3.63 133.00 35. Car Uash SlLL 3.00 3.00 6.00 2.40 2.40 4.80 108.00 36. Hank TSF L97 3.18 8.15 9.09 ll.ll 20.20 189.95 37. Church TSF .08 .03 .11 .34 .30 .64 7.70 38. Self-Storage UNIT .OI .O1 .02 .01 .02 .03 .28 39. Golf Course ACRE .21 .06 .27 .03 .36 .39 8.33 "'¢+" ~0. Park ACRE .0O .00 .00 .0O .00 .00 3.66 · ""!" ACRE .Ol .OO .01 .OO .01 .01 .lO ~1. Agriculture .28 .92 · :':!{ ~2. County Jail BED .lO .09 .19 RCTM Trip Gcncration Methodology 2 c.C 49 L richard p.-johnson horticultural consultants April 17, 1992 Project No. 92-1126 RECEIVED Mr. Leonard Filner MAY 15 1992 LEONARD FILNER & ASSOCIATES 307 Chapman Avenue CityofRancho Cucamonga Orange, CA 92666 Planning Division SUBJECT: Evaluation of'~indrow EUCalVDtUS Sacred Heart Catholic Church Rancho Cucamonaao California Dear Mr. Filner: The subject Eucalyptus Qlobu~us (Blue Gum) located at the planned church site have been field inspected. Since the trees must be transformed from a windbreak to a church setting, the potential hazards must be considered thoroughly. Due to the species of the trees, transplanting is not possible; the only recommendations given are either to preserve in place or to remove. The windrow eucalyptus trees included in the study have been assigned an evaluation rating, which is included in the text of this report. Recommendations for construction restrictions, protection and arboricultural requirements will be outlined in a separate report. SITE CONDITIONSI This site is currently undeveloped and is at an elevation of approximately 1,376 feet. The wind is consistent, with strong Santa Ana winds in the fall and spring. The summers are very hot with little or no precipitation. The vegetation on this unirrigated site is primarily native grasses. Windrow trees are EucalYptus alobulu~ (Blue Gum). It should be noted that Blue Gum eucalyptus are messy, greedy and brittle. They require deep soil and plenty of room and are considered soil robbers. Their foliage contains high amounts of oil which prevents leaves from decomposing quickly and will eventually sterilize the soil for many understory plants. 801 glenneyre street, suite d · laguna beach, ca n~m hny 197 · Inc~ ~nc~ h~nr-h There exists one Schinus molle, in weakened condition, and three cedars on the site, all of which are recommended for removal. In addition there is one windrow comprised of Junipers. The Junipers have no value and should also be removed from the site. OVERALL TREE HEALTH: The overall health of these trees was investigated prior to the tree-by-tree survey. 1. Average age of Eucalyptus is approximately 60-years. 2. Site was apparently farmed at one time and trees probably received water during that time. It has not been farmed, however, in quite some time and majority of trees are in poor health/weakened, apparently due to droughty conditions. 3. Some trees have grown at awkward angles that increase the potential for large limb breakage. SITE PLAN: Planned structural and landscape features, including existing windrow trees were plotted, by David E. Miller, Architect, Orange, California. Trees slated for removal are indicated in this tree study report and each has been marked for easy field identification; a large R has been spray painted on the trunk of each tree to be removed. INVENTORY: The following information was gathered for each tree: TREE TYPE/SPECIES - EUCalYPtus alobulus (Blue Gum). NUMBER - Each tree to remain on-site has been numbered with a brass identification tag. Numbers start at 1 and end at 9. Other trees are recommended for removal and are identified by a spray-painted R, as previously indicated. CALIPER - Measured or estimated as diameter at breast height (DBH). Multiple trunks are indicated as such and measurement given for each. Measurement is given in inches. FEATURES - Only identifying features are noted. PROBLEMS - Both health and structural problems are listed. RECOMMENDATIONS - Only two recommendations are listed: PRESERVE or REMOVE: an explanation is given in most cases; also recommendations for pruning are included if appropriate. FIELD EVALUATION - Individual trees have been field rated in regard to form and health based on a 0 to 4 scale: Zero - No signs of life, no viable foliage. Weak regrowth from a stump. One - That the condition of the tree proposed for removal with reference to seriously debilitating disease or danqer of falling is such that it cannot be remedied through' reasonable preservation procedures and practices. Two - That condition of the tree indicates need for extensive corrective maintenance with no assurance it will survive construction impact. Three - That condition of the tree indicates need for pruning (dead wood removal), and that by implementing reasonable preservation procedures and practices tree has excellent potential to survive planned development if construction guidelines and post construction maintenance is followed. Four - That tree is rated as an excellent specimen and needs no special attention at this time as long as construction and development impact does not negatively effect its environment. The following tree-by-tree inventory lists recommendations for each tree, made during site inspection. This recommendation is based on the potential for preserving that tree in a church setting. The main factors in this decision are the form, health and possible hazards that exist for each tree. NOTE: Where tree removal is indicated, the resulting stump must be ground down to 3-inches below grade. Tree location runs south to north, starting with the row paralleling Etiwanda, across from Cherokee Street, at proposed entrance to the site. Tree # DBH Rating Comments R 28" 1 REMOVE. Weakened and rank growth only. 1 28" 2 PRESERVE. Prune for shape and overall ~alt~,. Remove over-hanging branches 2 30" 2/3 Prune to ISA specifications. 3 33" 2 PRESERVE. Prune for shape and form. Trim out all dead wood and remove 6-inch side branch. 4 29" 2 PRESERVE. Thin upper growth and trim all over-hanging branches. R N/A N/A REMOVE. Group of three Athol (Salt Cedar) in same row. No mitigation required. R 38" 1 REMOVE. Double-trunked, weak branch attachment, oozing sap. R 31" i REMOVE. Cluster of three, DBH represents entire group. Weak sucker growth. Leaning - potential liability. R 18" 1/2 REMOVE. Tree is leaning, weak branch attachment, oozing sap, dead interior branches. 5 28" 2 PRESERVE. Lace out upper growth; remove dead stubs resulting from past pruning. 6 48" 2 PRESERVE. Double-trunked. Trim/prune to form. ........... End of Front Row at North Property Line ...... Windrow, starting at tree closest to Etiwanda, moving East to West. R N/A 0 REMOVE. Dead. No mitigation required. R 28" 1 REMOVE. Leaning, stunted, weak. 7 39" 2 PRESERVE. Trim/prune to form. Lace out upper growth. Remove over-hanging side branches. Trim dead branch ends. R 19" 1 REMOVE. Leaning, twisted upper growth. Distorted and weak. R N/A 0 REMOVE. Sucker growth only. R 18" 0/1 REMOVE. Very weak; oozing sap from br~nch attachments. Multi 0/1 REMOVE. This tree is offset from line. Consists of approx. 10 small caliper, stunted trunks, all sucker growth. 19" 0/1 REMOVE. Majority of upper growth is dead. 31" 2 PRESERVE. Trim for stability; lace out upper growth. 20" 1 REMOVE. Poor branch attachment, dieback, twisted upper growth. 26" 1 REMOVE. Insect holes oozing sap, leaning growth habit, weak, sucker g__rowth. 37" 0/1 REMOVE. Twisted, tangled growth habit. Evidence of insect damage. 35" 2 PRESERVE. Prune off smaller side branch, lace out upper growth. 20" 0/1 REMOVE. Very poor condition; leaning growth habit. 27" 0/1 REMOVE. Dead upper growth. 41" 1 REMOVE. Majority of growth on one side only. Leaning; liability potential. 42" 1 REMOVE. Stunted, sucker growth; broken off at one time. 36" 1 REMOVE. Multi. Weak, rangy growth. 49" i REMOVE. Multi. Mostly sucker growth from root crown. Many weak, leaning trunks. 32" 1 REMOVE. Majority of growth on one side only. 46" 0/1 REMOVE. Weak, rangy growth; dead interior branches. 42" 1 REMOVE. Multi. Poorly attached at root crown. R 35" 0/1 REMOVE. Branch dieback, rank growth. .... At this point the windrow becomes a double row ........ R ~5" 0/1 REMOVE. Very Weak; branch dieback. R 43" 0 REMOVE. Dead. R 11" 1 REMOVE. Twisted, weak growth habit. R 6" 0/1 REMOVE. Broken off with regrowth only. R 39" 0/1 REMOVE. Bark separation. R 36" 1 REMOVE. Broken upper growth. R 13" 0/1 REMOVE. Dead top growth; sucker growth only. R 36" 1 REMOVE. Upper growth separates; cannot be pruned to shape. R 21" 0/1 REMOVE. Stunted/twisted upper growth. R 25" 1 REMOVE. Leaning; sucker growth concentrated at base. R 23" i REMOVE. Leaning; weak. R 29" 0/1 REMOVE. Weak attachment; top broken. R 8" 0/1 REMOVE. Broken top; poor health. R 33" 0 REMOVE. Top dead; dieback throughout. R 26" 0/1 REMOVE. Leaning; liability. R 12" 0 REMOVE. 60 percent of tree is dead. R 29" O/1 REMOVE. Trunk separates 4'2" from grade. .... R 16" 0 REMOVE. Stunted; poor health. R 13" 0 REMOVE. Stunted; poor health. R 44" 0/1 REMOVE. Upper growth dieback; leaning. R 18" 0/1 REMOVE. Leaning; poor condition. R 18" 0/1 REMOVE. Advanced dieback. R 20" 0 REMOVE. Top growth dead. R 19" 0 REMOVE. Top dead; poor health. R 15" 0 REMOVE. Top broken off. Liability. R 34" 0 REMOVE. Mostly dead. Evidence of insect damage. R 19" 0 REMOVE. Double trunk formed by sucker growth with dieback. R 24" 0/1 REMOVE. Top portion dead. R 26" 0/1 REMOVE. Advanced termite damage. R 17" 0/1 ~EMOVE. Advanced dieback. R 28" 0/1 REMOVE. Advanced dieback. ..... There are two very small caliper trees at this point in the windrow; too small to be included in tree count study. R 21" 0 REMOVE. 70 percent dead. R 20" 0 REMOVE. Advanced dieback R 8" 0 REMOVE. Cut off at 8 feet. R 9" 0 REMOVE. Dead. R 17" 0 REMOVE. Dieback; top of tree growing at angle; liability. R 27" 0/1 REMOVE. Top growth sparse; not a complete tree. R 25" 0/1 REMOVE. Upper growth is dead. R N/A 0 REMOVE. Cluster of three trees - all dead. R 29" 0/1 REMOVE. 90 percent dead. R 12" 0/1 REMOVE. Leader/main stem broken off. ~ 16n O~ REMOVE. Top dead; leaning growth. habit. R 13" 0/1 REMOVE. Top divided into two trunks. Crotch connection weak. R 18" 0/1 REMOVE. Rangy, thin growth habit; split trunk. R 16" 1 REMOVE. Green, however top broken out; will not recover. R 26" 0/1 REMOVE. Advance branch dieback. .... Two small trees at this point, neither of any value ..... R 13" 0/1 REMOVE. Leaning; liability factor. Poor health. R 26" 0/1 REMOVE. Green growth on one side only; unbalance. R 21" 0/1 REMOVE. Top growth dead. R 11" 0/1 REMOVE. Very weakened condition comprised mostly of sucker growth. ...NORTH SOUTH ROW (back of property line) ................. NOTE: Only the first two trees in this row of 20 trees is physically marked for removal, however, REMOVE ENTIRE ROW. Average DBH is 12-inches and all are in very poor condition and many are dead. None will withstand planned construction impacts and all are rated at 0 or 1. LOT 10 scattered grouping of trees ...................... Between back row (north property line) and the center windrow there is one, offset tree, adjacent to center row, DBH 30". Full of insects. REMOVE all trees in the center section. All are in poor condition and are rated at 0 or 1. ...Center Row (south of main East West Row) REMOVE this entire row. All rated at 0 or 1. OFFSET REMOVAL. Single tree located between above row and the Lot 10 cluster with DBH 48" rated as 1. Weak trunk separation. .... Second Windrow (South), starting at back of property and proceeding East toward Etiwanda Avenue ...... R 38" 1 REMOVE. Upper growth is unstable. 8 89" 1 REMOVE. Enormous tree in extremely weakened condition due to past damage and insect infestation. 6~" 1 REMOVE. Multi-trunks; weak attachment; distorted growth from base. 51" 1 REMOVE. Multi-branched; weak attachment. 57" 1 REMOVE. Bark (cambium) separation. 41" 1 REMOVE. Rotted, fungus growing in separation; dieback. 72" i REMOVE. Multi-trunked at root crown; weak attachment; desiccation of inner bYanches. Large Schinus molle REMOVE. Located midway in row. In poor condition; would not survive relocation. 34" 1 REMOVE. Weak connection points. 46" 1 REMOVE. Very top heavy trunk growth; very weak. 41" 1 REMOVE. Weakened branch attachment. Oozing sap - indication of insect infestation. 44" 0 REMOVE. Snapped off at 16' above grade. Has attempted to regrow but with weakened branch attachments. N/A 0 REMOVE. Multiple trunk;'80 percent dead. 40" 0/1 REMOVE. multiple head; weak. Pruning would leave only stubs. 36" 1 REMOVE. Leaning at bad angle; liability. 22" 1 REMOVE. Leaning; liability. 38" 0/1 REMOVE. Weak condition; one-sided. regrowth. Weak attachment. R 45" 0/1 REMOVE. Cluster of sucker and regrowth. Weak attachment. R 33" 0/1 REMOVE. Sucker regrowth only. R N/A 0 REMOVE. Dead. R N/A 0 REMOVE. Dead. R 26" 0 REMOVE. Dead interior. R 34" 0/1 REMOVE. Upper growth broken. Advanced dieback. R N/A 0 REMOVE. Last tree closest to Etiwanda. Dead. THIRD WINDROW NOTE: All junipers and have no value. REMOVE. Comprehensive specifications for pruning procedures and pre and post construction guidelines, to ensure the protection and health of the windrow eucalyptus trees that are to be preserved in place, are outlined in a separate report. NOTE: All specified pruning should be completed prior to any construction activity. Respectfully submitted, Dick Johnson, ASLA Horticultural Consultant DJ:ds RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 95-04, A REQUEST TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMIT OF 35 FEET FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CHURCH FACILITY ON 20.14 ACRES OF LAND IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION (1-2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) OF THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF ETIWANDA AVENUE, BETWEEN SUMMIT AND HIGHLAND AVENUES, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 225-171-12, 20, 22, AND 23. A. Recitals. 1. Sacred Heart Catholic Church has filed an application for the issuance of Variance No. 95-04 as described in the title of this-Resolution. Hereina~er in this Resolution, the subject Vadance request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 24th day of January 1996, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. r 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 headrig on January 24, 1996, including wdtten and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue. south of Summit Avenue, with a street frontage of 331 feet and lot depth of 1,259 feet and is presently vacant; and b. The properties to the north and east of the subject site are designated for residential '- ' uses and are developed with single family residences. The properties to the west and south are designated for residential uses and are vacant; and c. The construction of a church is conditionally permitted within the Very Low Residential designation of the Etiwanda Specific Plan; and d. The Etiwanda Specific Plan permits structures up to 35 feet in height within the Very Low Residential designation; and e. The applicant is proposing a 47-fpot tall church building with a 72-foot tower, a 45-foot tall community building, and a 36-foot tall chapel; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. VAR 95-04- SACRED HEART CHURCH January 24,1996 Page 2 f. The lot proposed for development is an unusually configured "T-shaped" lot with a frontage of 331 feet, opening up to a lot width of 1,970 feet; and g. The ridge line for the church and chapel is located roughly 170 feet from the property line and runs parallel to the property line to provide the greatest separation from future residential structures; and h. The applicant could develop a 35-foot tall fadlity at the minimum setback that would have a greater visual impact on the adjacent residences than the proposed plan based upon sight- line studies presented with the staff report. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and-concludes as follows: a. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulations would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Development Code. b. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances 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. c. That stdct or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. d. That the granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other propedies classified in the same district. e. That the granting of the Variance 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 findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below. Planninq Division 1) The project shall be developed in accordance with the approved plans on file for Conditional Use Permit 95-16. 2)All conditions contained in the Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 95-16 shall apply. 3) The Vadance is approved for two years and shall expire unless building permits are issued prior to the expiration. Extensions may be granted in accordance with Development Code requirements. 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. VAR 95-04- SACRED HEART CHURCH January 24,1996 Page 3 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 1996. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chairman A'FI'EST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby cedify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 24th day of January 1996, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 95-16, A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A CHURCH FACILITY ON A 20.14 ACRE SITE IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION (1-2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) OF THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN. LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF ETIWANDA AVENUE, BETWEEN SUMMIT AND HIGHLAND AVENUES, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 225-171-12, 20, 22, AND 23. A. Recitals. 1. Sacred Head Catholic Church has filed an application for the issuance of Conditional Use Permit No. 95-16, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafier in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit request is-referred to as "the application." 2. On the 24th day of January 1996, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said headng 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 fodh 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 public headng on January 24, 1996. including wdtten and oral staff repor[s, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue, south of Summit Avenue with a street fruntage of 331 feet and lot depth of 1,259 feet and is presently vacant; and b. The properties to the north and east of the subject site are designated for residential uses and are developed with single family residences. The properties to the west and south are · . -- ' designated for residential uses and are vacant; and c. The construction of a church is conditionally permitted within the Very Low Residential designation of the Etiwanda Specific Plan; and d. The application, with the attached conditions of approval and approval of Variance 95-04, complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Etiwanda Specific Plan; and e. The construction of a church is consistent with the Very Low Residential designation of the General Plan and the Etiwanda Specific Plan. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 95~16-SACRED HEART CHURCH January 24,1996 Page 2 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and 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 propedies or improvements in the vicinity. c. The proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, together with all written 'and oral repods included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows: a. That the Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970. as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder; that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, 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 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 Califomia Code of Regulations. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1.2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set fodh below · ' "' and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Plannin Division 1)Approval of Conditional Use Permit 95-16 is contingent upon approval of Variance 95-04. 2) Building pads for all future buildings shall be irrigated and hydroseeded. The final plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to building permit issuance. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 95-16- SACRED HEART CHURCH Janua~ 24,1996 Page 3 3) The applicant shall make a good faith effort to obtain a slope easement from the property owner to the south. If the easement is granted, the grading shall be revised to provide a slope on the adjacent property. If the easement cannot be obtained, the applicant shall construct a retaining wall with a decorative finish. The final design of the southerly property line shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to building permit issuance. 4) A decorative block wall shall be constructed along the south property line, on top of any slope or retaining wall. 5) Additional brick work shall be provided at the planter areas around the base of the building. The final plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to building permit issuance. 6) The glu-lam fascia shall receive a stain finish. The final plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to building permit issuance. 7) The columns shall be pre-cast and of a high quality appearance. The final plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner pdor to building permit issuance. 8) Tree Removal Permit 95-14 iS approved subject to the following: a. The approval is valid for 90 days from the date of grading permit issuance. b. Mitigation Measure: The windrow along Etiwanda Avenue shall be preserved, except five of the trees shall be removed, per arborist's recommendation, subject to replacement planting as required by the Etiwanda Specific Plan. The final tree removal and replacement shall be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans to be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to grading or building permit issuance. The remaining trees to be preserved in place shall be protected with a chain link fence installed prior to any construction activity. c. Mitigation Measure: Eucalyptus Maculata windrows shall be provided throughout the development in accordance with the · . '-' Etiwanda Specific Plan. The final windrow locations shall be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans to be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to grading or building permit issuance. d. Removal of trees off-site shall require written permission of the property owner. e. Any wood infested with borer beetles shall be chipped, removed, and buried at a dump site. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 95-16-SACRED HEART CHURCH January 24,1996 Page 4 9) The use of bells or other sounds to indicate time of day, time of mass, 0r school activities shall be prohibited, except for emergency school bells. The final construction plans shall indicate compliance to the satisfaction of the City Planner prior to issuance of building permits. 1) The 35-foot drive approaches (Standard 101-C) on Etiwanda Avenue shall be concentric with the drive aisles on site, with symmetrical transitions to the on-site aisle width west of the public right-of-way. 2) The final drainage study shall determine the number and location of undersidewalk drains needed to accommodate Q100 overflows from the project site. No more than 15 cfs of surface d~:ainage shall be directed to each undersidewalk drain. Undersidewalk drains shall be installed ~o the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to occupancy 3) Mitigation Measure: Complete the master plan storm drainage facility north of the Route 30 right-of-way, by lining the existing earth channel with concrete bek,veen Etiwanda and East Avenues, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer pdor to occupancy. Standard drainage fees for the site shall be credited to the cost of the facility, with the estimated balance due to be paid pdor to the issuance of building permits. If costs for permanent master plan facilities exceed the fee amount, the developer shall be eligible for reimbursement in accordance with City policy. If the developer fails to submit for said reimbursement agreement within six months of the public improvements being accepted by the City, all rights of the developer to reimbursement shall terminate. 4) A lien agreement shall be processed for the future installation of frontage street and storm drainage improvements for Vintage Drive along the south property line. Said agreement shall include a clause stating the property owner will reimburse any other developer that may construct the improvements. 5) The developer shall reconstruct the northerly driveway on Etiwanda Avenue to align with Blue Gum Drive at such time as redevelopment occurs on the adjacent property to the north. .' "' 6) A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated cost of operating all street lights during the first six months of operation, prior to building permit issuance. 7) Provide a copy of the Record of Survey to verify that property lines and fights-of-way issues in this area of Etiwanda have been resolved, prior to building permit issuance. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 95-16 - SACRED HEART CHURCH January 24, 1996 Page 5 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 1996. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Bullet, Secretan/ 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 24th day of January 1996, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT #: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: Those items chewed are Cond~ions of ~proval, APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 989-1861, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. Time Limits Completion Date V/ 1. Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, if building permits are ---J / not issued or approved use has not commenced within 24 months from the date of approval. 2. Development/Design Review shall be approved prior to / / .J / 3. Approval of Tentative Tract No. is granted subject to the approval of _.J / V/ 4. The developershallcommence,padicipatein, andconsummate orcauseto be commenced, -J / participated in, or consummated, a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) for the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District to finance construction and/or maintenance of a fire station to serve the development. The station shall be located, designed, and built to all specifications of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and shall become the District's property upon completion. The equipment shall be selected by the District in accordance with its needs. In any building of a station, the developer shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations. The CFD shall be lotreed by the District and the developer by the time recordation of the final map occurs. 5. 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 ~mpacts as a result of this project. 6. Prior to recordalton of the final map or prior to issuance of building permits when no map is _._/ / involved, written cedification from the affected water district that adequate sewer and water facilities are or will be available to sen/e 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 issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. B. Site Development v/ 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which ._.J / include site plans, architectural elevations, extedor materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, Development Code regulations, and zF-r'//.",/-4/vD.4 Specific Plan and Planned Community. 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. OccuPancYofthefacilifyshallnotcommenceuntilsuchtimeasallUniformBuildingCodeand __/ / State Fire Marshall's regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Division to show compliance. The building shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. v'/' 4. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be ._J / submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. / 5. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation. and streetimprovement plans shall be coordinated for ---J / consistency pdorto issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal. encroachment, building, etc.), or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. V/ 6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development _..J / Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community Plans or Specific Plans in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance. v/' 7. A detailed on*site lighting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and ._J / Sheriff's Department (989-6611) pdor 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. If no centralized trash receptac es are provided, all trash pick-up shall be for individual units~ / with all receptacles shielded from public view. v/ 9. Trash receptacle(s) are required and shall meet City standards. The final design, locations, __J / and the number of trash receptacles shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building perruffs. ,/,- 10. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall _J / 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. Completion Date: 11. Street names shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval in accordance with __J / the adopted Street Naming Policy prior to approval el the final map. V/ 12. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, _J / including proper illumination. 13. A detailed plan indicating trail widths, maximum slopes, physical conditions, fencing, and __J / weed control, in accordance with City Master Trail drawings, shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior Io approval and recordation of the Final Tract Map and prior to approval of street improvement and grading plans· Developer shall upgrade and construct all trails, including fencing and drainage devices, in conjunction with slreel improvements. 14. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shall not prohibit the keeping of equine animalswhere zoning requirements forthe keeping of said animals have been met. Individual lot owners in subdivisions shall have the option of keeping said animals without the necessity of appealing to boards of directors or homeowners' associations for amendments to the CC&Rs. 15. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Articles of Incorporation of the ..._J / Homeowners' Association are subject [6~the approval of the Planning and Engineering Divisions and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Map or prior to the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City Engineer. v/' 16. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained bythe property ._.J / owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall be submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 17. Solar access easements shall be dedicated for the purpose of assuming that each lot or .--J / dwelling unit shall have the right Io receive sunlight across adjacent lots or units for use of a solar energy system. The easements may be contained in a Declaration of Restrictions for the subdivision which shall be recorded concurrently with the recordation of the final map or issuance of permits, whichever comes first. The easements shall prohibit the casting of shadows by vegetation, structures, fixtures or any other object, except for utility wires and similar objects, pursuant to Development Code Section 17.08.060-G-2. 18. The project contains a designated Historical Landmark. The site shall be developed and .J / maintained in accordance with the Historic Landmark Alteration Permit No. · Any furlher modifications to the site including, but not limited to, extedor alterations and/or interior alterations which affect the exterior of the buildings or structures, removal of landmark trees, demolition, relocation, reconstruction of buildings or structures, or changes to the site shall require a modification to the Historic Landmark Alteration Permit subject to Historic Preservation Commission review and approval. C. 'Building Design 1. An alternative energy system is required to provide domestic hot water for all dwelling units ---/ / and Ior heating any swimming pool or spa. unless other alternative energy systems are demonstrated to be of equivalent capacity and efficiency. All swimming pools installed at the time ol initial development shall be supplemented with solar heating. Delails shall be included in the building plans and shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 2. All dwellings shalt have the lronl, side and rea'r elevations 'Upgraded with architectural ----/ / treatment, detailing and increased delineation of sudace treatment subject to City Planner review and approval pdor to issuance of building permits. &,,p'b tO Cornoltdon Date: .3. Standard patio cover plans for use by the Homeowners' Association shall be submitted for .__/ / City Planner and Building C~ficial review and approval priorto issuance of buttcling permits. v'/ 4. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or ...__/ / projections, shall be shielded from view and the sou nd buffe red from adjacent properties and streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Details shall be included in building plans. D. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans) v/ 1. All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet and shall ..._J / contain a 12-inch walk adjacent to the parking stall (including curb). 2. Textured pedestrian pathways and textured pavement across circulation aisles shall be --J / provided throughout the development to connect dwe Ilings/units/build ings with open spaces/ plazas/recreational uses. V/ 3. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, __/ / entrances, and exits shall be striped peFt;ity standards. 4. All units shait be provided with garage door openers if driveways are less than18 feet in .--/ / depth from back of sidewalk. 5. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shait restdct the storage of recreational vehicles ---J / on this site unless they are the principal source of transportation for the owner and prohibit parking on interior circulation aisles other than in designated visitor parking areas. 6. Plans for any security gates shall be submitted for the City Planner, City Engineer, and ___/ / Rancho Cucarnonga Fire Protection District review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. E. Landscaping (for publicly maintained landscape areas, refer to Section N.) t/. 1..A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planling and model home landscap- ..__/ / ~ng 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..Existingtreesrequiredt~bepreservedinp~acesha~~bepr~tectedwithaconstructi~nbarrier .__/ / in accordance with the Municipal Code Section 19.08.110, and so noted on t he grading plans. The location of those trees to be preserved in place and new locations fortransplanted trees shall be shown on the detailed landscape plans. The applicant shall follow all of the arborisrs recommendations regarding preservation. transplanting and tdmming methods. · ' 3. Aminimumof treespergrossacre,cemprisedofthefollowingsizes,shallbeprovided ___/ / within the project: % - 48- inch box or larger. % - 36- inch box or larger, __ % - 24- inch box or larger, __. % - 15-gallon, and __ % - 5 gallon. / 4. A minimum of ~ % of trees planted within the project shall be specimen size trees - J / 24-inch box or larger. v/ 5. Within parking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15ogallon tree for every three __/ / parking stalls, sufficient to shade 50% of !he par~ing area at solar noon on August 21. v/ 6. Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent to and along structures at a rate of one tree per 30 linear feet of building. "/ / v/ 7. All private slope banks 5 feet or less in vertical height and of 5:1 orgreater slope, but less than__/ / 2:1 slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for erosion control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. V/ 8. AIIprivateslopesinexcessof5feet,butlessthan8feet inverticalheightandof2:lorgreater ----/ / slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, 1 -gallon or larger size shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope banks in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one 5-gallon or larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area· Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. 9. For single family residential development, all slope planting and irrigation shall be continu- .J / ously maintained in a he althy and thriving condition by the developer until each individual u nit is sold and occupied by the buyer· Prior to releasing occupancytorthose units, an inspection shall be conducted by the Planning Division to determine that they are in satisfactory condition. 10. For multi-family residential and non-residential development, property owners are respon- .---/ / sible for the continual maintenance of all landscaped areas on-site, as well as contiguous planted areas within the public right-of-way. All landscaped areas shall be kept free from weeds and debris and maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing, and trimming. Any damaged, dead, diseased, or decaying plant material shall be replaced within 30 days from the date of damage. 11. Front yard landscaping shall be required per the Development Code and/or / · This requirement shall be in addition to the required street trees and slope planting· v'/ 12. 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. 13.Special landscape features such as mounding, alluvial rock, specimen size trees, meander- ----/ / ing sidewalks (with horizontal change), and intensified landscaping, is required along V/ 14. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on .J / -.. the perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer. v'/ 15~A~~wa~~sshallbepr~videdwithdecorativetreatment~~f~~catedinpublicmaintenanceareas --/ / the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division. 16. Tree maintenance criteria shall be developed and submitted for City Planner review and __/ / approval prior to issuance of building permits. These criteria shall encourage the natural growth characteristics of the selected tree species. 17. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of .--J / Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. Pmiect No. '.~/.,,,~::~'J'-/~ F. SjgnS Comb|effort Date: 1. Thesignsindicatedonthesubmjttedplansareconceptualonlyandnotapartofthisapproval. / / Any signs pro~sed for th~s development sha~l comply with the Sign Ordinance and shah r~quire separate application and approval by the Planning Division prior to ]nsta~latfon of any s~gns. 2. A Un~orm Sign Program for th~s development shall be submilled for City Planner review and ~ / approval prior to issuance of building permits. / 3. Dire~o~ monument sign(s) shall be provided for apa~ment, condominium, or townhomes ~ / prior to occupancy and shall require separate application and approval by the Planning Divisbn p~or to issuance of building pe~s. G. Environmental 1. The developer shall provide each pmspe~ive buyer wr~en notice of the Fou~h Street Ro~ / / Crusher project in a standard fo~at as dete~ned by the C~y Planner, prior to accepting a cash de~s~ on any pmpe~y. 2. The developer shall provide each pms~ive buyer wrYten notice of the C~y Adopted ~ / Special Studies Zone forthe Red Hill Fault, in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to a~epting a ~sh de~s~ on any prope~y. 3. The develo~r shall provide each pmspe~ive buyer wr~en notice of the Foothill Freeway ~ / pmje~ in a standard format as determined by the C~y Planner, prior to acceptEng a cash de~sit on any pmpe~y. 4. ~ final a~ustica~ repo~ shall ~ submitted for Ci~ Planner review and approval prior to the ~ / ~ssua~e of building permils. The final repo~ shall discuss the level of interior no~se atlenuation to below45CNEL, lhe buildjng male~als and ~nslmction lechniques pmvided, and ~ appropriate, ver~y the adequacy of the mitigation ~asures. The building plans will be checked for conformance w~lh the mitigation measures ~nlained in the final re~. H. ~her Agencies / 1. E~rge~Yse~nda~a~essshallbeprovidedina~rdancew~hRanchoCucamongaFire ~ / Pmte~ion Di~rict Standards. 2. EmergencYaccessshallbepmvided, maintenancefreeandclear, a minimumof26feetwide ~ / at all times during constm~ion in a~rdance w~h Rancho Cucamonga Fire Pmte~ion Distri~ requiremenls. / 3. Prior to jssuance of building permits for ~mbust~ble ~nstmction, evidence shall be ~ / subm~ted to the Rancho Cu~nga Fire Pmteclion Distri~ that tem~ra~ waler supply for fire protection is available, pending ~mplet~on of required fire proleclion system. ' ~ ' 4. The appli~nt shall conta~ the U. S. Postal Seaice Io determine the appropriate type and ~ location of mail ~xes. MuNi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead st~cture for ma~l boxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the ma~l boxes and the design of the overhead st~um shall be subje~ Io C~y Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building pe~its. / 5. For pmje~s using septic tank facilities, wri~en ce~Hication of acceptability, jncluding all ~ / sup~ive information, shall be obtained from the San Bernard~no County Depaflment of Environmental Hearth and subm~ted to the BuildinO ~ficial prior to the issuance of Seplic Tank Permits, and prior to issuance of building permits. ComDledon DaIe: APPLICANTS SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 989-1863, FOR :OMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: . Site Development V/ 1. The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechani- ---/ / cal 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 Beautitication Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Systems Development Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, and School Fees, . 3. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new commercial or industrial development or J / addition to an existing development, the applicant shaif pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: Systems Development Fee, Drainage Fee, School Fees, Permit and'~lan Checking Fees. v/ 4. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, aftertract/parcel map recordaLiGn __J / and prior to issuance of building permits. J. Existing Structures 1. Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for the property line clearances ._./ / considering use, area, and fire-resistiveness of existing buildings. 2. Existing buildings shall be made to comply with correct building and zoning regulations for ----/ / the intended use or the building shall be demolished. 3, Existing sewage disposal facilities shall be removed, filled and/or capped to comply with the .--/ / Uniform Plumbing Code and Uniform Buitding Code. v/' 4. Underground on-site utilities are to be located and shown on building plans submitted for .__/ / building permit application. K. Grading v/ 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. v'/' 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualilied engineer licensed by the State of California to --J / · ' perform such work. 3, The development is located within the soil erosion control boundaries; a Soil Disturbance J / Permit is requ fred. Please contact San Bernardino County Department of Agricu Itu re at (714) 387-2111 for permit application. Documentation of such permit shall be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of rough grading permit. 4. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at J / the time of application for grading plan check, V"' 5. ThefinalgradingplansshallbecompletedandapprovedpriortoissuanceofbuMingpermits. --/ / 6. As a custom-lot subdivision, the tollowing requirements shall be met: a. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed guaranteeing completion of all on-site -~/ / drainage facilities necessary for dewatering all pamels to the satisfaction of the Building and Safety Division priorto final map approval and priorto the issuance of grading permits. b. Appropriate easements for safe disposal of drainage water that are conducted onto ----/ / or over adjacent parcels, are Io be delineated and recorded to the satisfaction of the Building and Safety Division prior to issuance of grading and building permits. c. On-silo drainage improvements, necessary for dewatering and protecting the subdivided ---J / properties, are to be installed pdor to issuance of building permits for construction upon any pamel that may be subject to drainage flows entering, leaving, or within a pamel relative to which a building porrnit is requested. d. Final grading plans for each pamel are to be submitted to the Building and Safety ---/ / Division for approval prior to issuance of building and grading permits. (This may be on an incremental or composite basis.) e. All slope banks in excess of 5 feet in ~grtical height shall be seeded with native grasses J / or planted with ground cover for erosion control upon complelion of grading or some other alternative method of erosion control shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Building Official. In addition a permanent irrigation system shall be provided. This requirement does not release the applicant/developer from compliance with the slope planting requirements of Section 17.08.040 I of the Development Code. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 989-1862, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: L. Dedication and Vehicular Access 1. Rights-of-way and easements shall be dedicated to the City for all interior public streets, / / community trails, public paseos, public landscape areas, street trees, and public drainage facilities as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. Private easements for non-public facilities (cross-lot drainage, local feeder trails, etc.) shall be reserved as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. v/' 2. Dedication shall be made of the following rights.of-way on the perimeter streets -.-J~ (measured from street centerline): /'//f'/ total feet on ,~/7~//,,4,'VZ~14/¢fF/E4/?_/~' t3~ total feet on J~/P~E Z~--/F'~" ('~/~-~-~"y¢::::~_~-~" · total feet on total feet on 3. An irrevocable offer of dedication for -foot wide roadway easement shall be made ----/ / for all private streets or ddves. 4. Non-vehicular access shall be dedicated to the City for the following streets: ___/ / 5. Reciprocal access easements shall be provided ensuring access to all parcels by CC&Rs .__/ / or by deeds and shall be recorded concurrently with the map or pdor to the issuance of building permits, where no map is involved, (;ginDiction 6. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be provided and shall be delineated or noted on the final map. "J 7. The final map shall clearly delineate a 1 O-foot minimum building restriction area on the .J neighboring lot adjoining the zero lot line wall and contain the following language: "l/We hereby dedicate to the City of Rancho Cucamonga the right to prohibit the construction of (residential) buildings (or other structures) within those areas designated on the map as building restriction areas." A maintenance agreement shall also be granted from each lot to the adjacent lot through the CC&R's. 8. All existing easements lying within future rights-of-way shall be quitclaimed or delineated on --J the final map. 9. Easements for public sidewalks and/or street trees placed outside the public right-of-way .__J' shall be dedicated to the City wherever they encroach onto private property. 10. Additional street right-of-way shall be dedicated along right turn lanes, to provide a minimum __/ of 7 feet measured from the face of cur~. If curb adjacent sidewalk is used along the right turn lane, a parallel street tree maintenance easement shall be provided. 11. The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property interests.__/ necessary to construct the required public improvements, and if he/she should fail to do so, the developer shall, at least 120 days prior to submittal of the final map for approval, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Code Section 66462 atsuchtimeastheCityacquiresthepropertyinterestsrequiredfortheimprovements. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site properly interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security for a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained by the developer, at developers cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of lhe appraisal. M, 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. 2. A minimum of 26- foot wide pavement, within a 40 -foot wide dedicated right-of-way shall be .__/ constructed for all haft-section streets. V/ 3. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: ._J STREET NAME CURB & A,C. SDE- DRIVE STREET S]T~EET COrM ~4EDIAN BIKE GLnq'ER PVM'r WALK APPR. LIGHTS TRESS TRAIL SLAND TRAIL OTHER ComD1eHon Dater Nofes: (a} Median island includes )andscaping and irrkjation on meter. (b) Pavement reconstructiom and ovedays will be determined during p)an check. (c) ff so marked, side- walk snail be curvjHnear per STD. ;304. (d) ff ~ mated, am in-Heu ot coms~rucfion ~ee snail be prov~ed for this ~em. ~) ~ Cu~ ~ ~'~/~.~ v/' 4. Improvement plans and construction: a. Street improvement plans including street trees and street lights, prepared by a regis- --J / tered Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or pdvate street improve- ments, prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. b. Prior to any work being performed in public dght..of-way, fees shall be paid and a .--/ / construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineers Office in addition to any other permits required. c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic, street name signing, and interConnect conduit .__/ / shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. d, Signalconduitwithpullboxesshallbeinstalledonanynewconstructionorreconstruction __J / of major, secondary or collector streets which intersect with other major, secondary or collector streets for future traffic signals. Pull boxes shall be placed on beth sides of the street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR or any other locat ions approved by the City Engineer. Notes: /.~/· (1) All pull boxes shall be No. 6 unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer. (2) Conduit shall be 3-inch galvanized steel with pullrope. e, Wheel chair ramps shall be installed on all four corners of intersections per City '--J / Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with .~/ / adequate delours during construclion. A street closure permit may be required. A cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon complelion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. g. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be .__J / installed to City Standards, excepl lot single family lots. h. Handicap access ramp design shall be as specified by the City Engineer. .._J / · ' i. Street names shall be approved by the City Planner priorto submittal for first plan check. / / 5. Street improvement plans per City Standards for all private streets shall be provided for / / review and approval by the City Engineer. Prior to any work being pedormed on the pri- vate streets, fees shall be paid and construction permits shall be obtained from the City Engineers Office in addition to any other permits required. 6. Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in __/J accordance with the City's street tree program. v/ 7. ~ntereection line ot site designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conlormance with Cornpier. ion Date: adopted policy. ~ / a. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project intersections, --/ / including driveways, Walls, signs, and slopes shall be located outside the lines of sight. Landscaping and other obstructions within the lines of sight shall be approved by the City Engineer. b. Local residential slreet intersections shall have their noticeability improved, usually by __/ / moving the 2 +/- closest street trees on each side away from the street and alaced in a street tree easement. 8. A permit shall be obtained from CALTRANS for any work within the following right-of-way: ---/ / 9. All public improvements on the following streets shall be operationally complete pdor to the issuance of building permits: N. Public Maintenance Areas 1. A separate set of landscape and irrigation plans per Engineering Public Works Standards / / shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval pdor to final map approval or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. The following landscape parkways, medians, paseos, easements, trails, or other areas are required to be annexed into the Landscape Maintenance District: V/ 2. A signed consent and waiver form to join and.'orform the appropriate Landscape and Lighting .__J / Districts shall be filed with the City Enginee r prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. 3. AIIrequiredpubliclandscapingandirrigationsystems shallbecontinuouslymaintainedbythe .--J / developer until accepted by the City. 4. Parkway landscaping on the following street(s) shall conform to the results of the respective .--J / Beautification Master Plan: O. Drainage and Flood,Control 1. The project (or portions thereof) is located within a Flood Hazard Zone; therefore, flood ----/ / protection measures shall be provided as certified by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer. 2. It shall be the developers responsibility to have the current FIRM Zone __J / designation removed from the project area. The developer's engineer shall prepare all necessary reports, plans, and hydrelogicJhydraulic calculations. A Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) shall be obtained from FEMA prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. A Letter of Map Revision (LOM R) shall be issued by FEMA prior to occupancy or improvement acceptance, whichever occurs first. __ 3. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final /.---/ map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first, All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. Comnledon Date: 4. A permit from the County Flood Control District is required for work within its right-of-way. ._J / 5. Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe measured from Ihe outer edge of a mature tree trunk. __J___J 6. Public storm drain easements shall be graded to convey ovedlows in the event of a ---J / blockage in a sump catch basin on the public street. P. Utilities 1. Provide separate utility services to each pamel 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. __J / v/ 3. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the ---/ / Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health D~padment of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from the CCWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first, ' Q. General Requirements and Approvals v/' 1. The separate parcels contained within lhe project boundaries shall be legally combined into '--/----/ one parcel prior to issuance of building permits. 2. An easement for a joint use ddveway shall be provided prior to final map approval or ---/ / issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first, for: .__/ / 3. Prior to approval of the final map a deposit shall be posted with the City covering the estimated cost of appodioning the assessments under Assessment District among the newly created pamels. v'/ 4. Etiwanda/San Sevaine Area Regional Mainline, Secondary Regional, and Master Plan ~ / Drainage Fees shall be paid prior to final map approval or prior to building permit issuance if no map is involved. 5. Permits shall be obtained from the tollowing agencies for work within their right-of-way: .__/ / 6. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the Law Enforcement Community __J / Facilities District shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or the · issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the ~ ' ' "' Developer. 7. Prior lo finalization of any development phase, sufficient improvement plans shall be com- __/.___/ pieted beyond the phase boundaries to assure secondary access and drainage protection to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Phase boundaries shall correspond to lot lines shown on the approved tentative map. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 987-6405, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: v/' 1. Melio Roos Community Facilities District requirements shall apply to this project. __J / Y/2. Fire flow requirement shall be d?,~¢~ gallons per minute. .~/ / A. A previous fire flow, conducted revealed gpm available at 20 psi. v/B. A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire depadment personnel prior to water plan approval. v/C. For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional fire flow test of the on-site hydrants shale be conducted by lhe builder/developer and witnessed by the fire depadment personnel after construction and prior to occupancy. v/ 3. Fire hydrants are required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed-~/ / and operable priorto delivery of any combustible building materials on site (i.e., lumber, roofing materials, etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire depadment personnel. 4~Existingfirehydrant~~ca~i~nssha~~bepr~videdpri~rt~waterp~anappr~va~.Requiredhydrants" --/ / if any, will be determined by this department. Fire District standards require a 6" riser wilh a 4" and a 2-1/2" outlet. Su bstandard hydrants shall be upgraded to meet this standard. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specifications o_._n approved brands and model numbers. v/ 5. Prior to the issuance of building permits for combustible construction.evidence shall be / / submitted to the Fire Distdctthattemporarywatersupplyforfire protection is available, pending completion of required fire protection system. v/ 6. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for all hydrants and installed prior to -~J / final inspection. v'/ 7. An automatic fire extinguishing system(s) will be required as noted below: J / v/Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15. ,/Other 7¢9¢ f' Note: Special sprinkler de nsities are required for such hazardous operations as woodworking, plastics manufacuring, spray painting, tlammable liquids storage, high piled stock. etc. Contact Fire Safety Division to determine it sprinkler system is adequate for proposed operations. v/ 8. Sprinkler system monitoring shall be installed and operational immediately upon completion .---/ / of sprinkler system. v/' 9. A fire alarm system(s) shall be required as noted below: '-"/ / Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15. · ' ' "' v/California Code Regulations Title 24. NFPA 101. Other /' 10. Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire Distdct's fire lane standards, as noted: --J v/All roadways. Other ~/_z,~ ¢~"-//, V/ 11. Fire department access shall be amended to facilitate emergency apparatus. ----/ / v/' 12. Emergency secondary access shall be provided in accordance with Fire District standards. -J / V"" 13. Emergency access shall be provided, maintenance free and clear, a minimum of 26 feet wide / / at all times during construction in accordance with Fire District requirements. 14. All trees planted in any median shall be kept trimmed a minimum of 14'6" from ground up so / / as not to impede fire apparatus. v/ 15, A building directory shall be required, as noted below: /------/ v/Lighted director within 20 feet of main entrance(s). Standard Directory in main lobby. Other v/' 16. 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. v'/17.Gated/restric~edentry(s)requireinsta~~ati~n~faKn~xrapidentrykeysystem~C~n~acttheFire .J / Safety Division for specific details and ordering information. 18. A tenant use letter shall be submitted prior to final building plan approval. J / V" 19. Plan check fees in the amount of $ "~ have been paid. ,__/ / An additional $ ~2__~. y84,r/.~,,,v.~hall be.paid: Prior to water plan approval. v"' 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. V"" 20. 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 judgemerit of the Fire Chief is likely to produce conditions hazardous to life or propedy. B. Storage of readily combustible matedal. "' v/'"C. Places of assembly (except churches, schools and other non-profit organizations) D. Bowling alley and pin refinishing, E. Cellulose Nitrate plastic (Pyroxylin). F. Combustible fibers storage and handling exceeding 100 cubic feet. G. Garages Motor vehicle repair (H-4) H. Lumber yards (over 100,000 board feet). ,, Spraying or dipping operations, spray booths, dip tanIs, electrostatic apparatus, automobile undercoating, powder coating and organic peroxides and dual corn- ponent coatings (per spray booth). L. Magnesium (more tha 10 pounds per day). M. Oil burning equipment operations. N. Ovens (industrial baking and drying). O. Mechanical refrigeration (over 20 pounts of refrigerant). P. Compressed gases (store, handle or use exceeding 100 cubic feet). Q. Cryogenic fluids (storage, handling or use). R. Dust-producing I~rocesses and equipment. S. Flammable and combustible liquids (storage, handling or use). T. High piled combustible stock. U. Liquified petroleum gas (store, handle, transport or use more than 120 gallons). V. Matches (more than 60 Matchman's gross). W. Welding and cutting operations: to conduct welding and/or cutting operations in any occupancy. 5C- ~0/94 15 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: January 24, 1996 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Miki Bratt, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: PLIES - A request to consider initiation of text changes to the Industrial Area Specific Plan to add Automotive Sales and LeaSes as a conditionally permitted use to parcels adjacent to the I-15 Freeway in Subarea 8. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: According to recent market studies, automobile sales is the sector for which there is the greatest sales tax leakage. No development application is pending for any automobile dealership. Property owner Daniel Plies has executed a Letter of Intent with a Land Rover dealer for a .7 acre podion of a 28.78 acre parcel located south of the Foothill Marketplace and noah of Arrow Highway in the General Industrial area (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan (see Exhibit "A"). The northwest corner of the site touches the freeway right-of-way. Mr. Plies requests consideration of automotive sales as a conditionally permitted use for freeway adjacent parcels in Subarea 8 (see Exhibit "B"). The Letter of Intent refers to Tentative Parcel Map 14539. An application for processing the aforementioned parcel map has not been submitted. However, a Preliminary Review was completed on June 10, 1993 (see Exhibits "C" and "D"). Tentative Parcel Map 9326 for the subject site was approved March 1989 and expired March 1992. The expired map included 9.8 acres which were freeway adjacent and were sold to Foothill Marketplace. Automotive uses have been classified on the basis of their similarity to, and compatibility with, other industrial uses allowed in each subarea. Automotive Sales, including ancillary service and repairs, is conditionally permitted, in some Industrial Park Subareas (6, 7, and -..12), but not in others (Haven Overlay, 16, and 17). In Subarea 8, a General Industrial area, many automotive uses are permitted, or conditionally permitted, including fleet storage, minor repairs, major repairs, service court, and service station. Several Subarea 8 parcels adjoin the 1-15 Freeway. The parcels may be visible from the elevated freeway, but none have direct freeway access. In general, access would be from Arrow Highway, via the Foothill off ramps from the I-15 Freeway, Foothill Boulevard, and either Rochester or Etiwanda Avenues. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT PLIES January 24,1996 Page 2 Issues such as sight lines from the Freeway, access, master planning, signs, use compatibility, and buffering would be considered and addressed as part of an Industrial Area Specific Plan text change. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission support initiation of consideration of text changes in the Industrial Area Specific Plan which would increase opportunities for Automobile Sales on freeway adjacent parcels in Subarea 8 upon receipt of an application for Specific Plan Amendment and payment of associated application procuring fees. Respectfu submitre, , er BB:MB:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Vicinity/Land Use Map Exhibit "B" - Letter of Intent Exhibit "C" - Preliminary Review 93-05 Exhibit "D" - Proposed Tentative Tract 14539 LIGHT IND. \' DEVELOPED .P- 8 Approximate Location site o~ the larger 28.73 ac Parcel. IS - 15 DE~OPED 800 0 800 Feet PLIES REQUEST ' VICINITY ~ EXH~B~TA ~ PARCELS SMITH, SILBAR, DUFFY, PARKER & WOFFINDEN December 21, 1995 ~ E C E ~ V E O VIA FACSIMILE AND MAIL l~%Iy 0f Rancho Cucamonca (909) 477-2847 Pianning Divjsio. ~ Mr. Brad Euller City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission Director 10500 Civic Center Drive P.O. Box 807 _r Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729 Re: Request for Authorization for Zoninq Amendment Dear Mr. Buller: This letter is directed to you at the request of our clients, Daniel L. and Anita I. Plies, as a follow-up to your meeting today with Mr. Plies and Ed Komski. Mr. and Mrs. Plies are the fee owners of Parcel 7 Of Tentative Parcel Map #14539 in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California (the "Property"). Currently the Property lies within Sub-Area 8 of the Specific Plan for the area. The Plies currently have a client interested in developing a portion of the Property as a Land Rover dealership (see attached letter). Per your discussion with Dan and Ed, the current zoning does not specifically permit development as auto sales and service facilities. We believe, as do your consultants, that this planning oversight has created a "void" of such uses for freeway visible sites such as the Property. We ar~ therefore requesting that the City amend the Sub-Area 8 zoning east of Interstate 15 and north of Arrow Highway to include auto sales and services within the conditional uses. Please authorize the processing of this amendment to Sub- · -'-'Area 8 through the Planning Commission. Time is of the essence as represented in the attached letter from Land Rover. If weare unable to deliver a properly zoned site in the near future, Land Rover will pursue other sites outside Rancho Cucamonga. SMITH, SILBAR, DUFFY, PARKER & ~ArOFFIi~IDEN Mr. Brad Buller' December 21, 1995 Page 2 Thank you for your assistance. ~h Silbar of SMITH, SILBAR, DUFFY PARKER & WOFFINDEN LWS:sms cc: Daniel L. Plies 06/16 '95 09:52 []):THE PLIES CO~"IPP, NIES FC~X:?14-??O-'2253 P~GE 2 sSioN veto. Mr. Daniel L. Plies ' ' June 15, 1995 The RIse Companies 22706 A~pan Street Suite 701 ' Lake Forest, CA 92630 Deer Mr. Plies: This letter expresses our mutual intent to enter into a hansaction pursuant to which you will construct a bulldlr~g to -quit vehicle 5aies/leasinglservice facility upon land that you own in Rancho Cucamonga, California, and lease Bid facility to me or an entity that I may form for the purpose of operating a Land Rover dealership. It is understool that this letter merely e~ our intent. and It does not create an obligation on the pad of either you or me to consummate the transaction. Our intentions with respect to the transaction are ~s follows: 1. Upon execution of binding agreements, you will use your best efforts to obtain all necessary governmental approvals for end financing at commercially . reasonable terms for construction of a L.and Rover Spec. Dealership on Parcel 7 of Tentative Parcel Map #14539 in the city of Rancho Cucemonga, Ca/iforela, Thereafter, you will construct the dealership facilities substantially In accordance with plans provided by Design Forum, st an estimated coat not ~o exceed (including land value of $750,000) $1,400,000 ($1,300,000 if the city builds the mad). We underst. and and ac.J<nowiedqe that the estimated con, structicn cost ($650.000) is based upon a preliminary review of general plans ancl specifications, and that such cost is subject to adjustment. Except for the requirement that yOu utilize the plans for the facilities provided by Design Forum, you shall be free to engage contractors, engineers and other consultent~ of your choosing. Our binding agreement will include performance schedules end completion dates for the constn~ction of the facilities. 2. You end I agree that the dealership facilities to be provided to me will be in "turn -key' condition. I will provide furniture, equipment, computer systems. inventory, working capital and ell other assets necessary to the operation of the dealership and service business. 06/16 '9,5 09:53 ID:THE PLIES CDI1PP~IES FAX:'714-770-22.53 PAGE 3 3. I will al~o undefiake to secure in my name the Land Rover Franchise, snclUdmg su~rnmsglO~ of Itrly appllcatgonm, financial information, etc. tn c(:~nectlon therewith. I will assume all responsibility, financial and otherwise, regarding the franchise and the operation of the business. 4. We will enter Into a definitive lease ~greement w~th respect to the facilities and untied)trig land at an Initial baSe monffily rent of $12,000. The lease will also provide for a percentage rent on overage as may be mutually agreeable. and the tenant will assume responsibility for all real and personal property taxes. repairs and maintenance. 5. In addition, you wffi give me the option of acquiring the land and the radiities at any time during the first Twenty Four months of the term of the lease at an amount no more then $1.4 Million. 6. This 18 Intended to constitute a latter of Intent only, There is no legally binding or enforceable contract between the parties pertaining to the subject matter of this letter of intent, and statements of intent or understandings in offer acceptance. or legally binding agreement and do not create any fights or obligations for or on the part of any party to this letter of ~ntent. This letter of intent shall be valid until Fdday June 30 at 5:00 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time. If you agree to go fonNard on this basis, please execute the enclosed copy of this letter where indicated and return it to the undersigned. We am ,ar, thusiastic at:nut the prospect of working .Nigh ~/cu, both toward the conclusion of this transaction and In the Mum. 'Thank yo~ for: your consideration of this ma~r. .... yOU AGREE ACKNO ED D: .'. I. T H E C I T Y 0 F June 10, 1993 Dan L- Plies The Plies Company 22706 Aspan Street, Suite 701 Lake Forest, Ca 92630 SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY REVIEW 93-05 Dear Mr. Plies: The Planning and Engineering Divisions have completed their review of the above project. The preliminary review process is intended to provide you with direction on major issues and technical requirements. These con~ents should help you and your professional design team in developing a proposal which iT complete for processing. Your next step is to submit a formal application for development. Checklists of Submittal Requirements are available in the Planning Division. Additional studies or information may be needed based upon review of your formal application. A copy of "The Development Review Process" g~idebook has been included with this letter. Should you have any questions regarding the review process, or if we can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact this office at (909) 989-1861. Sincerely, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEpARTMEnT · PLANNING DIVISION Nancy Fo NF:mlg Attachment cc: Ken Linville Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer Mayor Dennis t. Stout ~ Councilmember William J. Alexander Mayor Pro-l'em Charles J. Buquel II ~-., Councilmember Diane Willjams Jack Lain. AICP, City Manager Councilmember Rex Gutierrez Rancno · ) 989-1851 · F . - FTr.R NO-: PR 93-05 (P]~LIM~NARY R~vl~w CO~e~TS) 'NOTE: This information is provided to assist in the preparation of a developsmerit package complete for processing. Additional information or comets may be necessary based upon a more thorough analysis of the formal application. I. Planning Division: A. Technical Issues - The following preliminary technical issues are minimum code requirements. It is recomaended that these issues be addressed in the preparation of the development plans for formal submittal. 1. Azrow Route is a Special Boulevard. Parcels that abutt Special Boulevards shall have a minimum parcel width of 300 feet. The-proposed parcels along Arrow Route do not meet this requirement. However, this standard may be exempted if a master plan is developed for the entire site to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Co~nission. The processing of a master plan requires the filing of a DevelOpment Review application. Attached for your use is the pertinent information for Development Review application. 2. The ultimate right-of-way along Arrow Route shall include the striping of a bicycle trail. B. Design Issues - The following are preliminary design issues that are recomended to be addressed in the preparation of the development plans for formal submittal. 1. The proposed subdivision consists of mainly small industrial lots ranging from 0.5 acres to 1.4 acres in size. It tends to attract light industrial uses such as custom and light manufacturing, light wholesale storage uses, office use, professional services, etc. However, heavy industrial users exist on the east and south side of the site. These users such as Ampac, Fontana Steel, Liquid Air handle chemicals, steel and other metals, which generate noise, vibrations or offensive particulants to the air. This could impact businesses and people who will be conducting business within the site in the future. The applicant should consider a subdivision of larger industrial lots that; are more conducive to medium manufacturing and industrial development. They will provide for a better compatibility to the heavy industrial users. 2. Due to the size of the lots, the proposed subdivision may not provide for an integrated development or maximize the land potential, therefore, a master plan pRELIMINARY REVIEW 93-05 Page 2 should be developed. At a minimum, a master plan shall address harmonious site plan relationship and the potential for shared access and reciprocal parking by illustrating conceptual building pad locations, circulation and parking lot configuration and conceptual grading and drainage. 3. The lot configuration for proposed Lots 9, 10, 14, and 15 is too residential looking, which is not conducive to industrial development. Lots 9 and 10 as well as Lots 14 and 15 should be combined. II. Engineering Division: 1. Show existing utilit~ poles on the "Detailed Site Plan". Also, refer to the attached "Existing Overhead Utility Requi-rements" handout and provide a separate drawing per Section B of the handout. 2- Line Of sight designs shall be provided for all project intersections, including major driveways, on the grading and landscaping plans in accordance with the attached policy. 3. Provide a Site Utilization Map which includes all existing streets and driveways, to scale, within 600 feet of the project boundaries. Since Juneberry Drive has been vacated, it can be shown simply as a driveway. 4. Proposed driveway locations shall be plotted on the Tentative Parcel Map in conformance with the attached "Driveway Policy." Since proposed frontages are less than the minimum 150-fcot driveway spacing, shared drive approaches, preferably centered onproperty-lines, will be required for several lots. Driveways shall align across the'street or be offset 150 feet- 5. Be sure the information shown on adjacent properties is accurate. Our topographic maps indicate the building to the east is 140 feet east of the property line and the existing driveways on the north (50 feet wide) and south " "! (90 feet wide) sides of Arrow Route are offset abut 55 feet at their centerlines- CITY OF RANCHO CUCA/VIONGA -- STAFF REPORT DATE: January 24, 1996 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Dan Coleman, Principal Planner SUBJECT: USE DETERMINATION 96-01 - A request to determine if apartments are a permitted or conditionally permitted use in the Medium Residential zone of the Victoria Community Plan. ABSTRACT: The purpose of this report is fo__r the Planning Commission to consider the applicanrs request in interpreting the provisions of the Victoria Community Plan regarding apartments. BACKGROUND: Staff has received a request from Mark-Taylor, Inc. for a determination that apartments, which are not listed as a permitted use, shall be deemed a permitted use within the Medium Residential zone of the Victoria Community Plan (see applicanrs letter in Exhibit "A"). The applicant has met with staff to discuss their conceptual plans to develop stacked apartments on a site located within the Victoria Lakes village. The site is one of many throughout the community which were rezoned by the City Council in 1991. The property in question was rezoned from Medium High Residential to Medium Residential. However, as with any Use Determination, the decision of the Planning Commission affects more than just the applicanrs site. There are nine vacant sites zoned Medium Residential in Victoria (see Exhibit "D"). The issue is one of interpreting use and is not a consideration of whether the applicant's proposed project has merit. ANALYSIS: A. Medium Residential Uses: The Victoria Community Plan offers the following description of the Medium Residential zone: "Land designated as Medium Density Residential is intended for residential development that ranges from 8 to 14 dwelling units per adjusted gross acre. The following regulations are applicable for these areas: '-' a. Uses Permitted: detached or attached residential dwellings not exceeding fourteen dwellings per adjusted gross acre, including, but not limited to: 1. Single family dwellings - attached or detached. including, but not limited to townhouses, triplexes, fourplexes, and condominiums. 2. Cluster housing. 3. Community facilities, page 241 ." PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT USE DETERMINATION 95-01 JanuaW 24,1996 Page 2 In its conspicuous omission of any reference to apartments in the Medium Residential zone, the Victoria Community Plan differs from the rest of the Rancho Cucamonga's plans. All the other community plans and specific plans and the Development Code specifically list apartments or multiple family dwellings as a permitted use within the Medium Residential Zone, B. Context: To gain a better understanding of this omission, it is important to review the context in the Victoria Community Plan. A look at the two zones which bracket the Medium Residential zone offers a better understanding of the context. The Low Medium zone permits "single family detached dwellings" and "single family attached dwellings, including, but not limited to, duplexes and triplexes." The Medium High zone permits "multiple-family dwellings, including, but not limited to, apartment projects, condominium projects, and cooperative apartment projects." Contrast these with those uses permitted by the Medium Residential zone: "single family dwellings - attached or detached, including, but not limited to, townhouses, triplexes, fourplexes, a~ condominiums." This comparison reveals several important points. First, the term "apartment" is used for the first time under the description of permitted use in the Medium High Residential zone. Second. there is a clear distinction made between "single family" and "multiple-family" dwellings which cannot be ignored in interpreting the meaning. Third, the operative phrase in the use listing under Medium Residential is "single family." Even in the loosest sense, "single family" cannot be interpreted to mean "multiple family." Lastly. the term "apartments" is conspicuously absent from the examples listed of "single family dwellings" under the Medium Residential zone. C. Consistency: For an interpretation to be valid, it must not contradict other provisions of the Plan that are not in question. The applicant states that apartments should be construed as permitted in the Medium residential zone because the Plan defines "attached dwelling unit" as, "Any dwelling unit that shares one or more walls with another. adjacent dwelling unit." If we apply that same interpretation to the Low Medium zone, then we would have to also allow multiple-family dwelling units there as well because it references "attached dwellings." Clearly, this contradicts the intent of the Low Medium zone to permit only single family dwellings. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission initiate a text amendment to the Victoria Community Plan to allow apartments in the Medium Residential zone to be consistent with the City's General Plan and to promote consistency with the other regulatory documents in the City. Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Applicant's Letter Exhibit "B" - LM, M, and MH Use Regulations from Victoria Community Plan Exhibit "C" - Miscellaneous Definitions from Victoria Community Plan Exhibit "D" - Victoria Land Use Plan TL'E 11:08 FAX 602 991 9138 )lARK-TAYLOR INC. MARK-TAYLOR INC. January 16, 1996 RECEIVED VIA FAUSIMIBS (909) 477-2847 JAN 16 1998 Mr. Brad Buller CityotRanCho 0u~am0nga City Planner Planning D~IS~ The City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive- P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 RE: Elleta Property, Baseline Road West of Victoria Parkway, Victoria Planned Community Dear Brad: I am writing this letter in the hope that I can clear up s:ome confusion that arose in our meeting last Wednesday in your offices. As you will recall, during the meeting, Dan Coleman raised the issue of whether or not apartments were a permitted use under the ~M" Medium Density Residential land use designation that applies to the above referenced Property. He further suggested that an amendment to the planned community text might be in order to approve our proposed apartment development. Given that you had personally assured me over two months ago the.t apartments were indeed a permitted use under the ~M" land use designation, I was more than a little taken back by Dan's comment. I have therefore revisited the Victoria Community Plan text in order to assure myself that apartments are indeed a permitted use under the "M" Medium Density Residential designation and to hopefully get your departments concurrence on the subject prior to our preliminary submittal and presentation to the Planning Commission. I therefore respectfully pres.ent the ,. '-' following excerpts from the Victoria Community Plan text for your review and consideration: Medium Density Residential (~M" Land Use Plan designation): Land designated as Medium Density Residential is intended for residential development that ranges from 8 to 14 dwelling units per adjusted gross acre. The following regulations are applicable for these areas: a. Uses Permitted: detached or attached residelntlal ,~.~ 11:o9 FA~ 602 991 9138 ~iARK-TAYLOR INC. Mr. Brad Buller, City planner City of Rancho Cucamonga January 16, 1996 Page 2 per adjusted gross acre, including, but not limited to: (1) Single family dwellings... (2) Cluster housing- (3) Community Facilities." The planned community text further defines Attached Dwelling Unit as "Any dwelling unit that shares one ore more walls with another, adjacent dwelling unit." Dwelling Unit is further defined as "A single residential unit providing complete, independent living faci~ties for one family, including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating and cooking-" The proposed apartment project meets the definitional requirements the permitted uses under the "M" designation as ,,attached residential dwellings". Although the word apartments is not specifically listed, these listings are intended as example uses and are not intended to limit residential uses meeting the definitional requirements of the permitted uses. For example, fourplexes, townhomes and condominiums are listed as "Sin~Ile family dwellings" under item 4.a.(1) above, yet the community .text defines these as Multiple Family Uses. If these multiple family uses are allowed, it would appear singularly biased at best to deny apartments which are also defined as a multi--familY use within the same community text. To further support my position that apartments are indeed a permitted use under the "M" land use designation, I refer you to the DEVELOPMENT AppROVAL PROCESS procedure set forth on page ~51 of the Victoria Community plan text. The text specifical]-Y states that all developments in the Victoria planned Community must be submitted to the Community Development Department of the City for approval. The City Council on November 20, 1991 adooted Ordinance No. 465 which amended Title 17 of the Rancho Cucamohga Municipal Code regarding various development standards and design guidelines for multi-familY residential districts. This · ordinance provides specific development standards for multi- · "' family (apartment) dwellings within City wide zoning districts, including the "M" land use designation- As all projects developed within the Victoria Community must comply with ~:aid ordinance', and since said ordinance was adopted following public hearing and debate, it is obviously the expressed intention of the City that multi-familY developments are permitted within City wide "M" land use designations. Brad, I would hope that, following your review of the informatic provided in this letter, the planning Department would agree th~ the planed community text does in fact both allow for and .~:g 11:10 FAX 602 991 9138 )lARK-TAYLOR INC. Mr. Brad Buller, City Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga January 16, 1996 Page 3 anticipate apartment uses within the "M" land use designation. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has set a very high level of standards for apartment developments that we must measure up to. It would seem that requiring the applicant to request a change in the language of the text as part of the site development permit process would be both unjustified and extreme. Please call me at (602) 991-9111 to discuss this letter at your earliest convenience. A. Lamparter Acquisitions Specialist VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN EXCERPT Residential Development Standards 3. Low-Mediu~ Density Residential ('~LM" Land Use Plan designation): Land designated as L~w-~'~dium Density Residential is intended for residential development thac has a range of four to eight ~ellings per adjusted gross acre. lie following regulations are applicable to these areas: a. Uses Permitted: detached or attached residential dwellings not exceeding eight dwellings per adjusted gross acre, including, but not limited to: (1) Single fmzily~tached dwellings, (2) Single family attacherd dwellings, including, but not limited duplexes and triplexes, (3) Cluster Housing, (4) "Zero lot linen homes, (5) Community Facilities as specified on page 241, Land designated as Medlurn Density Residential Is intended for rtsidcntial 2. Cluster housing. . 3. C__ommuraW factUnes. pagt 24~ __, 5. Medium High Density R~sldentm] [" MH" Land Use Plan Designation ): I~nd des hated as Medium H~h Densi R~stdentlal housing Is intended for · '-' residentla~ development that ranges ~rom 14 to 24 dwelling units per · adjusted gross acre. The fo~lo~ng regulatlorzs am applicable for these areas: a Use Permitted: 1. Multiple-family dwellings . Including. but not limited to . apartment projects. condomlnlum projects, and cooperative apartment projects. 3. Cornn3umty/acl]JUes. page 241 VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN EXCERPT Appendix A - Definitions Attached Dwel!inc Unit: Any dwelling unit that shares cne or more wa!!£ with another, adjacent dUe!ling unit. Cluster Housing: More definition of "Single Lot Subdivision": An area d~ve!oped by combining or arranging attached or detached dwelling units and their accessory structures on contiguous or related residential lots of record where the yards and open s~aces are ccmbined into more desirable arrangements of common areas which are not part of the individual lot of record. Single lot subdivisions shall also include statutcry condominiums. Designation of single !9~ subdivision shall be shown on the tentative tract map. Condomini~m: As defined in the State Subdivision Map Act, see Section 1350 of the Civil Code. Ccn~om~i~ ~roject: A parcel of real property divided, or to De clv~e~, ~nto condominions, including all structures theron. Detached Dwe!!in~ Unit: A dwelling unit not attached to any other dwelling units, including, but not limited to, Patio homes and Zero-lot-line homes. MUltio!e Fami!v Use: The use of a site for two or more cweiilng unlns, which may be in the same building or in separate buildings on the same site. Tcwnhouse: Two or more dwelling units arranged in'a row, 'connected by common side walls, and usually having two or more stories. C-'/( tI IT BASELINE ~V/~c-~,NT' t~6pluN4 I~-f~l~kkF1A-L- ....... HIGHLAND v~ ~ ~ LM ~ =tr,~ok~,l, CE~r~ VC Village Commercial COMMUNITY PLAN · Victoria hPax~C~r_anx~ Amended By Oral. 470-479 F339 REVISED DATE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAIVIONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: January 24, 1996 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Miki Bratt, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: COMMERCIAL LAND STUDY DISCUSSION ABSTRACT: The next step in the City's Commercial Land Use study is to develop realistic Long Term Goals and Policies, Short and Mid-Term Strategies, and Near Term Actions. A. Lonq Term Goals and Policies: The following actions are proposed: Amend General Plan Goals and Policies on Commercial Development Amend zoning codes to comply with revised General Plan · Establish an absorption strategy to maximize development of our commercial land base While there is consensus in supporting retail development to capture sales tax dollars, there are differences about where, when, and to what intensity. Also, while the market study stated that there is ample commercial land in the City, there continues to be pressure to add retail uses on property not currently zoned for those retail uses. If the Planning Commission and the City Council ultimately agree with the findings of the market study, the most difficult remaining long term questions are where and how to reduce the amount of existing commercially zoned property to achieve the land use and fiscal balance suggested by the study. In light of the above, amending the General Plan is expected to occur over the longest time period. However, where there is consensus and as opportunities arise, goals and policies may be incorporated into the General Plan, either as part of land use actions or as part of the next overall General Plan update. B. Short and Mid-Term Strateqies: ·Continue to facilitate development and redevelopment of existing commercial zoned property · Look at ways to "make it happen" while maintaining the City's standards PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT COMMERCIAL LAND STUDY DISCUSSION January 24, 1996 Page 2 The City Council and the Planning Commission have continued in their actions over the last three years to address this very important issue of commercial land development. Both the City Council and the Planning Commission know the fiscal and service needs of the community and have worked to make changes that will be best for the development of our City. Adoption of the General Dynamics Specific Plan and land use changes along Foothill Boulevard within Terra Vista and on the Masi site, as well as the actions to streamline the development review process and the preparation of the Commercial market study, demonstrate the City's interest in this topic. Staff is convinced that with the suppod of the City Council and Planning Commission and the involvement of the community over the next several months, strategies will be refined and implemented. One such strategy Would be to make-minor revisions to subarea texts within the Industrial Area Specific Plan to add compatible retail uses along with conditions which would ensure future compatibility with adjoining industrial uses. C. Near Term Actions: Staff has completed a preliminary analysis for a number of site-specific policies and decisions which are pending, including the following (see attached Vicinity Map): 1. Fourth Street Noah of the Ontario Mills Project 2. Fourth Street and Archibald 3. South Side of Foothill - Haven to Rochester 4. Addition of Automobile Sales to Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 8 5. Southern California Edison Corridor/Surplus Land - Rezone 6. 1-15 and Foothill Boulevard Node 7. 1-15 and SR 30 Interchange area D. Preliminary Analysis of Site-specific Policies/Actions: Following is a preliminary analysis of the above mentioned specific sites. · ' ' "' 1. Fourth Street Noah of the Ontario Mills Proiect For Industrial Area Specific Plan (ISP) Subarea 12, staff concurs with market study finding in suppod of adding retail uses as soon as possible. Existing permitted and conditionally permitted uses include restaurant, automobile sales, and hotel. Staff supports ISP text change rather than General PlanliSP District Amendments. One possibility would be to add a new ISP Use Category, "Master Planned Commercial Development," with specific guidelines requiring compatibility with surrounding industrial uses. Intended major tenants for Subarea 12 would be Big Box and Outlet/Off Price retailers. Development would be conditioned upon adequate access and buffering from surrounding industrial. Industrial truck circulation and potential automobile conflicts will need to be addressed to ensure~__~,~tibility. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT COMMERCIAL LAND STUDY DISCUSSION January 24, 1996 Page 3 2. Fourth Street and Archibald In conjunction with the Griffin Homes residential application, this area is being considered for Neighborhood Commercial. Staff concurs with the market study finding that Neighborhood Commercial retail is directly related to an adequate number of surrounding residential units. Therefore, a Neighborhood Commercial land use at this location must be a considered in conjunction with the proposed residential development. 3. South Side of Foothill - Haven to Rochester Wohl Investment is requesting a Planning Commission workshop to resolve design issues and to go forward with their "Good Guys" development. (See attached letter to the Commission, dated January 8, 1996). The market study identifies the vacant land on the south side of Foothill as "reserve" Commercial. During both the City Council and Planning Commission reviews of the market study, concerns were expressed with unlimited retail development on the south side of Foothill Boulevard. One concern was the potential for a chain reaction of zone change applications leading to stdp development, a condition which would be in conflict with the General Plan. The retail issue could be approached through an ISP text change similar to the one suggested for 4th Street requiring a "Master Planned Commercial Center" specifying certain conditions for development including compatibility with surrounding uses, as well as adequate access, circulation, and buffering. The Masi project provides a precedent, as well as experience with potential pitfalls. A Development Agreement could address other issues. For example, deal points could require a guarantee of sales tax revenue and could require construction of all major elements as the first phase, nc ud ng specified signed anchor tenants, for a proposed "Master Planned Commercial Center." The Development Agreement could serve in lieu of a General Plan Amendment. Precedent for a Development Agreement on the site was set by a Development Agreement which resulted in construction of only the hotel element. Further, approval of the Development Agreement could be tied to project development approvals which would fit with Wohl's expressed time constraints. · -.. Additional guidelines for Subarea 7 could emphasize that the focus of commercial development on the south side of Foothill is business park/office development. 4. Addition of Automobile Sales and Leasinq to Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 8 Plies Investments is requesting an ISP text change for Subarea 8 which would permit automobile sales on freeway adjacent sites. Issues include availability of undeveloped freeway adjacent sites which permit automotive sales in more appropriate locations, compatibility with surrounding land uses, access, and signs. Affected properties include developed and vacant parcels. Further discussion of the Plies' request may be found in the staff report on this Planning Commission Agenda. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT COMMERCIAL LAND STUDY DISCUSSION January 24, 1996 Page 4 5, Southern California Edison Corridor/Surplus Land - Rezone SCE representatives have met with staff to discuss rezoning of their surplus utility corridor. The 300 foot wide corridor extends generally from the southerly City limit through the industrial area on an alignment adjacent to an extension of the future Day Creek Boulevard, continues through the Etiwanda area into County unincorporated area, and turns east approximately one half mile north of Wilson/24th Street. Staff supports rezoning consistent with surrounding land uses. Relatively minor issues must be resolved, including the potential for remainder parcels adjacent to developed residential areas, areas where there is a choice between two adjacent land uses, and constraints posed by the alignment of Day Creek Boulevard. An Environmental Impact Report may be required forthe corridor north of the Industrial Area. Further, processing in the County for land use change in the City's Sphere-of-Influence will be necessary. SCE has stated that they intend to phase the land use change applications, with the industrial area applications being first. No applications have been filed as of this date. There appear to be no issues to be resolved for land use change through the industrial area. A large scale SCE Corridor study map has been prepared and is available for viewing in the Planning Department. It will also be posted at the meeting. 6. 1-15 and Foothill Boulevard Node This node is currently zoned for commercial development. The City Council, Redevelopment Agency, Planning Commission, market study, and staff are fully supportive of commercial development of this node. · The southeast quadrant is developed with the Foothill Marketplace in conformance with "Regional Commercial" standards under the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. · The northeast quadrant, within the Victoria Specific Plan, is reserved for the Victoria Mall. According to the Redevelopment Agency, the Hahn Company is current on their agreement with the Agency. The market study suggests regional entertainment uses be considered in concert with the mall. · "' · The southwest quadrant is zoned "Regional Related Commercial" in the Victoria Specific Plan and is vacant with no activity. · The northeast quadrant adjacent to the freeway is zoned "Regional Commercial" and the adjoining parcel "Community Commercial" under the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. Moore Development proposes to consolidate these with several residential parcels to develop a large regional commercial center mirroring Foothill Marketplace. Incorporating the residential parcels requires amendment of the General Plan, Foothill Specific Plan, and Etiwanda Specific Plan (ESP). PLANNiNG COMMISSION STAFF REPORT COMMERCIAL LAND STUDY DISCUSSION January 24, 1996 Page 5 7. 1-15 and SR 30 Interchanqe area The market study identifies this area as having potential for commercial development. White it will be a highly visible area there will be no direct access. Only two quadrants are in the City, the noahwest and southwest. The noahwest quadrant is zoned open space in the ESP and is developed with flood control facilities. The southwest quadrant is zoned Low Residential in the ESP . The viability of additional commercial use for this area will take further study. A key to this study will be the final design for SR-30. The potential for dommercial nodes at off ramps appears limited. The three nearest planned or existing off ramps are as follows: · For the I-15 noah of SR-30;-the nearest off ramps are at Highland/Cherry Avenue. A large parcel located adjacent to the 1-15 and bounded on the noah by Wilson/Summit and on the south by the Highland/Cherry and 1-15 off ramp is currently zoned for "General Commercial" in the ESP It is vacant. No development plans are pending. If automobile franchises are generally available noah of Baseline, it appears to be ideal for development of an automotive dealer center, with exceptional Freeway visibility and access. · For the I-15 south of SR-30, the nearest freeway off ramps are for Baseline Road at East Avenue. Two small parcels are zoned for commercial use in the ESP . Other parcels are zoned "Low Medium" and "Medium" residential and are vacant. If there are opportunities for automobile dealerships noah of Baseline Road, a site might be suitable at this node; however there appear to be circulation access constraints to the freeway adjacent parcels. Further, changes to this area must be analyzed within the context of the ESP ESP policies protect the rural character of Etiwanda and discourage intense development. Review of the aforementioned ESP policies should be required as pad of a consideration of intensification of land use. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission initiate discussion regarding this matter. This topic has also been placed on the agenda for February 14, 1996. Respectf submitt , er BB:MB:gs Attachments: Vicinity Map Letter from Wohl dated January 8, 1996 VICINITY MAP i_1 ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: I ==================================== iii:~i:~:~:~: '::~.~ \ ~ , .... \ - 4)3 ,.[' , CITY HALL L Fou~h Street North ofihc Om~io ~iils Project 2. Fourth Street ~d ~chib~ld 3, South Side of Foothili- Haven to ~ochcstcr 4. Addition of Automobile Sales [S~ Sub~ca ~ CITY OF ~. SCE Su~lus L~d - Rczonc 6. 1-15 ~d Foothill Boulev~d Node 7. ~-~5 ~ s~ 3o t.t~ ~. RANCHO CUCAMONGA January 8, 1996 Mr. David Barker, Chairman. Planning Commission (Via Fax: 909/989-6028) Mr. Brad Bailer, City Planner (Via Fax: 909/987-6-a99) City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Dr. Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 RE: Proposed General Plan An~endment for the property located South of Foothill Boulevard between Spruce and Elm Gentlemen: Although it is clear from the joint City Council\Planning Commission meeting held in December regarding the land use survey prepared by Mr. Agaganian that there are still questions and concerns about the recommendations therein. the discussion of this issue over the past two months has brought several uncontested points to light. including the following: 1. It is an undisputed conclusion that Foothill Boulevard. east of Haven is the primarv retail corridor within the City and is best suited for future retail development; 2. The existln~ relalI core. which started with Tetra Vista Tov.'n Center and has successfully expanded east to the Promenade. is thriving and continues to attract regionally oriented retailers to the City; 3. Based on projected population growth and other positive aspects within Rancho Cueamonga and the sub-region. lhere will be continued demand for substantial acreage to accommodate future retail development; 4. It has been emphasized over and over again that building "critical mass" or the grouping of retailers both competitive and complementary is a positive farlot for tim City and is crucial in the decision making process for retailcr:~ seeking new locations; 5. Retail development contributes the most income to the City compared to any other type of development at a very low cost to service. Because of potemial cuts in current income sources and · ., file constantly growing demand &>r city services. Rancho Cucamonga elmnot afford to miss any viable · · opportunities to increase its tax base; and 6. Area property owners as well as Mr. Agaganian have emphasized the fact that competition between cities for regional relailers is fierce and thal Rancho Cucarnonga needs to act swlftlv and a~ressive]v to anract the remaining candidates. Every major retailer which Rancho Cucamonga loses means not only the lost sales tax revenue from that store but also the lost draw to the Foothill corridor (i.e. ever)' tenant locating in an adjacent city will pull customers away from Rancho Cucamonga). WOHL INVESTMENT COMPANY 2402 Michelson. Suite 170, Irvine. California 92715 · (714) 955-0115 · FAX: (714) 755-3971 Based on these facts, the City needs to determine wi~at it can and should do to assure that it attracts as much retail development to its primary retail corridor as the surrounding trade area can support. Currently, the only viable "product" the City has to attract community and regional retailers to its primary retail corridor is the land on the north side of Foothill Boulevard owned by Lewis Homes. Also available is Masi Project on the south side of the street. However, this project has been delayed for several years and orients itself more to the sports complex than to the existing tetail core at Terra Vista. Tenants looking to locate in this market are therefore forced to deal with Lewis Homes or to look at alternative locations outside of the City. Maintaining this monopoly of retail acreage on the Foothill corridor east of Haven is definitely not in the best interest of the City. Of course. Lewis Homes has made it clear in its letter presented to the council at the joint meeting that they do not want any competition. However. Ivlr. Agaganian's conclusions regarding the positive impact of critical mass and the proven concept of Iocatin~ new retail across the street from existing centers (as he is proposinE~ on zlth St.) indicate that a retail development on our site would be extremely beneficial to the City in the long run by attracting more shoppers to the area and giving more choices to the community. The planning staff has suggested that the C'i~'y should wait until the north side of Foothill BIrd. is completely built out before retail development on the south side is even considered. Although this may sound like a good idea, stifling competition in the market is not the best long term interest of the City. Yes, adding retail acreage to the market may slightly delay the full lease-up of the Lewis projects, but over the next three to five years and beyond the City will get more tenants than it otherwise would have attracted and all tenants will do better because of the added critical mass created by the expanded development. We are not proposing that the entire South side of Foothill Boulevard be rezoned. Rather. the City should proceed as it has on the north side of the street by starting at the point nearest the existing critical mass and moving east from there if demand justifies further rezoning. As you know, we currently have a firm commitment from "the good guys!" to build a 20,000-25,000 sq. ft. store on our site. We also have proposals from other prospective retail tenants interested in our site. I have attached a letter from "the good guys!" which basically states that the city will have to act "swiflly and aggressively" to keep them from moving to Ontario. Based on the quick turnaround which the City was able to accomplish to attract "Best Buy" on the Lewis site, I am confident that their objectives can be met should the City make the decision that this tenant will be a positive addition to the existing critical mass. Because of the time constraints we are working with, I would like to proceed on the following basis: First, we would like to immediately schedule a workshop with the planning commission to discuss site layout. As you suggested, this can be done irrespective of the proposed uses but can address issues · · "' such as elevations. circulation, parking and layout of buildings. Second, it is our intention to immediately resubmit our application for a General Plan Amendment. Although we would prefer to wait until we have arrived at an acceptable solution with the staff and Planning Commission. we are willing to risk the cost of the application fee in the hopes that we can come to agreement on a mutually acceptable plan while the application process is ongoing. Working with staff and Planning Commission at the same time as our application is being processed is the only way that we can come close to meeting the time frame set forth by "the good guys!". Finally, we would like to submit a request to have our GPA application considered on one of the two available "floating" dates for hearing such general plan amendments. I understand that the next scheduled submittal deadline is on/Vlarch 15 with hearings in May or June· As you can imagine, like "the good guys!", most of the tenants which are currently interested in our property need to know the availability of our site as soon as possible or they may locate elsewhere. Based on the new information that has been presented recently, we are asking the Planning Commission to consider our proposed GPA for the following reasons: 1. It expands the existing "erltieal mass" of retailers on the Foothill corridor; 2. It allows healthy competition amongst lando,.vners in the City's retail core, therefore providing more opportunities for retailers looking to locate in this market; 3. It is compatible with the existing General Plan which already permits certain kinds of retail development on our site; 4. It ,.viII provide a significant source of?~venues for the City as the project is built out (for example, "the good guys!" alone is projecting sales of approximately $20 million which translates into sales tax revenues to the Cit3, of approximately $200,000); aad 5. It will be designed in a way that ,.viII be complementary to all neighbors and ,.viII be an asset for the City. I would like opportunity to meet with you this week to discuss these ideas further and Will call you set up an appointment. Thank you for your consideration and I look forward to working with both staff and the Commission to arrive at a mutually 'acceptable solution for this site. Sincerely. x,~/~ RTNERS ~eter ~esforges ~ ., encl. cc: Mr. Melcher ... Mr. Tolstoy · · Mr. McNiel Mr. Lumpp Mr. Curatalo Mr. Biane Mr. Alexander Ms. Willjams Mr, Gutierrez December 29, 1995 Mr. Peter DesForges Wohl Rancho Partners 2402 Michelson, Suite 170 Irvine, CA 92715 RE: SEC Foothill and Spruce Avenue Rancho Cucamonga -~ Dear Peter, As a follow up to my November 15 letter, I want to reiterate the key role that expedient processing plays in our decision to proceed. As we discussed last week, interest in this location hinges on our ability to commit soon to a late 1996 grand opening. What this means is that unless we have all discretionary City approvals behind us by February in order to make our plan preparation and construction schedule, we will proceed with our alternative site in Ontario. I am hoping for the City's full cooperation to make this project happen quickly as X understand was done across the street. Thank you for your cooperation. Yours truly, Brad Kaye Real Estate Manager BK./md CokOOS.doc) Co~porale Oilices - 7000 Marina Btvd. C_~131nG)94005-1830 · (415) 615-5000 CITY OF 'RANCHO CUC,~&,IONGA MEI%'IORANDU I DATE: January 24, 1996 TO: airman and Members of the Planning Commission FR rad Bullet, City Planner nner Staff met with the landscape contractor in the field yesterday to discuss and plan for the additional berming and landscaping that staff has requested to screen the drive~thru lane and parking areas. It was agreed that the project frontage along Carnelian Street would be treated with an undulating, 3-foot high berm in the tuff area between the sidewalk and parking and circulation area. In addition, the existing planters adjacent to the parking stalls and drive-thru lane will have an upgraded shrub hedge of 15-gallon size Ligustrum planted at 3 feet on center. After the berming is completed, the entire site will be hydroseeded again. As for the Baseline Road frontage. it was determined that new randomly placed planter areas will be introduced in the existing lawn area. These planters will be separated from the tuff areas by concrete mow strips and include dense plantings of 15-gallon evergreen shrubs and seasonal interest plantings such as Agapanthus and annual color. The placement and number will be determined so as to have the most impact on screening the drive-thru lane to a greater extent. Although the project monument sign has yet to be moved, the new footings have been dug. The new location for the sign will be approximately 18 feet back from the sign's current location. In addition, the sign will be lowered in height and a shrub hedge will be planted around the base of the sign. BB:SH:gs CITY OF Rf~qCHO CUCz~'IONGA ME ,IORANDUB,I DATE: January 22, 1996 TO::)~i~airman ind Members of the Planning Commission FRO Brad Buller City Planner BY: eve Hay s, Associate Planner SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-11 - TERRA VISTA PROMENADE This memorandum serves as update regarding the construction of the above-referenced project, namely the Home Depot. Staff is prepared to issue a foundation only permit for the Home Depot. To date, permits have been issued for grading, the removal of the trees, and the site work for Phase One on-site improvements. The intent is to keep the project moving forward. The following items are in for processing now and should be completed before the issuance of the complete building permit for the Home Depot: 1. Uniform Siqn ProCram - This condition specified that a Uniform Sign Program shall be submitted for review and approval of the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of building permits. Staff has received the draft copy of the Uniform Sign Program and will be scheduling the item for the Februa~ 20, 1996, Design Review Committee meeting. 2. Desiqn Guidelines - This package was to be prepared for review and approval of the Design Review Committee prior to the issuance of building permits. Staff received these guidelines and will also be scheduling this item for the February 20 Design Review Committee meeting. 3. Phase One Activity Center - This condition called for the design of the art piece to be provided with Phase One development of the Activity Center. An element that helps exhibit the historic citrus industry in the City was specifically requested to be incorporated into the Phase One design of the Activity Center by the Planning Commission. This element of the design was required by condition to be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits. Staff has received a letter from the landscape architect explaining how they plan to incorporate these elements into the water feature, which has already been designed and conceptually approved, and into the design of the art piece. The art piece will undergo design in the near future and be required to be installed within 180 days of occupancy of the Home Depot. Staff will continue to keep the Planning Commission updated on this project. If you have any questions or comments regarding this item, please feel free to contact Steve Hayes or me. BB:SH:gs