HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999/03/23 - Agenda Packet - AdjournedCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
TUESDAY MARCH 23, 1999 7:00 PM
Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center
Council Chamber
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California
I. CALL TO ORDER
Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call
Chairman McNiel __ Vice Chairman Macias __
Com. Mannerino __ Com. Stewart _ Com. Tolstoy _
I1. ANNOUNCEMENTS
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
August 12, 1998, Adjourned
January 27, 1999, Adjourned
February 10, 1999, Adjourned
February 24, 1999, Adjourned
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
The following Consent Calendar items as expected to be routine and non-
controversial. They will be acted on by the Commission at one time without
discussion. If anyone has concern over any item, it should be removed for
discussion.
A. TIME EXTENSION FOR THE DESIGN REVIEW OF VESTING
TRACT 15766 - MARK TAYLOR INC - A request for an extension of
a previously approved subdivision map, including design review, for
the development of 264 apartments on 22.2 acres of land in the
Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) zone in the Victoria
Planned Community, located on the north side of Base Line Road,
approximately 800 feet west of Victoria Park Lane. APN: 227-091-14,
15, and 227-111-12 and 13. Staff has prepared a mitigated Negative
Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
The following items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice
their opinion of the related project. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman
and address the Commission by stating your name and address. All such opinions
shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. Please sign in after
speaking.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT 98-32 CARDLOCK FUELS SYSTEM - The development of
an unattended commercial fueling station consisting of a 3,210 square
foot canopy and a 218 square foot utility building on 1.2 acres of land
in the General Industrial District (Subarea 13) of the Industrial Area
Specific Plan, located on the east side of Charles Smith Avenue, north
of San Marino Street - APN: 229-321-01. Related file: Preliminary
Review 98-10. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of
environmental impacts for consideration.
C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15914
-ZOMMORODIAN - A request to subdivide 11 acres of land into 9
single family lots in the Very Low Residential Distdct (up to 2 dwelling
units per acre), located north of Hillside Road, between Archibald and
HermosaAvenues-APN: 1074-071-20. Relatedfiie: Tree Removal
Permit 98-26. Staff has prepared a mitigated Negative Declaration of
environmental impacts for consideration.
D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
98-02, AND VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 98-01 -
AMERICAN BEAUTY DEVELOPMENT CO. - A public hearing for a
proposed project to be known as the Victoda Arbors Village on 291.8
acres of land in the Victoria Planned Community, generally bounded
by Base Line Road, future Victoria Park Lane, future Church Street,
future Day Creek Boulevard, and Foothill Boulevard and Day Creek
Channel - APN: 227-201-04, 13 through 18, 22, 28 through 30, and 36;
222-201-33; 227-161-33, 35, 36, and 38; 227-171-11,12, and 14.
Related file: Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 98-01. This action
will be forwarded to the City Council for final action and the date of the
Public Hearing before the City Council will be separately noticed.
(A) Land Use changes for the following areas:
Subarea 1 - from Low -Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units
per acre) to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) for
approximately 21.13 acres of land for the area generally located
south of Base Line Road, East of the future Victoria Park Lane;
and the consideration of retaining the Low-Medium Residential
designation.
Page 2
Subarea 2a - from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per
acre), Low-Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) and,
Community Facility to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units
per acre) for approximately 13.69 acres of land, generally located
at the south side of Base Line Road, east and west of the winery;
and consideration of alternative land use designations of
Community Facilities and Community Services.
Subarea 2b - from Medium-Residential (8-14 dwelling units per
acre), Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre), and
Park to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for
approximately 51.38 acres of land, generally located east of
future Day Creek Boulevard and 600 feet south of Base Line
Road.
Subarea 3 - from Medium -High Residential (14-24 dwelling units
per acre) and Regional Related Office/Commercial to Low-
Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for approximately
13.76 acres of land generally located north of future Church
Street, west of future Victoria Loop Street; and consideration of
alternative land use designations of Medium Residential (8-14
dwelling units per acre) and Medium-High Residential (14-24
dwelling units per acre)
Subarea 4- from Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units
per acre). Regional Related Office/Commercial, and Parkto Low-
Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for approximately
39.45 acres of land, generally located at the north side of future
Church Street and east of future Day Creek Boulevard; and
consideration of alternative land use designations of Medium
Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) and Medium-High
Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre).
Subarea 5 ~ from Regional Related Office/Commercial to Low-
Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre), Medium-High
Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) and High Residential
(24-30 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 53 acres of land,
generally located at the west side of future Day Creek Boulevard,
north and south of future Church Street; and consideration of
retaining the Regional Related Office/Commercial designation.
Subarea 6 - Re-align the boundaries of the Victoria Community
Plan to include approximately 26 acres of land from the Etiwanda
Specific Plan, generally located on the north side of Church Street
and the west side of Etiwanda Avenue; and a request to change
the land use designation from Office to Low-Medium Residential
(4-8 dwelling units per acre); and consideration of alternative land
use designations of a mix of Office and Low-Medium Residential
Page 3
(4-8 dwelling units per acre); and the consideration by the City of
retaining the area in the Etiwanda Specific Plan with an Office
designation or a mix of Office and Low-Medium Residential (4-8
dwelIing units per acre).
(B) Amend the Circulation and Park and Recreation Elements of the
General Plan
(C) Amend various graphics and text for Victoda Community Plan
(D) The consideration by the City of alternative sites for Park and
School within the project area of the Victoria Community Plan.
(E) Modify the permitted and conditionally permitted uses and various
development and design standards for Regional Related
Office/Commercial, Regional Center, and Community Facilities of
the Victoria Community Plan
E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
98-02, AND ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 98-01 -
AMERICAN BEAUTY DEVELOPMENT CO. - A request to ra-aiign the
boundaries of the Etiwanda Specific Plan by re-designating
appreximately 26 acres of land, generally located at the north side of
Church Street and the west side of Etiwanda Avenue to the Victoda
Community Plan; and consideration by the City of retaining the area in
the Etiwanda Specific Plan and retaining the land use designation of
Office; and consideration of alternative land use designations of a mix
of Office and Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) -
APN: 227-171-11,12, and 14. Related file: Victoda Community Plan
Amendment 98-01. This action will be forwarded to the City Council for
final action and the date of the Public Headng before the City Council
will be separately noticed.
VI. NEW BUSINESS
F. ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENTAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-
05 - QUIKSET - A request to review a master plan of development for
a concrete and plastic products manufacturer for a total of 161,400
square feet of office and manufacturing buildings on a 40-acre site
within the Heavy Industrial District (Subarea 15) of the Industrial Area
Specific Plan, located at 12167 Arrow Route - APN: 229-121-15.
(Continued from March 10, 1999) WITHDRAWN
G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT/DESIGN
REVIEW 98-32 - HERITAGE HOSPITAL - A request to construct an
approximately 56,896 square foot (120 beds) one-story Skilled Nursing
Facility on approximately 3.95 acres of land and to revise the Rancon
Master Plan (totaling 33.14 acres of land) located in the Industrial Park
Page 4
District (Subarea 7) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. The property
is located east of Eucalyptus Street on the South Side of White Oak
Avenue - APN: 208-352-24. Related file: Design Review 90-20 and Lot
Line Adjustment 439. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of
environmental impacts for consideration. (Note: This item was
inadvertently advertised as a public hearing item)
H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-
04 - SILVERADO GROUP ~ A request to build a 3-story, 34,860 square
foot hotel as part of a master planned development with three other
retail buildings on 5 acres of land in Subarea 7 (industrial Park) of the
Industrial Area Specific Plan located on the south side of Foothill
Boulevard between Aspen and Spruce Streets - APN: 208-352-82.
Related File: Parcel Map 15282. Staff has prepared a Negative
Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration.
VII. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS
I. APPEAL OF A SIGN PERMIT NO. 98-30 - FLORES - An appeal of the
City Planner's decision regarding a wall price sign for Vineyard Shell, a
service station and mini-market in the Community CommercialDistrict
(Subarea 2) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the
southwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN:
208-192-06. (Continued from March 10, 1999)
J. APPEAL OF INCOMPLETENESS FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
98-12 - PASTOR GLORIA HAYWOOD -An appeal of the City Planner's
denial of a Conditional Use Permit due to a determination of
incompleteness for an application to establish a church within 3200
square feet of leased space in a multi-tenant industrial center located
in Subarea 3 (General Industrial) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan at
9330 Seventh Street, Suite "G" -APN: 209-171-57.
VIII. PUBLIC COMMENTS
This is the time and place for the general public to address the Commission. Items
to be discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an
11:00 p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only
with the consent of the Commission.
Page 5
I, Lois Schrader Secretary for the Planning Division of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby ce~ify that a true, accurate copy of the
foregoing agenda was posted on March 18, 1999, at least 72 hours prior to the
meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive,
Rancho Cucamonga. ~,~J~__
Page 6
VICINITY MAP
[J '":=-~ .....~ ---' ......... .....................:.:.:.:.:..: ................. ..........,:.:.:...., ~.
CITY HALL
CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA --
STAFF REPORT
DATE: March 23, 1999
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Bullet, City Planner
BY: Dan Coleman, Principal Planner
SUBJECT; TIME EXTENSION FOR THE DESIGN REVIEW OF VESTING TRACT 15766 -
MARK TAYLOR INC - A request for an extension of a previously approved
subdivision map, including design review, for the development of 264 apartments on
22.2 acres of land in the Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) zone in
the Victoria Planned Community, located on the north side of Base Line Road,
approximately 800 feet west of Victoria Park Lane. APN: 227-091-14, 15, and 227-
111-12 and 13.
BACKGROUND: On March 5, 1997, the City Council approved Vesting Tentative Tract 15766 and
on April 23, 1997, the Planning Commission approved a revised design review application for the
application. Since then, the developer diligently pursued plan check and the final map was recorded
on December 29, 1998.
ANALYSIS: Staff has compared the project to current City standards and determined that the
design meets all City requirements. There have been no changes in the City's development
standards for multiple family housing since the design review was approved in April 1997.
The project was originally approved in 1997 for two years with the possibility of 3 one-year time
extensions for a possible approval period totaling five years. The City Council amended the time
extension provisions for design review applications on January 7, 1999, to allow for a five-year
approval period with no extensions. Therefore, this project is now eligible for a three-year time
extension under the new amended provision.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: On March 5, 1997, the City Council adopted Resolution
No. 97-29, which included a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts. A Mitigated
Negative Declaration means that changes made in the project design or agreed to by the developer
would avoid the potentially significant effects on the environment or mitigate the effects to the point
where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur. The circumstances have not
changed with respect to the property; hence, no further environmental review is necessary.
ITEM A
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
'VI ~ 15766 - MARK TAYLOR, INC.
March 23, 1999
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends granting a time extension for a three-year period through
adoption of the attached Resolution.
Respectfully submitted,
City Planner
BB:DC:mlg
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map
Exhibit "B" - Detailed Site Plan
Exhibit "C" - Conceptual Landscape Plan
Exhibit "D" - Site Amenities
Exhibit"E" - Elevations
Exhibit "F" - Applic. ant's Letter
Resolution of Approval
PLANT PALE'rI'E
~ =.'.~.._~_'~. ~.--'---
~~ ~ .: ..... r ....... ~.-
il - .........
Mark ~
~'~ L~.C,,.,~.~.~..,,
~'~ .... ~ 15766 ~,~ ~r
: ~ ~ CONCEPTUAL
LANDSCAPE
PLAN
POOL FACILITY TYPICAL BLDG. CLUSTER
NO. 15766 n,~,t~ rn~cr
SITE
PRIMARY GATED ENTRY TYPICAL TOT LOT AMENITY
ENLARGEMENTS
SIDE ELEVATION
Exterior Elevations-81d8 2~ ,'i~8 ~o..
FRONT & REAR ELEVATION ,-,,0, .... J .~
m~..~..~ 9508
~.~: ~ . ,.-o- ~._..~ ~'& -.
. Exterior Elevallonl - BidE 2B Lo~ No.
SIDE ELEVATION ,~-,~ ~ ..
..... ~ ~Ti'-o' ~ 9508
Exterior Elevations - Bid8 2A . Lo~ No.
REAR ELEVATION KEY PLAN
· LEFT SIDE ELEVATION i
FRONT ELEVATION "~
Exercise Buildin8 Elevations !,~'~8 No.
RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION
sc~z~ ~ o r-~r 9508
Exercise Building Elevations LoS No..
"~ , RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION KEY PLAN
· REAR ELEVATION
· ~'~' ,..., ;'.~':e-
FRONT ELEVATION
~ '"~ Reception Building Elevations
. [o$ ~o.
DESIGN GROU~
LEFT SIDE ELEVATION ~.n~, ~,.~y~
Reception 8uilding [levation~ ~-' '
950~
ENTRANCE PORTE COCHERE ~'"'_. ,~
~ ~,-,'-r Porte Cochere Elevations . Lol~ No..
D~IGN GROUP
FRONT ELEVATION - 8 BAY
__REAR E~VATION -" BAY GARAGE
SIDE
E~EVATION
8 Bay Garage Elevation & Carport .'~B
FRO~T ~ R~R ~LE~TI~ - 6 B~Y
nnmnnm
SlOE ~LEVATION (typ)
9508
~ E6
12 gay Garage Elevation Lo~ No.
CABANA - RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION
CABANA - LEFT SIDE ELEVATION CABANA - REAR ELEVATION
Cabana, Ramada, Fence Elevations lo~ No.
Charles Jose h Associates
PUBIJCJPRIVATE SECTOR MANAGEMENT SERVICES
RECEIVED
February 1, 1999
Brad 8ulier, City Planner
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P. O. Box 807 City of Rancho C.ucamonga
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729-0807 Ptanning Division
RE.' Mark Taylor San Carmela Project - Tract 15766
NWC Base Line Road/San Carmela Court, Rancho Cucamonga
Request for Twelve-Month Design Review Approval Extension (97-21)
Dear Brad:
This is as a follow-up to our prior and recent discussions conceming the referenced
matter. As I indicated to you, Mark Taylor has a new financial partner who is currently
involved with performing their preliminary due diligence as to the current status of project
entitlements. This activ'~ includes 'value engineering' that I indicated was for the
purpose of ensudng they are very clear on the financial commitments that are involved
with the approved project.
As you are well aware, two significa:lt approvals were granted to the San Carmela
Apartments in 1997:
Approval of Vesting Tract Map 15766 by the City Council (Resolution 97-29) on March 5,
1997. This approval was preserved by the December 16, 1998, approval of the Final
Map by the City Council and subsequent recordation of this map by Mark Taylor.
The Planning Commission approved the Design Review for Vesting Tract Map 15766 on
Apd123, 1997 (Resolution 97-21). This approval will be preserved when building permits
are issued or the approved use has commenced by Apd122, 1999. An extension of the
Design Review approval can be extended at the discretion of the Planning Commission
if the request for extension has been made pdor to February 20, 1999.'
Thank you for your anticipated assistance with our roquest for extension. Should you
have any questions or need of additional information, please feel free to contact roe at
your eadiest opportunity.
Sincerely,
Chades J. Buquet
Charles Joseph Associates
Cc: Michael Coghlin, Mark Taylor
~~r~ Ot'~:¢909-481.1822 800.240~,,822 F~909-4SI~,1824
t'"
City Center * 10681 Foothill Blvd., Suite 395 · Rancho Cucamonga, C.A · 91730 .
A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST
FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGN
REVIEW FOR VESTING TRACT NO. 15766 FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF 264 APARTMENTS ON 22.2 ACRES OF LAND IN
THE MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER
ACRE), LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF BASE LINE ROAD,
APPROXIMATELY 800 FEET WEST OF VICTORIA PARK LANE, AND
MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 227-091-14, 15,
and 227-111-12 and 13.
A. Recitals.
1. Charles Joseph Associates has filed an application on behalf of the developer, Mark
Taylor, inc., for the extension of the approval of the Design Review for Vesting Tract Map
No. 15766, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject
time extension request is referred to as "the application."
2. On March 5, 1997, the City Council adopted its Resolution No. 97-29, thereby approving
Vesting Tentative Tract 15766 and adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
3. On April 23, 1997, this Commission adopted its Resolution No. 97-21, thereby approving
the application subject to specific ~:onditions and time limits.
4. On December 29, 1998, the final map was recorded.
5. On the 23rd day of March 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a meeting on the application and concluded said meeting on that date.
6. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced meeting on March 23, 1999, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission
hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The previously approved Design Review is in substantial compliance with the City's
current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans, codes and policies; and
b. The extension of the Design Review approval will not cause significant
inconsistencies with the current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans, codes and policies;
and
c. The extension of the Design Review approval is not likely to cause public health
and safety problems; and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TE FOR ¥ ~ ~ 15766 - MARK TAYLOR, INC.
March 23, 1999
Page 2
d. The extension is within the time limits established by State law and local
ordinance.
3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this
Commission hereby grants a time extension for:
Desiqn Review Applicant Expiration
VTT 15766 Mark Taylor Inc. April 23, 2002
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1,2, and 3 above, this
Commission hereby modifies the conditions of approval contained in Resolution No. 97-21 and the
Standard Conditions, attached thereto and incorporated herein by this reference, to read as follows:
Planninq Division
1) The applicant shall agree to defend, at his sole expense, any action
brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees, because
of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish
such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents,
officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which
the City, its agents, officers, or employees, may be required by a court
to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion,
participate, at its own expense, in the defense of any such action but
such participation shall not relieve the applicant of his obligations
under this condition.
5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23RD DAY OF MARCH 1999.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Larry T. McNiel, 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 23rd day of March 1999, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: (~/.~ 0
CITY OF RANCFIO CUCAMONGA --
STAFF REPORT
DATE: March 23, 1999
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Rudy Zeledon, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-32-
CARDLOCK FUELS SYSTEMS - The development of an unattended commercial
fueling station consisting of a 3,210 square foot canopy and a 218 square foot utility
building on 1.2 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 13) of the
Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the east side of Charles Smith Avenue,
north of San Marino Street - APN: 229-321-01. Related file: Preliminary Review
98-10.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoninq:
North - Vacant:GenerallndustrialDistrictofthelndustrialAreaSpecificPlan(Subarea13)
South- Vacant:GenerallndustrialDistrictofthelndustrialAreaSpecificPlan(Subarea13)
East I-15 Freeway
West Industrial warehouses: General Industrial District of the Industrial Area Specific Plan
(Subarea 13)
B. General Plan Desiqnations:
Project Site - General Industrial
North - General Industrial
South - General Industrial
East - General Industrial
West - General Industrial
C. Site Characteristics: The site is a vacant parcel. The 1.2 acre site was previously used for
the cultivation of grapes. The site is bordered by the 1-15 Freeway on the east and located
within the potential Delhi-Sands Flower Loving Fly habitat, The project site grade is
essentially level with freeway grade.
iTEM B
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 98-32 - CARDLOCK FUELS SYSTEMS
March 23, 1999
Page 2
D. Parkinq Calculations:
Number of Number of
Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces
of Use Footaqe Ratio Required Provided
Gas Station Canopy 3,210 3 Spaces 3 6
plus 2 for
each service bay
ANALYSIS:
A. General: The project is proposed as an unattended commercial fueling facility. Commercial
clients will purchase gasoline or diesel fuel through an electric card reading system. The
project will consist of a 3,210 square foot canopy, four fueling islands, and a 261 square foot
utility building/trash enclosure. The fueling station will be open 24 hours a day and will be
monitored by remote video surveillance.
The architectural scheme of the project will be compatible with the surrounding industrial
area. The canopy features a roof line with a vertical variation in the center and decorative
treatment, such as a recessed element along the center fascia and cornice detail to enhance
the canopy's face and edges. A combination of berming (3 feet above curb grade), dense
landscaping and a 6-foot high split face wall around the perimeter of the site, will screen the
majority of the pump islands and vehicular activities from areas in public view.
B. Land Use Compatibility: An unattended fueling facility qualifies as "automotive service
station," in Subarea 13, of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. In Subarea 13 of the Industrial
Area Specific Plan, service stations are a conditionally permitted use. The parcels to the north
and south of the site are undeveloped. To the west are industrial buildings and to the east the
site is bordered by the 1-15 freeway. The location of the fueling facility is not likely to interfere
with adjoining properties and the activities associated with the subject facility should not create
any conflicts with neighboring businesses. The proposed facility is intended to provide fuel
for large trucks, which frequent the surrounding warehouse distribution uses.
C. Desiqn Review Committee: The Design Review Committee (McNiel, Stewart and Henderson)
reviewed the proposed project on February 16, 1999, and recommended approval with
conditions (Exhibit "G").
D. Technical Review Committee: The Technical and Grading Committees reviewed the project
and recommended approval with conditions contained in the attached Resolution of Approval.
The project is in compliance with all applicable City Standards and Design policies.
E. Environmental Assessment: Part I of the Initial Study has been prepared by the applicant and
staff has completed Part II of the Environmental Checklist. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
has identified the project area soil type as Tujunga-Delhi Sands Soils, which is a type of soil
that is associated with a federally listed endangered species: the Delhi Sands Flower- Loving
Fly (DSF). As a result, a biological habitat assessment to determine potential impacts to DSF
was prepared by a biologist permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Results of the
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 98-32 - CARDLOCK FUELS SYSTEMS
March 23, 1999
Page 3
focused surveys indicated that no DSF were observed on the project site. In addition, based
on the habitat evaluation of the site's existing environmental conditions, the project site has
Iow potential to support DSF. No other potentially significant environmental impacts have
been identified as a result of this project.
^ project review meeting was held on March 2, 1999, to discuss potential impact to
biological resources and possible mitigation measures. Both the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and the County of San Bernardino were notified of the meeting, but did not attend. In
addition, staff did not receive any written comments from either agency. No other
potentially environmental impacts were identified at this meeting. If the Planning
Commission concurs, then issuance of a Negative Declaration would be in order.
CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily
Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within
a 300-foot radius of the project site.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit 98-32 through the
adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with Conditions and issuance of a Negative
Declaration.
Respectfully submitted,
Brad Buller
City Planner
BB:RZ:mlg
Attachments: Exhibit"A" - Site Plan
Exhibit "B" - Conceptual Grading Plan
Exhibit "C" - Landscape Plan
Exhibit "D" - Elevations
Exhibit "E" - Utility Building/Trash Enclosure
Exhibit"F" - Sign Program
Exhibit "G" - Design Review Committee Comments dated February 16, 1999
Exhibit "H" - Initial Study Part II
Resolution of Approval with Conditions
N
·
·
VICINITY MAP
~,.'T~:[~-''~' ....
N
PLANT LEGEND
NOTE: TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA IS 10,247 SOFT.
TOTAL ON-SITE AREA IS g,239 SOFT.
~NDSCAPE NOTES CARDLOCK
FUELS~ ~u,
FRONT ELEVATION ~'-o'
,
~ ® ~
~ ~--- i i~/'''-''~''I'~' _
N
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:40 p.m. Rudy Zeledon February 16, 1999
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-32 - CARDLOCK FUELS
SYSTEM - The development of an unattended commercial fueling station consisting of a 3,210 square
foot canopy and a 218 square foot utility building on 1.2 acres of land in the General Industrial District
(Subarea 13) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the east side of Charles Smith Avenue,
north of San Marino Street - APN: 229-321-01. Related file: Preliminary Review 98-10.
Desiqn Parameters: The proposed fueling facility is located on a vacant parcel that was previously
used for the cultivation of grapes. The parcels to the north and south of the site are undeveloped. To
the west are industrial buildings and to the east, the site is bordered by the 1-15 Freeway. The site is
located within the potential Delhi-Sands Flower-Loving Fly habitat. The project site grade is essentially
level with freeway grade.
Project Description: The project is proposed as an unattended commercial fueling facility. Commercial
clients will purchase gasoline or diesel fuel through an electric card reading system. The project will
consist of one 30-foot by 106-foot, 11-inch canopy, four fueling islands, a 218 square foot utility
building/trash enclosure, on- and off-site landscaping, street improvements with two approaches, curb
and gutter, and ancillary improvements.
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. Planning Commission Resolution No. 89-158 requires that proposed buildings in the industrial
area be designed with two primary building materials. However, it is staff's opinion that the
uniqueness of the project warrants the use one primary building material. The Committee may
wish to discuss this matter further,
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues.
1. Provide decorative paving, outside the public the public right-of-way, at driveway entrances.
2. Provide decorative perimeter wall ( i.e., slump stone, split-face, stucco).
3. Eliminate the wall inset On the southeast portion of property line which creates a "no-mans land"
property maintenance problem. Instead continue the wall along to the south property line; move
the utility building back, adjacent to east property line; and increase the height of utility building so
that the proposed wall sign will project above the 6-foot wall.
4. Extend berms the full length of the frontage between the drive approaches and pump islands for
screening.
5. Increase density of tree planting along north, south, and east property lines to screen from the I-15
Freeway. The opposite side of the freeway is characterized by Alder trees.
"6" lb
City of Rancho Cucamonga
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
INITIAL STUDY PART II
BACKGROUND
1. Project File: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-32
2. Related Files: PRELIMINARY REVIEW 98-10
3. Description of Project: The development of an unattended commercial fueling station
consisting of a 3,210 square foot canopy and a 261 square foot utility building on 1.2 acres
of land in the General Industrial District ( Subarea 13) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan,
located on the east side of Charles Smith Avenue, north of San Marino Street-
APN: 229-321-01.
4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Cardlock Fuel Systems, Inc.
1825 W. Collins Ave.,
Orange, CA 92887
5. General Plan Designation: General Industrial
6, Zoning: General Industrial District ( Subarea 13) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan
7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The site is a vacant parcel, that was previously used
for the cultivation of grapes. The parcels to the north and south of the site are undeveloped.
To the west are warehouses and to the east the site is bordered by the 1-15 Freeway.
8. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
9. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Rudy Zeledon, Assistant Planner
(909) 477-2750
10. Other agencies whose approval Is required:
. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Conditional Use Permit 98-32 Page ?
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless
Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages.
( ) Land Use and Planning (X) Transportation/Circulation ( ) Public Services
( ) Population and Housing (X) Biological Resources ( ) Utilities & Service Systems
(X) Geological Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources (X) Aesthetics
(X) Water ( ) Hazards ( ) Cultural Resources
(X) Air Quality ( ) Noise ( ) Recreation
( ) Mandatory Findings of Signit'icance ...
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
(X) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
( ) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described
on an attached sheet have been added to the project, or agreed to, by the applicant. A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
( ) I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
( ) I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based upon
the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant
Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but must analyze only the effects that
remain to be addressed.
( ) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects
1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2)
have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation
meas. j~-t~t are imposed upon the proposed project.
Signed:/'~
,~udy~el~;Jon, Assistant Planner
January 25, 1999
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Conditional Use Permit 98-32 Page 3
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an explanation
is required for all "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation
Incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact" answers, including a discussion of ways to
mitigate the significant effects identified.
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposah
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over
the project? · ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would lhe proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly
or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Conditional Use Permit 98-32 Page 4
b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Seiche hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
0 Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( ) ( ) (X) ( )
g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
h) Expansive soils? ( ) ( ) (X) ( )
i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Comments:
f) The topography will be altered to accommodate the project. The design of the project
site and construction of the proposed grading shall follow the recommendations of the
soils engineer and shall comply with the current building standards and codes at the
time of construction. Grading of the site will be done under supervision of a licensed
Civil Engineer or Land Surveyor. The impact is not considered significant.
h) The General Plan indicates the Tujunga-Delhi soil association for the site which "may
have soil bearing capacities that could limit some development. Structures proposed
on this soil type should be permitted only after a site specific investigation has been
prepared that indicates that the soil can adequately support the weight of the structure."
A soils report will be required by the Building and Safety Division prior to the issuance
of building permits. The impact is not considered significant.
4. WATER. Willtheproposalresultin:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or
the rate and amount of surface water runoff? ( ) ( ) (X) ( )
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved
oxygen, or turbidity)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Conditional Use Permit 98-32 Page 5
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of
water movements? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
0 Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge ~
capability? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Comments:
a) The proposed project ~ill result in an increase in paved surface areas, which could
result in a decrease in absorption rates and an increase in the amount of surface water
runoff. All runoff will be conveyed to existing and proposed drainage facilities which
were designed to handle the subject water flows.
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal;
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) ( ) (X) ( )
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
cause any change in climate? ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ( ) (X)
Comments.'.
a) Air vapor emissions will result from the fueling operations for gasoline. Vapor emissions
from the site are regulated by the South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD). The applicant is required to comply with the SCAQMD emission standards
and to obtain the necessary permits to operate the facility. The impact is not considered
significant.
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Conditional Use Permit 98-32 Page 6
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) ( ) (X) ( )
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
uses? ) ( ) ( ) (x)
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Comments.'.
a) The project will generate additional vehicular movement (mainly truck traffic) in a
localized area. The City's General Plan and Industrial Area Specific Plan address the
short-term and long-term cumulative impacts of traffic upon these streets. Based upon
this information, the proposed project has no potential to alter the present pattern of
circulation. No mitigation is required.
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their
habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish,
insects, animals, and birds)? ( ) ( ) (X) ( )
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees,
eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e,g.,
eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc,)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Conditional Use Permit 98-32 Page 7
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal
pool)? ) ( ) ( ) (X)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Comments:
a) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service identifies the project area soil type as Tujunga-
Delhi Sands Soils which is a type a soil that is associated with the endangered Delhi
Sands flower-loving fly (DSF). As a result, a habitat assessment and biological survey
were required to determine potential impacts to the DSF. These surveys were
prepared by a biologist permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to conduct
surveys for the DSF. Results of the focused surveys (Tierra Madre Consultants, Inc.,
July 22, 1998) indicated that no DSF were observed on the project site. In addition,
based upon the habitat evaluation of the site's environmental conditions, the project
site has Iow potential to support DSF because: (1) there are soil disturbances due to
agricultural use, (2) DSF is only defined by the presence of Delhi sands deposits.
Based upon this information, the proposed development of the 1.2 acre site will not
likely result in the adverse effects to the DSF. No other unique, rare, or endangered
animal species are kn~)wn to be located on the project site.
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES, Would the
proposah
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the
region and the residents of the State? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? ( ) ( ) (X) ( )
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Conditional Use Permit 98-32 Page 8
b) Possible interference with an emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable
brush, grass, or trees? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Comments:
a) The project will be regulated and required to obtain permits from the AQMD and
DEHS. Operation of the facility must meet all State and Federal standards for air
emission and public safety. No mitigation is required.
10. NOISE. Will the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ) ( ) ( ) (X)
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an
effect upon or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Schools? ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) ( ) (X)
e) Other governmental services? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Conditional Use Permit 98-32 Page 9
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Communication systems? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? ( ) .-. ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
e) Storm water drainage? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
0 Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposah
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Create light or glare? ( ) ( ) (X) ( )
Comments:
c) New light and glare will be created on the property with development of the vacant
site. A condition of approval requiring an on-site lighting plan, including a photometric
diagram of the entire property, will be required for review and approval by the Planning
Division and Rancho Cucamonga Sheriff's's Department, prior to the issuance of
building permits. The plan will be checked to ensure that it meets City polices relative
to avoiding the casting of excessive light and glare onto adjacent propedies.
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Conditional Use Permit 98-32 Page 10
b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( ( ) ( ) (X)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? ( ( ) ( ) (X)
15. RECREATION. Would the proposaL'
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have the
potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare
or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California histo,",/or prehistory? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Short term: Does the project have the potential to
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-
term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact
on the environment is one which occurs in a
relatively brief, definitive period of time. Long-term
impacts will endure well into the future.)
( ) ( ) ( ) (x)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Conditional Use Permit 98-32 Page 11
c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that
are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the
effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future
projects.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have
environmental effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
EARLIER ANALYSES
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process,
one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per
Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in the followin~ eadier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and
such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The following
earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the City
of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices. 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply):
(X) General Plan EIR
(Certified April 6, 1981)
(X)Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update
(SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989)
(X) IndustrialArea Specific Plan EIR
(Certified September 19, 1981)
APPLICANT CERTIFICATION
I certify that I am the applicant for the project described in this Initial Study. I acknowledge that I
have read this Initial Study and the proposed mitigation measures. Further, I have revised the
project plans or proposals and/or hereby agree to the proposed mitigation measures to avoid the
effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant environmental effects would
occur.
Signature: Date:
Print Name and Title:
City of Rancho Cucamonga
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The following Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act Section 21091 and 21092 of the Public Resources Code.
Project File No.: Conditional Use Permit 98-32 Public Review Period Closes: March 23, 1999
Project Name: Project Applicant: Cardlock Fuel Systems, Inc.
Project Location (also see attached map): Located on the east side of Charles Smith Avenue, north of
San Marino Street - APN: 229-321-01.
Project Description: The development of an unattended commercial fueling station consisting ora 3,210
square foot canopy and a 218 square foot utility building on 1.2 acres of land in the General Industrial
District (Subarea 13) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. Related file: Preliminary Review 98-10.
FINDING
This Is to advise that the City of Raocho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has conducted an
Initial Study to determine If the project may have a significant effect on the environment and Is
proposing this Negative Declaration based upon the following finding:
The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a
significant effect on the environment.
[] The Initial Sludy identified potentially significant effects bu[:
(1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this
proposed Negative Declaration was released for public review would avoid the effects or
mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and
(2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project as revised may have a
significant effect on the environment.
If adopted, the Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will not be
required. Reasons to support this finding are Included In the attached Initial Study. The project
file and all related documents are available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning
Division at 10500 Civic Center Drive (909) 477-2750 or Fax (909) 477-2847.
NOTICE
The public Is Invited to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration during the review period.
Date of Determination Adopted By
Cardlock Fuels System Inc.
CUP 98-32
~ ; 1~ '_/ ' - ....... ,
'% ":'
"" __i "parcels
~ ....... ~--? Strut
Centlines
0.4 0 0.4 ~les
RESOLUTION NO.
a RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 98-32 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN UNA'I=I'ENDED
COMMERCIAL FUELING STATION CONSISTING OF A 3,210 SQUARE
FOOT CANOPY AND A 218 SQUARE FOOT UTILITY BUILDING ON
1.2 ACRES OF LAND IN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT
(SUBAREA 13) OF THE INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE
EAST SIDE OF CHARLES SMITH AVENUE, NORTH OF SAN MARINO
STREET, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 229-
321-01.
A. Recitals.
1. Cardlock Fuels System, Inc., has filed an application for the issuance of Conditional Use
Permit No. 98-32, 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 23rd day of March 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing
on that date.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing on March 23, 1999, including written and oral staff reports, together with
public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to property located on the east side of Charles Smith
Street, north of San Marino Street with a street frontage of 264 feet and lot depth of 164.09 feet and
which is presently not developed and lacks curb, gutter, and sidewalk,
b. The property to the north of the subject site is within the General Industrial District
Subarea 13, of the Industrial Area Specific Plan and is currently vacant, the property to the south
is within the General Industrial District Subarea 13, of the Industrial Area Specific Plan and is
vacant, the property to the east is the 1-15 freeway and the property to the west is within the
General Industrial District Subarea 13, of the Industrial Area Specific Plan and is developed with
industrial warehouses; and
c. The project is consistent with Industrial Area Specific Plan objectives in that it
provides convenient refueling for commercial vehicles serving the industrial area and help diversify
the economic base for the City; and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 98-32 - CARDLOCK FUELS SYSTEM
March 23, 1999
Page 2
d. The project proposes intensified landscape treatment along the street frontage and
site perimeter, which screen the pump islands and vehicular activities from areas public view; and
e. The project architecture is designed to be compatible to the surrounding industrial
uses and will provide positive enhancement when viewed from the 1-15 Freeway.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2
above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. 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 properties 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 reports included for the environmental assessment for the
application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will
have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration based upon the
findings as follows:
a. 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; said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the
independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and
considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the application.
b. 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 California Code of Regulations.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above,
this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth
below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference:
Planninq Division
1) Signs shall be conveniently posted on-site for "no overnight parking,"
which shall be enforced by applicant.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 98-32 - CARDLOCK FUELS SYSTEM
March 23, 1999
Page 3
2) The 6-foot perimeter walls along the north and south property lines,
shall be setback a minimum of 25 feet from Charles Smith Avenue
(measured from ultimate face of curb).
3) Lights under the canopy shall be recessed and shall not project below
the canopy.
4) Graffiti shall be removed within 72 hours.
5) Entire site shall be kept free of trash and debris at all times and in no
event shall trash and debris remain for more than 24 hours.
6) Station shall not be open to the general public.
En,qineerinq Division
1) The property owner is currently processing a one lot subdivision and
Tentative Parcel Map No. 15207. This Conditional Use Permit 98-32
is proposed for Parcel 1 of said Tentative Parcel Map. The Tentative
Parcel Map shall continue to be processed concurrently with this
Conditional Use Permit and the map shall be recorded, prior to
issuance of a building permit,
2) A signed consent and waiver to join and/or form the appropriate
landscape and lighting districts shall be filed with the City Engineer,
prior to the issuance of building permits.
3) Public right-of-way street and parkway improvements (including street
widening, drive approaches, sidewalk, street lights and parkway trees)
shall be fully improved and constructed per City Standards and to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer:
a) Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under
sidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards No, 107-B.
b) Revise City Engineer's Drawing No. 1256 or provide new Street
Improvement Plans, prepared by a registered Civil Engineer for
the required frontage improvements.
c) Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Attorney guaranteeing
completion of the street improvements, prior to the issuance of
building permits,
d) Prior to any work being performed in the street right-of-way, fees
shall be paid and a construction permit obtained from the office
of the City Engineer.
e) Raise the elevation of the sites northeast corner as required for
on-site flows to surface drain in a westerly direction onto Charles
Smith Avenue.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 98-32 - CARDLOCK FUELS SYSTEM
March 23, 1999
Page 4
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23RD DAY OF MARCH 1999.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Larry T, McNiel, Chairman
ATTEST:
Brad Buller, Secretary
I, Brad Bullet, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby
certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the
Planning Commission of the City .of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission held on the 23rd day of March 1999, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
STANDARD CONDITIONS
PROJECT #: Conditional Use Permit 98-32
SUBJECT: Unattended Commemial Fuelin9 Station
APPLICANT: Cardlock Fuels System, Inc.
LOCATION: East side of Charles Smith Avenue~ north of San Marino Street
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLAN NING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH TH E FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS:
General Requirements Completion Date
1. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its
agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative,
to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or
employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or
employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole
discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation
shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition.
2. The developer shall commence, participate in, and consummate or cause to be commenced,
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 Distdct 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 recordation
of the final map occurs.
3. A copy of the signed Resolution of Approval or City Planner's letter of approval, and all Standard
Conditions, shall be included in legible form on the grading plans, building and construction
plans, and landscape and irrigation plans submitted for plan check.
B. Time Limits
1. Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, if building permits are not
issued or approved use has not commenced within 24 months from the date of approval.
sc - ~l~ ~,ss 1
Project NO. CT~P 98-32
Completion Dlte
C. Site Development
1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include
site plans, architectural elevations, extedor materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and
grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained heroin, Development Code
regulations, and the Industrial Area Specific Plan.
2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions
of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
3. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and
State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be
submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Firo Protection District and the Building and Safety Division
to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy.
4. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be
submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits.
5. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for
consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment,
building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved
use has commenced, whichever comes first.
6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code,
all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the
time of building permit issuance.
7. A detailed on-site lighting plan, including a photometric diagram, shall be reviewed and approved
by the City Planner and Police Department (477-2800) prior to the issuance of building permits.
Such plan shall indicate style, illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to
adversely affect adjacent properties.
8. Trash roceptacle(s) aro required and shall meet City standards. The final design, locations, and
the number of trash receptacles shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the
issuance of building permits.
9. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be
located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete
or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner, For single
family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults.
10.All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner,
including proper illumination.
11. All landscaping shall be permanently maintained by property owner,
D. Building Design
1. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or
projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and
streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be amhitecturally integrated
with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Details shall be
included in building plans.
SC - 111~ 2
Project NO. CU~ 98-32
Completion Date
2. For commercial and industrial projects, paint roll-up doors and service doors to match main
building colors.
E. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans)
1. All parking spaces shall be 9 feet wide by 18 feet long. When a side of any parking space abuts
a building, wall, support column, or other obstruction, the space shall be a minimum of 11 feet
wide.
2. All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet and shall
contain a 12-inch walk adjacent to the parking stall (including curb).
3.All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances,
and exits shall be striped per City standards.
4. Plans for any secudty gates shall be submitted for the City Planner, City Engineer, and Rancho
Cucamonga Fire Protection District review and approval prior to issuance of building permits.
For residential development, private gated entrances shall provide adequate turn-around space
in front of the gate and a separate visitor lane with call box to avoid cars stacking into the public
right-of-way.
F. Landscaping
1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping
in the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and
submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior
final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision.
2. A minimum of 20% of trees planted within industrial projects, and a minimum of 30% within
commercial and office projects, shall be specimen size trees - 24-inch box or larger.
3. Within parking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-gallon tree for every three parking
staIIs, sufficient to shade 50% of the parking area at solar noon on August 21.
4. 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.
5. All private slopes of 5 feet or more in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater 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.
6. All private slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater
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 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.
Pto~ect No. CUP 98-32
Completion Date
7. The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included / /
in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to Cty Panner review and approval and
coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the
Engineering Division.
8. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on the
perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer.
9. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the /.__/
design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division.
10. Tr~e 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.
11. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of /
Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code.
12. On projects which abut the 1-15 Freeway, the developer shall provide landscaping within the /
freeway right-of-way along the boundary of this project or pay an in-lieu of construction cash
deposit. The landscape and irrigation plans shall be prepared in conformance with Caltrans and
City Standards through the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Plans shall be reviewed and approved
by the City Planner and City Engineer. Landscape and irrigation shall be installed prior to the
release of occupancy of the project. If final approvals and/or installation is not complete at that
time, the City will accept a cash deposit for future landscaping of the Caltrans right-of-way.
G. Signs
1. The signs indicated on the submitted plans are conceptual only and not a part of this approval.
Any signs proposed for this development shall comply with the Sign Ordinance and shall require
separate application and approval by the Planning Division prior to installation of any signs.
H. Other Agencies
1. The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location /
of mail boxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for
mail boxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mail boxes and the design of the
overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of
building permits.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
I. Site Development
1. Plans shall be submitted for plan check and approved prior to construction. All plans shall be
marked with the project file number (i.e., CUP 98-01). The applicant shall comply with the latest
adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National
Electric Code, Title 24 Accessibility requirements, 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.
Proje¢t No. CUP 98-32
Completion Date
2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new commercial or industrial development or addition
to an existing development, the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate.
Such fees may include, but are not limited to: Transportation Development Fee, Drainage Fee,
School Fees, Permit and Plan Checking Fees.
3.Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation and
prior to issuance of building permits.
4. Construction activity shall not occur between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. Monday
through Saturday, with no construction on Sunday.
J. New Structures
1. Roofing material shall be installed as for wind-resistant roof covering at wind velocity not less
than go mph.
K. Grading
1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City
Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in
substantial conformance with the approved grading plan.
2.A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to
perform such work.
:3. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits.
~PPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
L. 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.
Intedor street improvements shall include, but are not limited to, curb and gutter, AC pavement,
drive approaches, sidewalks, street lights, and street trees.
2. Improvement Plans and Construction:
a. Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights
on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil
Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be
posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City
Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior
to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first.
b. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a
construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any
other permits required.
c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and
interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Project NO. CUP 95-32
ComDleUon Date
d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction
project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and
interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside
of BCR, ECR, or any other locations approved by the City Engineer.
Notes:
(1)Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200
feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer.
(2) Conduit shall be 3-inch (at intersections) or 2-inch (along streets) galvanized steel
with pull rope or as specified.
e. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City
Standards or as directed by the City Engineer.
f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with
adequate detours during construction. Streetorlaneclosurepermitsarerequired. Acash
deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded
upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
g. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be
installed to City Standards, except for single family residential lots.
h. Street names shall be approved by the City Planner prior to submittal for first plan check.
3. Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in
accordance with the City's street tree program.
M. Public Maintenance Areas
1. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting
Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or issuance of building
permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer.
N. Utilities
1. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary.
2. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the
Cucamonga County Water District (CCVVD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the
Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bemardino. A letter of compliance from
the CCVVD is required pdor to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first.
Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 90 days prior to final map approval
in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential
projects.
O. General Requirements and Approvals
1. A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated operating costs for all
new street lights for the first six months of operation, prior to final map approval or prior to
building permit issuance if no map is involved.
Project NO. CUP 9g-32
Completion Date
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730, NCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
P. General Fire Protection Conditions
1. Mello Roos Community Facilities District requirements shall apply to this project.
2. Fire flow requirement shall be 3,000 gallons per minute.
X a. A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire
department personnel prior to water plan approval
X b. For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional fire flow test of the on-site
hydrants shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire
department personnel after construction and prior to occupancy.
3. Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided prior to water plan approval. Required hydrants,
if any, will be determined by the Fire District. Fire District standards require a 6-inch riser with
a 4-inch and a 2-1/2-inch outlet. Substandard hydrants shall be upgraded to meet this standard.
Contact the Fire Safety Division for specifications on approved brands and model numbers.
4. Prior to the issuance of building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be
submitted to the Fire District that an approved temporary water supply for fire protection is
available, pending completion of the required fire protection system.
5. Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District's fire lane standards, as noted:
× All roadways per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 22.
6. $132.00 Fire District fee(s), and a $1 per "plan page" microfilm fee will be due to the Rancho
Cucamonga Fire Protection District prior to Building and Safety permit issuance."
A Fire District fee in the amount of $132.00 shall be paid at the time of Water Plan submittal.
"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.
7. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1994 UBC, UFC,
UPC, UMC, NEC, and RCFD Standards 22 and 15.
Q. Special Permits
1. Special permits may be required, depending on intended use, as noted below:
X a. Flammable and combustible liquids (storage, handling, or use).
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
R. Security Lighting
1. All parking, common, and storage areas shall have minimum maintained 1-foot candle power.
These areas should be lighted from sunset to sunrise and on photo sensored cell.
2. All buildings shall have minimal secudty lighting to eliminate dark areas around the buildings, with
direct lighting to be provided by all entryways. Lighting shall be consistent around the entire
development.
3. Lighting in exterior areas shall be in vandal-resistant fixtures.
S, Secuflty Hardware
1. One-inch single cylinder dead bolts shall be installed on all entrance doors. If windows are within
40 inches of any locking device, tempered glass or a double cylinder dead bolt shall be used.
2. All garage or rolling doors shall have slide bolts or some type of secondary locking devices.
T. Building Numbering
1. Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime
visibility.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA --
STAFF REPORT
DATE: March 23, 1999
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Brent Le Count, AICP, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15914
ZOMMORODIAN - A request to subdivide 11acres of land into 9 single family lots
in the Very Low Residential District (up to 2 dwelling units per acre), located north
of Hillside Road, between Archibald and Hermosa Avenues - APN: 1074-071-20.
Related file: Tree Removal Permit 98-26.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Proiect Density: 0.8 dwelling units per acre.
B. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoninq:
North Vacant land; Very Low Residential (up to 2 dwelling units per acre)
South- Vacant land and the AIta Loma Basin #3 flood control facility; Very Low Residential
(up to 2 dwelling units per acre) and Flood Control
East ~ Vacant land and single family homes; Very Low Residential (up to 2 dwelling units
per acre)
West - Vacant land and single family homes; Very Low Residential (up to 2 dwelling units
per acre)
C. General Plan Desiqnations:
Project Site - Very Low Residential (up to 2 dwelling units per acre)
North - Very Low Residential (up to 2 dwelling units per acre)
South - Very Low Residential (up to 2 dwelling units per acre) and Flood Control
East Very Low Residential (up to 2 dwelling units per acre)
West - Very Low Residential (up to 2 dwelling units per acre)
D. Site Characteristics: The site is located between Tract 13316 to the north, a 123-1ot
subdivision for which single family home designs have been submitted but not determined
complete, and Alta Loma Basin #3 flood control facility to the south. There are existing single
family homes in the distance to the west, south, and east. The site has significant variation
in terrain with natural grades ranging from roughly 5 percent to in excess of 30 percent. The
site contains a number of Eucalyptus trees, some of which are proposed to be removed to
accommodate trails, corrals, and drainage improvements. The site is dependent upon access
through Tract 13316 which has yet to be developed.
ITEM C
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
TT 15914 - ZOMMORODIAN
March 23, 1999
Page 2
ANALYSIS:
A. General: The project is subject to the Hillside Development Standards of the Development
Code. This requires specialized home construction and grading techniques to minimize
adverse impacts of grading. Home sites are proposed to be "clustered' within the less steep
areas (12 percent) of the site. The only grading proposed with the application is the minimum
necessary to accommodate the streets, trails, and drainage improvements. No high, "mass
graded" type slopes are proposed. Once the subdivision is approved and recorded, individual
property owners would come in on a lot-by-lot basis with custom home applications.
B. Desiqn Review Committee: The Committee (McNiel, Stewart, Henderson) reviewed the
project on February 2, 1999, and recommended approval subject to staff's comments.
Please refer to the attached Design Review Committee Action Comments for further details.
C. Technical Review Committee: The Grading and Technical Review Committees have
reviewed the project and recommend approval subject to the conditions included in the
attached Resolution of Approval.
D. Trails Advisory Committee: The Trails Advisory Committee reviewed the project on March
10, 1999, and recommend approval.
E. Tree Removal Permit: The site contains several large Eucalyptus trees. The applicant has
applied for a Tree Removal Permit to allow for removal of the trees to accommodate trails,
corrals, and drainage improvements. The Tree Preservation Ordinance allows for tree
removal subject to replacement at a ratio of 1:1.
F. Environmental Assessment: Part I of the Initial Study was completed by the applicant and
staff completed Part II. In completing the Initial Study Part II, the Environmental Checklist,
staff identified potential environmental impacts related to biological, water runoff, heritage tree
removal, transportation, and fire hazards. The increased runoff from development
necessitates storm drain and flood control infrastructure to accommodate the flows. The site
contains several mature Eucalyptus trees which are subject to replacement and preservation
per the Tree Preservation Ordinance. Any trees that are removed must be mitigated with
replacement on a 1:1 ratio. The site is indicated as being a potential habitat for endangered
species; the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat and the California Gnatcatcher. Biological
surveys were completed and found that the site does not support adequate habitat for either.
The site is currently land locked, with no street frontage. It is planned to take access to
Archibald Avenue through Tract 13316 to the north. If it develops before the tract tothenorth
(Tract 13316), two means of access to Archibald Avenue must be constructed for the project.
Finally, the site is subject to Fire Prevention District Wildland Interface Zone requirements to
mitigate fire hazard potential. In all cases, the impacts are not considered significant with
mitigation. Staff recommends issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily
Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within
an expanded 600-foot radius of the project site.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
TI' 15914 - ZOMMORODIAN
March 23, 1999
Page 3
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Tentative Tract
15914 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with Conditions and issue a
Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Brad Buller
City Planner
BB:BLC/jfs
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Utilization Map
Exhibit "B" - Tentative Tract Map
Exhibit"C" - Grading Plan
Exhibit"D" - Site Sections
Exhibit "E" - 3-D Model, Existing Site
Exhibit "F" - 3-D Model, After Project
Exhibit "G" - Initial Study Part II
Exhibit "H" - Design Review Committee Comments dated February 2, 1999
Resolution of Approval with Conditions
-- TRACT 15914
9 LOTS
.... SCALE 1"=100'
1074-20-04
WOODRIDGE
SITE UTILIZATION MAP FOR 300'1600' RADIUS AREA
CRO$8-8ECTION8
TRACT NO '15914
~~~~? ,+/H~, , , ~+ :. ..............................
'o ' ......... HHH~HH~HHHHHH~ ..... ~'~,~
~ ............................................ H~+i~H~H~H~~ CITY DF EANCHD CUCAHDNG~
TRACT 15914 3DMODEL EXISTING
TRACT 15914
3D MODEL
City of Rancho Cucamonga
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
INITIAL STUDY PART II
BACKGROUND
1. Project File: Tentative Tract 15914
2. Related Files: Preliminary Review 98-03
3. Description of Project: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT
15914 - LANTEC ENGINEERING - A residential subdivision of 9 custom single family lots on
11 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre),
located north of Hillside Road between Archibald Avenue and Hermosa Avenue - APN:
1074-071-20.
4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Mohammad Zomorrodian
Lantec Engineering
5055 Avenida Encinas, Suite 230
Carlsbad. CA 92008
(700) 931-1000
5. General Plan Designation: Very Low Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre)
6. Zoning: Very Low Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre)
7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Vacant land and single family homes, approximately
84 acres to the north has been subdivided into 123 single family lots in the Very Low
Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) and there is a Development Review
application pending for grading and home construction.
8. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
9. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Blent Le Count
Associate Planner
(909) 477-2750
10. Other agencies whose approval is required:
EXHIBIT "g"
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 15914 Page 2
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless
Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages.
( ) Land Use and Planning (¢) Transportation/Circulation (v') Public Services
( ) Population and Housing (~) Biological Resources (¢) Utilities and Service Systems
(v') Geological Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources ( ) Aesthetics
(~') Water (~) Hazards ( ) Cultural Resources
( ) Air Quality (~/) Noise ( ) Recreation
( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
( ) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
(~/) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described
on an attached sheet have been added to the project, or agreed to, by the applicant. A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
( ) I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
( ) I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based upon
the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant
Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but must analyze only the effects that
remain to be addressed.
( ) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects
1 ) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2)
have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation
measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Signed:
Brent Le Count, AICP
Associate Planner
March 17, 1999
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 15914 Page 3
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an explanation
is required for all "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation
Incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact" answers, including a discussion of ways to
mitigate the significant effects identified.
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over
the project? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~/)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly
or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? ( ) ( ) ( )
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? ( ) (~) ( ) ( )
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 15914 Page 4
b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) (v') ( ) ( )
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) (v') ( ) ( )
d) Seiche hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~.)
e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~/)
f) Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( ) ( ) (v') ( )
g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v")
h) Expansive soils? ( ) ( ) (v') ( )
i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
Comments:
a, b, and c)
The Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zone of the Cucamonga Fault lies to the north of the
site. Also the site contains greater than 30% slopes and east facing slopes. The General
Plan indicates that both of these factors contribute to moderate to high slope failure
potential. A geologic investigation was conducted (GeoTek Inc. dated August 3, 1998)
to determine if geologic hazards were present that may affect development of the 'T-]'
13316 site to the north. The investigation concluded that there are no known conditions
on that site which are considered to be a significant constraint or cause unusual
concerns to development as proposed. However, as an added precautionary measure,
the report recommended a 100-foot setback from the fault zone. The subject site is
much further than 100 feet from the fault zone. The impact is not considered significant.
f) The project will cause changes in topography because the site is currently vacant, A
soils report will be required prior to issuance of a grading permit and grading will be
supervised by a licensed surveyor or civil engineer. The impact is not considered
significant.
h) The site is indicated to have "Tujunga-Delhi" soil type per the General Plan which states
that this soil type "may have soil bearing capacities that could limit some development."
The GeoTek Inc. geological investigation concluded that expansive soils are not
expected on site but recommends certain mitigation measures should expansive soils
be discovered during the grading process. Furthermore, a soils report will be required
prior to issuance of a grading permit to ensure soil bearing capacities are adequate to
accommodate the project. The impact is not considered significant.
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 15914 Page 5
4. WATER. tArtll the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or
the rate and amount of surface water runoff? ( ) (v') ( )
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? ( ) (~/) ( )
c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g,, temperature, dissolved
oxygen, or turbidity)? ( ) ( ) (v')
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body? ( ) ( ) (v')
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of
water movements? ( ) ( ) (~')
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~')
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~/)
Comments:
a and b)
There are existing streams to the northwest of the site which bisect Tract 13316. Per
the conditions of approval for Tract 13316, certain drainage improvements will be
required to handle the flows from these drainage areas. These improvements must
be completed prior to the subject 9-lot tract being built. With mitigation, the
impact is not considered significant.
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 15914 Page 6
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) (¢)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) (~')
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
cause any change in climate? ( (~')
d) Create objectionable odors? ( (v')
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) ( ) (v') ( )
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ) ( ) ( ) (¢')
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
uses? ) (v') ( ) ( )
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( )
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) (v')
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) (~)
g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ( ) (¢)
Comments:
a) The project will not increase vehicle trips or traffic congestion in excess of projections
for the adopted land use, for which the street widths were evaluated at a build out
condition. The project will be required to install frontage street improvements in their
ultimate configuration, per City Ordinance, and to pay Transportation Development
Fees. The impact is not considered significant.
c) The project has no developed means of access. If it is developed prior to Tract 13316
to the north, two means of access shall be constructed. A condition of approval
requires the improvement of two means of access through Tract 13316. With mitigation
the impact is not considered significant.
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 15914 Page 7
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their
habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish,
insects, animals, and birds)? ( ) ( ) (~') )
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees,
eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? ( ) (v') ( ) )
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g.,
eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? ( ) (~/) ( ) )
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal
pool)? ( ) ( ) )
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
Comments:
a and d)
The property is located in an area recently identified by the U.S. Department of Fish and
Wildlife Service as potential habitat for endangered or threatened species. Habitat
assessment and biological surveys were required to determine potential habitat value
and any potential impacts, particularly to the federally-listed threatened California
Gnatcatcher and the endangered San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat. Habitat assessment
and protocol surveys were conducted by Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc.,
consulting biologists permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The results of the
surveys indicate that the site does not contain suitable habitat for the Gnatcatcher and
no Gnatcatchers were detected on site. The surveys also indicate that the site is not
suitable habitat for the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat and no signs of the rat were
present. Based on this information, the proposed development of the 11 acre site will
not likely result in adverse effects to rare, sensitive, or endangered animal species.
b and c)
The project will cause the removal of several Eucalyptus trees to accommodate trail and
drainage improvements. The applicant has filed a Tree Removal Permit for
consideration by the Commission. The Tree Preservation Ordinance requires
replacement of Eucalyptus trees on a 1:1 ratio. The same requirement shall be
placed on the subject Development Review.
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 15914 Page 8
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposah
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? ( ) ( ) ( )
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region
and the residents of the State? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances ~including, but not limited to:
oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? ( ) ( ) ( (~/)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) ( ) ( (~)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazard? ( ) ( ) ( (~/)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? ( ) (v') ( ) ( )
Comments:
e) The site falls within the "Wildland/Urban Interface" zone and is therefore subject to fire
hazard mitigation requirements such as vegetation management, specialized
home construction methods, and other requirements. A condition of approval
requires compliance with Fire District requirements. With such mitigation, the impact is
not considered significant
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 15914 Page 9
10. NOISE. Willtheproposalresultin:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) ( ) (v') ( )
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~/)
Comments:
a) The project will increase existing noise levels since the site is currently vacant, The
project is not expected to increase noise levels beyond anticipated limits. The impact is
not considered significant.
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? ( ) (v') ( ) ( )
b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (¢')
c) Schools? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~')
e) Other governmental services? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~/)
Comments:
b) The site falls within the "Wildland/Urban Interface" zone and is therefore subject to fire
hazard mitigation requirements such as vegetation management, specialized
home construction methods, and other requirements. A condition of approval
requires compliance with Fire District requirements. With such mitigation, the impact is
not considered significant.
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~')
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 15914 Page 10
b) Communication systems? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~,)
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~)
e) Storm water drainage? ( ) (~/) ( ) ( )
f) Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~')
Comments:
e) There are existing streams to the northwest of the site which bisect Tract 13316. Per
the conditions of approval for Tract 13316, certain drainage improvements will be
required to handle the flows from these drainage areas. These improvements must
be completed prior to the subject 9-lot tract being built. With mitigation, the
impact is not considered significant.
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposah
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~)
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( ( ) ( ) (~/)
c) Create light or glare? ( ( ) ( ) (v')
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
c) Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) ( ) ( )
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~')
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 15914 Page 11
15, RECREATION, Would the proposah
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~')
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have the
potential to degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal, or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~)
b) Short term: Does the project have the potential to
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-
term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on
the environment is one which occurs in a relatively
brief, definitive period of time. Long-term impacts
will endure well into the future,) ( ) ( ) ( )
c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have
environmental effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MEASURES
Geological Problems:
1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the mitigation measures
identified in the Geological Evaluation by GeoTek Inc. dated August 3, 1998.
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 15914 Page 12
2. 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. A soils report shall be
prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such
work.
Transportation:
1. The developer shall install frontage street improvements to their ultimate configuration
per City ordinance and pay applicable Transportation Development Fees.
2. If the project is developed prior to Tract 13316 to the north, two means of access shall
be constructed.
Biological Resources:
1. All non fruit bearing trees in excess of fifteen feet in height and 15 inches in trunk
circumference that are removed to accommodate the project shall be replaced at a
minimum ratio of 1:1 with same species as those removed as required by Municipal
Code Section 19.08.100.
Hazards:
1. The project shall compiy with the Rancho Cucamonga Fire District standards. A Fuel
Modification/Management Plan shall be submitted for Fire Chief and City Planner review
and approval prior to the issuance of grading permits.
WatedUtilities:
1. Sufficient storm drainage infrastructure, within Tract 13316, shall be installed to protect
the site to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
EARLIER ANALYSES
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process,
one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per
Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this proiect were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and
such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The following
earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the City
of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply):
(~') General Plan EIR
(Certified April 6, 1981)
(,,/) Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update
(SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989)
82/25/1999 18:09 7609319505 LANTF'C ENGINEERING PAGE
~i~ ~ ~r Page 13
Ten~tNe T~ 15914
AP~CA~ CER~FICATION
I ~ t~t I am ~ appi~nt ~r ~e ~mj~ ~e;~ In ~ie Imtlat ~t~y. I a~ge t~t I
proj~t ~a o~ ~sNa a~or ~ ag~ to t~ ~d m~lon ~a~ to av~ t~
~e~ or mlt~te ~= ~ to a ~;~ wh~ ~fly no slg~nl environ~n~l eff~a ~u~
I:'~REN'T~Sg14. onv
City of Rancho Cucamonga
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The following Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act Section 21091 and 21092 of the Public Resources Code.
Project File No.: Tentative Tract 15914 Public Review Period Closes: March 23, 1999
Project Name: Project Applicant: Mohammad Zomorrodian
Project Location (also see attached map): Located north of Hillside Road, between Archibald and
Hermosa Avenues - APN: 1074-071-20.
Project Description: A request to subdivide 11 acres of land into 9 single family lots in the Very Low
Residential District (up to 2 dwelling units per acre), Related file: Tree Removal Permit 98-26.
FINDING
This Is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has conducted an
Initial Study to determine If the pr?ject may have a significant effect on the environment and Is
proposing this Negative Declaration based upon the following finding:
[] The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a
significant effect on the environment.
[] The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects but:
(1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this
proposed Negative Declaration was released for public review would avoid the effects or
mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and
(2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project as revised may have a
significant effect on the environment.
If adopted, the Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will not be
required. Reasons to support this finding are included in the attached Initial Study. The project
file and all related documents are available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning
Division at 10500 Civic Center Drive (909) 477-2750 or Fax (909) 477-2847.
NOTICE
The public is invited to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration during the review period.
March 23, 1999
Date of Determination Adopted By
Fi§ute 1. Vicinity ~l'ap of the Project (Cucamong,~ Peak U.S.G.S. 7.$' Quadrangle)
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:40 p.m, Brent Le Count February 2, 1999
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15914 - ZOMMORODIAN - A request
to subdivide 11 acres of land into 9 single family lots in the Very Low Residential District (up to 2
dwelling units per acre), located north of Hillside Road, between Archibald and Hermosa Avenues -
APN: 1074-071-20. Related file: Tree Removal Permit 98-26.
Desiqn Parameters: The site is located to the southeast of Tract 13316, a 123-1ot subdivision for which
single family home designs have been submitted, but not determined complete. There are existing
single family homes, in the distance, to the west, south, and east. The site has significant variation in
terrain with natural grades ranging from roughly 5 percent to in excess of 30 percent. Homes are
proposed to be "clustered" within the less steep areas (12 percent) of the site, The site contains a
number of Eucalyptus trees, some of which are proposed to be removed to accommodate trails,
corrals, and drainage improvements.
The project is subject to the Hillside Development Standards of the Development Code. This requires
specialized home construction and grading techniques to minimize adverse impacts of grading. The
only grading proposed with the application is the minimum necessary to accommodate the street, trails,
and drainage improvements. No high, "mass graded" type slopes are proposed. Once the subdivision
is approved and recorded, individual property owners would come in on a lot-by-lot basis with custom
home applications.
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. Staff feels there are no major design issues.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
1. Provide contour grading for proposed cul-de-sac street so that grading has a softer, more natural
appearance and blends with the existing terrain.
2, Surface drainage improvements should be as natural in design and appearance as possible.
Suggest use of river rock cobble to create a dry stream bed look.
Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion:
1. No cut or fill shall exceed a height of 5 feet.
2. Eucalyptus trees removed to accommodate the project shall be replaced on site at a rate of 1:1
with the largest available nursery grown trees.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Committee recommend approval subject to the
above.
DRC COMMENTS
'Pi' 15914 - ZOMMORODIAN
February 2, 1999
Page 2
Desiqn Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Larry McNiel, Para Stewad, and Larry Henderson
Staff Planner: Brent Le Count
The Committee (McNiel, Stewart, Henderson) reviewed the project and recommended approval subject
to stall's comments.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP NO. 15914, A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF 9 SINGLE FAMILY
LOTS ON 11 ACRES OF LAND IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT (UP TO TWO DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED
BETWEEN ARCHIBALD AVENUE AND HERMOSA AVENUE, AND
MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1074-071-20.
A. Recitals.
1. Lantec Engineering has filed an application for the approval of Tentative Tract Map
No. 15914, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject
Tentative Tract Map request is referred to as "the application."
2. On the 23rd day of March 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing
on that date.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is 'hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing on March 23, 1999, including written and oral staff reports, together with
public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to property located north of Hillside Road, between
Archibald and Hermosa Avenues with no street frontage and which is presently vacant; and
b. The site is landlocked with no street frontage. At least two means of access
through Tract 13316 to the northwest are required to provide access from the site to Archibald
Avenue; and
c. The property to the north of the subject site is vacant, the property to the south
consists of the Alta Loma Flood Control Basin Number 3, the property to the east is vacant and
developed with single family homes (the '~/oods"), and the property to the west is vacant and
developed with single family homes; and
d. The project is designed to limit building sites to the flatter areas of the site leaving
the steeper portions undisturbed; and
e. The project is consistent with the intent of the Hillside Development Standards of
the Development Code in that grading is limited to the minimum necessary to accommodate
roadway, trails, and drainage improvements; and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
3-I' 15914- LANTEC ENGINEERING
March 23, 1999
Page 2
f. The site contains a significant grove of Eucalyptus trees. The project is consistent
with environmental preservation objectives in that trees removed to accommodate project
improvements are kept to a minimum and replaced on a 1:1 ratio; and
g. There are existing streams to the northwest of the site which bisect Tract 13316.
Drainage infrastructure improvements associated with Tract 13316 must be completed to protect
the subject tract.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2
above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. That the tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and
any applicable specific plans; and
b. The design or improvements of the tentative tract is consistent with the General
Plan, Development Code, and any applicable specific plans; and
c. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; and
d. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental
damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat; and
e. The tentative tract is not likely to cause serious public health problems; and
f. The design of the tentative tract will not conflict with any easement acquired by the
public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed
subdivision.
4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment
for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the
project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Mitigated Negative
Declaration based upon the findings as follows:
a. That the Mitigated 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared
therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, fudher, this
Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Mitigated Negative
Declaration with regard to the application.
b. That, based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into
the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur.
c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of
Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the
Initial Study and Mitigated 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 Mitigated
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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TT 15914 - LANTEC ENGINEERING
March 23, 1999
Page 3
of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of
Regulations.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above,
this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth
below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
Planninq Division
1) Provide contour grading for proposed cul-de-sac street so that grading
has a softer, more natural appearance and blends with the existing
terrain.
2) Surface drainage improvements should be as natural in design and
appearance as possible. Suggest use of river rock cobble to create a
dry stream bed look.
3) No cut or fill shall exceed a height of 5 feet.
En.qineerinq Division
1) If the tract develops prior to the tract to the north, two means of access
through Tract 13316 shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
2) Extend the Tract 13316 storm drain in Birdsong Place through this tract
to outlet into Alta Loma Basin Number 3.
3) Installation of storm drain outlets within Alta Loma Basin Number 3 will
require a Flood Control District permit prior to the issuance of building
permits.
4) The private cross lot drainage facilities adjacent to local trails shall
extend across all lots and discharge to the storm drains. This will also
provide erosion protection at the bottom of the graded area.
5) The temporary outlet for rear lot and Community Trail drainage at the
southeast corner of Tract 13316 (northeast corner of Lot 1) shall be
removed and replaced with a pipe, designed as a minimum 24-inch
main line, which extends to the basin.
6) Private on-site drainage facilities shall be hard-lined whenever the
slope of the flow line exceeds 6 percent.
7) The ove~ow swale within the public drainage easement on Lot 5 shall
be hard-surfaced to the bottom of the basin. The materials of
construction shall be approved by the City Engineer and the City
Planner.
8) The bulb of the cul-de-sac shall be designed as a warped plane, such
that the cross slope for parked or turning cars is no greater than 6
percent. Locate the Iow point at the catch basin.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TT 15914 - LANTEC ENGINEERING
March 23, 1999
Page 4
9) The right-of-way at the bottom of the cul-de-sac shall be graded to
direct overflows to the storm drainage easement on the east side of Lot
5 and away from private property.
10) The following items shall be provided to the satisfaction of the San
Bernardino County Flood Control District:
a) Lot A shall be dedicated to San Bernardino County Flood Control
District in fee title.
b) San Bernardino County Flood Control Improvements shall be
installed, including boundary fencing and outlet protection.
c) A berm shall be constructed along the southerly property line of
Lots 5 and 6.
d)Provide a 50-foot building setback from District rights-of-way for
Lots 3 through 6.
e) Manured areas shall not drain to the Alta Loma Basin.
11) The final drainage study shall address design of the local trail along the
east property line Within the storm drain easement and the trap channel
on Lot 5 to be sure Q-100 overflows remain within public easements.
12) Sidewalks shall be installed on one side of the cul-de-sac. Select the
same side as the portion of Birdsong Place within Tract 13316.
13) The access reserved for Lot 29 across Lot 15 of Tract 12902 shall be
vacated except for the portion necessary to access the Community
Trail from Lots 2, 3, and 4.
14) Dedication for community trail purposes, at the northwest corner of Lot
9, sufficient for maintenance vehicle turning radius, shall be made to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer, Improvements necessary to
complete the corner shall be installed,
Environmental Mitigation Measures
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. A soils report shall be prepared by a
qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such
work.
2) Sufficient storm drain infrastructure, within Tract 13316 to the north,
shall be installed to protect the site to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer,
3) Sufficient storm drain and flood control infrastructure shall be installed
on site to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
I
.PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
'C1'15914-LANTEC ENGINEERING
March 23,1999
Page 5
4) If Tentative Tract 15914 develops prior to the tract to the north, two
means of access through Tract 13316 shall be provided to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
5) All non fruit bearing trees in excess of 15 feet in height and 15 inches
in trunk circumference that are removed to accommodate the project
shall be replaced at a minimum ratio of 1:1 with the same species as
those removed as required by Municipal Code Section 19.08.100.
6) All provisions of the San Bernardino County Fire Safety Overlay District
shall apply. A Fuel Modification/Management Plan shall be submitted
for Fire Chief and City Planner for review and approval prior to the
issuance of grading permits.
7) Sufficient storm drainage infrastructure, within Tract 13316, shall be
installed to protect the site to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23RD DAY OF MARCH 1999.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Larry T. McNiel, Chairman
A']rEST:
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 23rd day of March 1999, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
STANDARD CONDITIONS
PROJECT #: TENTATIVE TRACT 15914
SUBJECT: 9-LOT SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION
APPLICANT: LANTEC ENGINEERING
LOCATION: NORTH OF HILLSIDE ROAD, BETWEEN ARCHIBALD AND HERMOSA AVENUES
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH TH E FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS:
A. General Requirements Completion Dale
1. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its / /
agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative
to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or
employees, for any Court costs and attorney's tees which the City, its agents, officers, or
employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its
sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense ol any such action but such
participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition.
2. The developer shall commence, participate in, and consummate or cause to be commenced, /_..../
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 formed by the District and the developer by the time recordation
of the final map occurs.
3. A copy of the signed Resolution of Approval, and alt Standard Conditions, shall be included in / /
legible form on the grading plans, building and construction plans, and landscape and irrigation
plans submitted for plan check.
B. Time Limits
1. Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, if building permits are not / /
issued or approved use has not commenced within 24 months from the date ol approval.
C. Site Development
1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which /.~/
include site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign
program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, and
Development Code regulations.
2, All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for .__/ /
consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment,
building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved
use has commenced, whichever comes first.
3. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, / /
all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at
the time of building permit issuance.
4. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall not prohibit the keeping the equine / /
animals where zoning requirements for the keeping of said animals have been met. Individual
lot owners in subdivisions shall have the option of keeping said animals without the necessity
of appealing to boards of directors of homeowners' associations for amendments to the
CC&R's.
5. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's) and Articles of Incorporation of the ...~.~/
Homeowners' Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering Divisions
and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Map or prior to the
issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. A recorded copy shall be provided to the
City Engineer. The Homeowners' Association shall submit to the Planning Division a list of the
name and address of their officers on or before January 1 of each and every year and whenever
said information changes.
6, All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property / /
owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this
landscape maintenance shall be submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and
approved prior to the issuance of building permits.
7. Slope fencing along side property lines may be wrought iron or black plastic coated chain link / /
to maintain an open feeling and enhance views.
8. Where rock cobble is used, it shall be real river rock. Other stone veneers may be / /
manufactured products.
D. Landscaping
1. 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 the grading plans.
The location of those trees to be preserved in place and new locations for transplanted trees
shall be shown on the detailed landscape plans. The applicant shall follow all of the arborist's
recommendations regarding preservation, transplanting, and trimming methods.
2. All private slopes of 5 feet or more in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater 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.
3. All private slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in verlical height and of 2:1 or greater / /
slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as
sc. ,/,~,~ 2
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 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.
4. For single family residential development, all slope planting and irrigations shall be continuously /..~/
maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the developer until each individual unit is sold
and occupied by the buyer. Prior to releasing occupancy for those units, an inspection shall be
conducted by the Planning Division to determine that they are in satislactory condition.
5. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas / /
the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
E. Site Development
1. Plans shall be submitted for plan check and approved prior to construction. All plans shall be .~/._._/
marked with the project file number (i.e., TT 15914). The applicant shall comply with the latest
adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National
Electric Code, Title 24 Accessibility requirements, 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 1he Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts.
2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition to .__/ /.~
existing unit(s), the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees
may include, but are not limited to: City Beautification Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee,
Transportation Development Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, and School Fees.
3. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation / /
and prior to issuance of building permits.
4. For projects using septic tank facilities, written certilication of acceptability, including all / /
supportive information, shall be obtained from the San Bemardino 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.
5. Construction activity shall not occur between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. Monday /__./
through Saturday, with no construction on Sunday.
F. Grading
1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City .___/ /
Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in
substantial conformance with the approved grading plan.
2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of Calilomia to ~ /.__.
perform such work.
3. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the / /
time of application for grading plan check.
4. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. / /
sc. ,,,~,.s~ 3 ~_..~ ,,,..~ ~
5. As a custom-lot subdivision, the following 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 parcels to the satisfaction of the Building
and Safety Division prior to final map approval and prior to the issuance of grading
permits.
b. Appropriate easements for safe disposal of drainage water that are conducted onto or / /
over adjacent parcels, are to be delineated and recorded to the satisfaction of the Building
and Safety Division prior to issuance of grading and building permits.
c. On-site drainage improvements, necessary for dewatering and protecting the subdivided / /
properties, are to be installed prior to issuance of building permits for construction upon
any parcel that may be subject to drainage flows entering, leaving, or within a parcel
relative to which a building permit is requested.
d. Final grading plans for each parcel are to be submitted to the Building and Safety 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 vertical height shall be seeded with native grasses / /
or planted with ground cover for erosion control upon completion of grading or some other
alternative method of erosion control shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Building
Official. In addition a permanent irrigation system shall be provided. This requirement
does not release the applicant/developer from compliance with the slope planting
requirements of Section 17.08.040 I of the Development Code.
6. In hillside areas, residential developments shall be graded and constructed consistent with the / /
standards contained in the Hillside Development Regulations Section 17.24.070.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE
WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
G. 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, traffic signal
encroachment and maintenance, and public drainage facilities as shown on the plans and/or
tentative map. Private easements for non-public facilities (cross-lot drainage, local feeder trails,
etc.) shall be reserved as shown on the plans and/or tentative map.
2. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be provided and shall be delineated or / /
noted on the final map.
H. Street Improvements
1. All public improvements (interior streets, drainage facilities, community trails, paseos, / /
landscaped areas, etc.) shown on the plans and/or tentative map shall be constructed to City
Standards. Interior street improvements shall include, but are not limited to, curb and gutter,
AC pavement, drive approaches, sidewalks, street lights, and street trees.
2. Improvement Plans and Construction:
a. Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety / /
lights on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil
Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be
posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City
Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior
to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first.
b. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a ~ /
construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any
other permits required.
c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and ~ /
interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or /.~/
reconstruction project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future
traffic signals and interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the
street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR, or any other locations approved by the City
Engineer.
Notes:
(1)Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of
200 feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer.
(2) Conduit shall be 3-inch (at intersections) or 2-inch (along streets) galvanized steel
with pull rope or as specified.
e. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City /.___/
Standards or as directed by the City Engineer.
f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traflic at all times with .~_/.~../
adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A
cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be
refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
g. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be ..__/ /._._
installed to City Standards, except for single family residential lots.
h. Street names shall be approved by the City Planner prior to submittal for first plan check. / /
3. Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in / /
accordance with the City's street tree program upon development.
I. Public Maintenance Areas
1. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting /.~/
Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or issuance of building
permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer.
J. 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 developer's responsibility to have the current FIRM Zone_A designation removed / /
from the project area. The developer's engineer shall prepare all necessary reports, plans, and
hydrologic/hydraulic calculations. A Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) shall be
obtained from FEMA prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits, whichever
Project NO Ti' 1~14
Completion Date
occurs first. A Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) shall be issued by FEMA prior to occupancy or
improvement acceptance, whichever occurs first.
3. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer pdor 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.
4. A permit from the San Bernardino County Flood Control District is required for work within its / /
right-of-way.
5. Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe / /
measured from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk.
6. Public storm drain easements shall be graded to convey overflows in the event of a blockage / /
in a sump catch basin on the public street.
K. Utilities
1. Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanita~ sewerage system, water, gas, / /
electric power, telephone, and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility
Standards. Easements shall be provided as required.
2. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary, /_~/
3. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the /.~/
Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and
the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance
from the CCWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs
first. Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 90 days prior to final map
approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of ali other
residential projects.
L. General Requirements and Approvals
1. Prior to approval of the final map, a deposit shall be posted with the City covering the estimated /..__/
cost of apportioning the assessments under Assessment District 84-2 among the newly created
parcels.
2. A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated operating costs for .~/ /
all new street lights for the first six months of operation, prior to final map approval or prior to
building permit issuance if no map is involved.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (999) 477-2730,
FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
M. General Fire Protection Conditions
1. Mello RoDs Community Facilities District requirements shall apply to this project. .~J /
2. Fire flow requirement shall be 1,000 gallons per minute. ._.../ /
a. A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department / /
personnel prior to water plan approval.
b. For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional fire flow test of the on-site hydrants / /
shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department personnel
after construction and prior to occupancy.
3. Fire hydrants ara required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed .~/ /
and operable prior to delivery of any combustible building materials on site (i.e., lumber, roofing
materials, etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire department personnel.
4. Existing fira hydrant locations shall be provided prior to water plan approval. Required hydrants, / /
if any, will be determined by the Fire District. Fire District standards require a 6-inch riser with
a 4-inch and a 2-1/2-inch outlet. Substandard hydrants shall be upgraded to meet this standard.
Contact the Fira Safety Division for specifications on approved brands and model numbers.
5. Prior to the issuance of building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be / /
submitted to the Fire District that an approved temporary water supply for fire protection is
available, pending completion of the requirad fire protection system.
6. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for all hydrants and installed prior to _.._/ /
final inspection.
7. All roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District's lira lane standards per Rancho /.~._/
Cucamonga Fira Protection District Ordinance No, 22.
8. Fira department access shall be amended to facilitate emergency apparatus. / /
9. Emergency secondary access shall be provided in accordance with Fire District standards. / /
10. All trees and shrubs planted in any median shall be kept trimmed to a minimum ot 14 feet, / /
6 inches from the ground up, so as not to impede fire apparatus.
11. $132.00 in Fire District fee(s), and a $1 per 'plan page" microfilm fee will be due to the Rancho / /.~
Cucamonga Fire Protection District prior to Building and Safety permit issuance."
A Fire District fee in the amount of $132.00 shall be paid at the time ot Water Plan submittal.
* *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.
12. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1994 UBC, /..~/
UFC, UPC, UMC, NEC, and RCFD Standards 22 and 15.
13. Project is located in a high tire hazard area and is subject to special wildland/urban interface / /
hazard mitigation requirements. Such requirements may include requirements related to
vegetation management plans, special construction enhancements, emergency access, water
supply, automatic fire extinguishing systems, and other special raquirements. A SEPARATE
SET OF PLANS IS REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO THE FIRE PREVENTION
NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT AT TIME OF PLAN SUBMITTAL TO BUILDING AND SAFETY.
Contact the Fire Prevention New Construction Unit located in the Building and Safety Division.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA --
STAFF REPORT
DATE: March 23, 1999
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Nancy Fong, AICP, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 98-02, AND
VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 98-01 - AMERICAN BEAUTY
DEVELOPMENT CO. - A public hearing for a proposed project to be known as the
Victoria Arbors Village on 291.8 acres of land in the Victoria Planned Community,
generally bounded by Base Line Road, future Victoria Park Lane, future Church
Street, future Day Creek Boulevard, Foothill Boulevard, and the Day Creek Channel
- APN: 227-201-04, 13 through 18, 22, 28 through 30, and 38; 222-201-33;
227-161-33, 35, 36, and 38; 227-171-11, 12, and 14. Related file: Etiwanda
Specific Plan Amendment 98-01.
(A) Land Use changes for the following areas:
Subarea I - from Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) to Low
Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 21.13 acres of land
for the area generally located south of Base Line Road and east of future
Victoria Park Lane; and consideration of retaining the Low-Medium Residential
designation.
Subarea 2a - from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre),
Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre), and Community Facility
to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for approximately
13.69 acres of land, generally located on the south side of Base Line Road,
east and west of the winery; and consideration of alternative land use
designations of Community Facilities and Community Services.
Subarea 2b- from .Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre),
Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre), and Park to
Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 51.38
acres of land, generally located east of future Day Creek Boulevard and 600
feet south of Base Line Road.
Subarea 3- from Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) and
Regional Related Office/Commercial to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling
units per acre) for approximately 13.76 acres of land, generally located north
of future Church Street, west of future Victoria Loop Street; and consideration
of alternative land use designations of Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units
per acre) and Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre).
ITEMS D & E
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
GPA 98-02, VCPA 98-01, & ESPA 98-01 - AMERICAN BEAUTY
March 23, 1999
Page 2
Subarea 4 - from Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre),
Regional Related Office/Commercial, and Park to Low-Medium Residential
(4-8 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 39.45 acres of land, generally
located on the north side of future Church Street and east of future Day Creek
Boulevard; and consideration of alternative land use designations of Medium
Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) and Medium-High Residential (14-24
dwelling units per acre).
Subarea 5- from Regional Related Office/Commercial to Low-Medium
Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre), Medium-High Residential (14-24
dwelling units per acre), and High Residential (24-30 dwelling units per acre)
for approximately 53 acres of land, generally located on the west side of future
Day Creek Boulevard, north and south of future Church Street; and
consideration of retaining the Regional Related Office/Commercial
designation.
Subarea 6- Re-align the boundaries of the Victoria Community Plan to include
approximately 26 acres of land from the Etiwanda Specific Plan, generally
located on the north side of Church Street and the west side of Etiwanda
Avenue; and .a request to change the land use designation from Office to
Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre); and consideration of
alternative land use designations of a mix of Office and Low-Medium
Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre); and consideration by the City of
retaining the area in the Etiwanda Specific Plan with an Office designation or
a mix of Office and Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre).
(B) Amend the Circulation and Parks and Recreation Elements of the General
Plan.
(C) Amend various graphics and text for the Victoria Community Plan.
(D) Consideration by the City of alternative sites for Park and School within the
project area of the Victoria Community Plan.
(E) Modify the permitted and conditionally permitted uses and various
development and design standards for Regional Related Office/Commercial,
Regional Center, and Community Facilities of the Victoria Community Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 98-02, AND
ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 98-01 - AMERICAN BEAUTY
DEVELOPMENT CO. - A request to re-align the boundaries of the Etiwanda
Specific Plan by re-designating approximately 26 acres of land, generally located
on the north side of Church Street and the west side of Etiwanda Avenue to the
Victoria Community Plan; and consideration by the City of retaining the area in the
Etiwanda Specific Plan and retaining the land use designation of Office; and
consideration of alternative land use designations of a mix of Office and
Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) - APN: 227-171-11, 12, and
14. Related file: Victoria Community Plan Amendment 98-01.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
GPA 98-02, VCPA 98-01, & ESPA 98-01 - AMERICAN BEAUTY
March 23, 1999
Page 3
ABSTRACT: The purpose of this public hearing is for the Commission to take public testimony and
discuss the merits of the proposed project. The environmental review is still in process and is due
to be completed by the end of April; therefore, no action is being requested tonight. The advertised
public hearing for the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be scheduled for May. The above-
described project will also be considered at the same time.
BACKGROUND: The applicant, American Beauty Development Co., first contacted the City in July
of 1997 and informed staff of their property ownership of Victoria Lakes. As a result of reviewing
their preliminary development concepts, staff determined that the proposed changes in land use,
circulation, open space, and park were significant and would require an Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) and multiple land use amendment applications. In January of 1998, the applicant
formally submitted their General Plan, Community Plan, and Specific Plan Amendment
applications. After selecting LSA, Inc. as the City's consultant, preparation of the EIR commenced
in April of 1998. Although the draft EIR was completed last December and circulated for public
review, it is not ready for the Commission's review and consideration because additional land use
analysis is needed to address the impacts of land use alternatives raised during the workshops with
the Planning Commission. The Commission held a total of four workshops that began in January
of this year, to understand and familiarize themselves with the different components of the project.
Attached for the Commission's review are the minutes from the four workshops as shown in Exhibit
OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS: Below is a brief listing of various opportunities and
constraints to be considered by the Commission.
A. Opportunities
· Reevaluate the fourth and final village concept of the Victoria Community Plan and
ensure a successful project into the next century.
· Reexamine the current higher density residential land uses and their location.
· Create a new Open Space Element that would be the focal design theme of this village.
· Build on the winery theme and create a dynamic mix of single family and multi-family
neighborhoods. The winery theme would highlight the agricultural heritage of the City.
· Construction of Day Creek Boulevard between Foothill Boulevard and Base Line Road
would enhance traffic circulation in the area and possibly promote more commercial
development near Foothill Boulevard.
· Group and/or link public and quasi-public uses such as a school, parks, paseos,
passive open space, and the winery as major visual community elements in this village.
· Incorporate and maintain the wetland as a biological sanctuary and teaching tool for our
children.
B. Constraints
· Removal of the lakes creates the void of a strong and unique focal Open Space
Element.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
GPA 98o02, VCPA 98-01, & ESPA 98-01 - AMERICAN BEAUTY
March 23, 1999
Page 4
· The historic winery facility, with its business of wine producing and storage, wine sales,
and banquet facilities, could be a potential conflict with adjoining single family
residential land uses.
· Land use conflicts between Iow-intensity, single family residential land uses and the
City's most intense regional commercial center.
· The wetland could impact the maintenance costs for the City and offers limited public
access and use.
ANALYSIS: In reviewing the Arbors project, the Commission should consider how well the project
fits in with the long-term goals of the land use plan for the City. The Commission should also
consider the best land use arrangement for the Arbors (Lakes) project, including the proposed land
use change for the area west of Etiwanda Avenue, within the Etiwanda Specific Plan.
B. The Victoria Community Plan and Victoria Lakes (The Lakes) Villaqe. Victoria was created
to be an integrated planned community. It consists of four villages with a focus on linking a
series of centrally located neighborhood park and school centers through passive and active
green belt paseos. Three of the villages, the Groves, the Vineyards and the Windrows, are
more single family residentially oriented. The Lakes is the last and most distinctive village
in the planned community and is undeveloped. The intent of this village is to create a unique,
multi-use community, including a series of lakes, with each surrounded by a succession of
land uses from multi-family residential to office, commercial, and the regional center. The
village, together with the lakes system, is intended to reinforce the connection between the
residential and commercial land uses. It serves as an open space element for all of Victoria
and is considered a focal point and public park for the City. Further, Victoria Park Lane is
also a major linear park which ties the planned community together and was intended to
continue across Base Line Road to terminate at the 'Lakes Park." Between 1989 and 1991,
a City Council Task Force and staff, together with the developer's (William Lyon Co.) Lakes
engineer, extensively reviewed the design, amenities and improvements, construction costs,
maintenance costs, as well as how and who pays for the "Lakes Park." Exhibit "J" is the 1991
City Council Staff Report that discussed these issues. Exhibit 'D' contains excerpts of the
current Victoria Community Plan, including a conceptual plan of the village. Exhibit 'E" shows
the acreage of park and open space by village for the entire planned community.
C. Proposed Victoria Arbors (The Arbors) Villaqe. The applicant has ownership of approximately
291.8 acres within the Lakes Village. The lake element of the village is within their
ownership. Their proposal is to modify the project land uses to be more single family and
eliminate the lake feature. The project area that requires land use changes encompasses
approximately 192.4 acres of land. Land use changes are not being proposed for the
remaining acreage (79.4 acres), which are commercially zoned. The development concept
would result in a significantly lower density within this village. Exhibit "C" shows the existing
and proposed zoning for the 192.4 acre project area.
D. Evolution of the Applicant's Development Concepts: Given the complexity of the project, staff
and the applicant have been meeting regularly since last April to review the identified impacts
and to evaluate technical issues in areas of drainage, circulation, park/school location,
infrastructure phasing, etc. As a result of staff's meetings with the applicant and the
Commission workshops, the applicant continues to demonstrate his willingness to address
the identified concerns by modifying his development concepts to the extent that he could
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
GPA 98-02, VCPA 98-01, & ESPA 98-01 - AMERICAN BEAUTY
March 23, 1999
Page 5
agree. The draft EIR was prepared based on the applicant's Development Concept "U"
provided to the City in September. The discussion in Section E below, is based upon the
proposed land use changes, including alternatives of Concept "U." Exhibit "K" shows the
proposed development concepts "U," "X1 ," and "X2.'
E. Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The environmental analysis for the proposed
amendments is contained in the draft Environmental Impact Report. As stated previously,
the detailed review of the EIR will be considered at a future advertised public hearing
tentatively scheduled for May. According to the City Attorney, the Planning Commission can
hold a public hearing for the proposed amendments to take public comments, but cannot take
action on the project until the EIR has been reviewed by the Planning Commission.
F. Discussion on Proposed Land Use and Community Plan Chanqes. According to the goals
and policies of the General Plan and Development Code, the City should plan and arrange
land uses that are compatible with one another so as to minimize land use conflicts. To
analyze the appropriateness of the proposed land use changes, staff has divided the project
area into smaller subareas, as shown in Exhibit "F.' As stated previously, the base line
discussion on the proposed land use changes is based on Development Concept "U."
1. Subarea 1 - is located at south side of Base Line Road and east of the future Victoria
Park Lane. The propo§ed change is from Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units
per acre) to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre).
Staff Comment: To be consistent with properties immediately east and adjacent to this
site, the Low-Medium Residential designation is most compatible.
Recommendation: Subarea 1 should maintain the current zoning of Low-Medium
Residential.
2. Subarea 2a - is generally located at the south side of Base Line Road, east and west
of the existing winery facility. The proposed changes are from Medium Residential (8-14
dwelling units per acre) and Community Facilities to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units
per acre) and Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre).
Staff Comment.. This subarea abuts the Filippi Winery, which is an active, producing
winery with retail sales of wine, wine tasting, and a banquet facility. Recently the City
_ and the Inland Empire Chapter of the American Institute of Architects cosponsored a
Design Charrette for the winery site. Several of the land use concepts prepared by the
Design Charrette teams showed a mixed use of commercial, winery, and senior housing
including buffering that went beyond the winery site. The results of the Design
Charrette were reviewed by the Commission at the workshop on February 10. The
consensus of the Commission at that meeting, was to preserve the history of the wine
industry and protect the Filippi winery site by having compatible and complimentary land
uses that ensure its economic viability. The Commission also concluded that the
preservation of the winery must include grapevines and pertinent winery structure for
maintaining the historic integrity and atmosphere which is unique to the site. The
applicant has agreed to look into providing a mixed-use concept similar to the land use
and buffering concepts from the Design Charrette.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
GPA 98-02, VCPA 98-01, & ESPA 98-01 - AMERICAN BEAUTY
March 23, 1999
Page 6
a. Consideration of Low-Medium Residential:. The placing of single family residential
development adjacent to the east and west sides of the winery is likely to create
land use conflicts. In addition, single family homes in these planning areas will be
subject to the impacts of Base Line Road, Day Creek Boulevard, and Victoria
Park Lane. The burden of buffering and addressing any potential land use
conflicts may render these sites unacceptable for single family development.
Therefore, the proposed Low-Medium Residential designation would not provide
compatibility of land use to the winery site.
b. Consideration of the Community Facilities Designation: Based upon the desire
of the Commission to preserve the winery site, a Community Facilities designation
for the subarea would be appropriate. The purpose of this zoning district is to
provide community support uses such as schools, parks, public facilities,
churches, clubs, or a convalescent center. Staff believes that additional uses
such as historic wineries and other pertinent winery uses, Village Commercial
uses, banquet facilities, senior housing (SHOD), and inclusion of the requirement
for master planning would be compatible with the community support uses and
meet the purpose of this district. Further, the proposed Victoria Arbors Village
within the Victoria Community Plan could be modified to include specific language
and graphics that. depict the historic winery, compatible land use, and buffering.
Recommendation: Staff recommends a Community Facilities designation for the east
and west sides of the winery site. The uses and development standards in the
Community Facilities zoning district should be modified to include the additional uses
and requirements as described above. If the Commission concurs with staff's
recommendation, then staff should be directed to initiate an amendment for the winery
site recommending the change from High Residential (24-30 dwelling units per acre)
to Community Facilities. The changes to the land use designation would be
accomplished through City-initiated General Plan and Community Plan amendments.
3. Sul~area 21) - is generally located 600 feet south of Base Line Road, immediately south
of the winery, and east of the future Day Creek Boulevard. The proposed change is
from Medium Residential, Low-Medium Residential, and Park to Low-Medium
Residential, Park, and School designations. The discussion for Open Space, Park, and
School designations is under Sections F and G of this report.
Staff Comment:. Placing single family residential development next to the winery site
creates land use conflicts. Staff believes that the conflict in land use could be mitigated
through creating green belt open space corridors, which would provide buffering. The
applicant has shown concepts of buffering consisting of a double row of trees and a
corridor area for planting grapevines. This buffering corridor would protect the historic
winery integrity and serve as a paseo linking pedestrians to the proposed park or school
sites. The proposed Arbors Village in the Victoria Community Plan should be modified
to include specific graphics and language that depict the significance of the historic
winery and the special design criteria for buffering.
Recommendation: Staff supports the proposed Low-Medium Residential designation
with the provision that the proposed Arbors Village in the Victoria Community Plan be
amended to include specific graphics and language describing the significance of the
historic winery and the design criteria for buffering.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
GPA 98-02, VCPA 98-01, & ESPA 98-01 - AMERICAN BEAUTY
March 23, 1999
Page 7
4. Subareas 3 and 4 - are generally north of the future Church Street and east of the
future Day Creek Boulevard. The proposed changes are from Medium-High Residential
(14-24 dwelling units per acre), Regional Related Office/Commercial, and Park to
Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre).
Staff Comments: A major concern with the proposed land use changes is the
compatibility of single family development with the future regional shopping center south
of Church Street. Because a regional mall is planned for the 100-plus acres, which is
the most intensive commercial use possible, major land use conflicts will occur. Staff
believes that a buffer area immediately north of Church Street should be created by
placing compatible land uses that would have the least conflicts with the commercial
uses. Examples of compatible land uses are Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units
per acre) or Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre). The regional
shopping center site is the most prestigious piece of commercial property and the City
should ensure that it is protected from any land use conflicts that hinder its
development.
a. Consideration of Medium or Medium-High Residential on the North Side of Church
Stree¢. Both zoning designations would provide a similar level of compatibility to
commercial uses.
b. Consideration of Modifying the Regional Center on the South Side of Church
Street to Allow a Mixed Use of Commercial and High Density Residentiah In a
previous workshop, the applicant has suggested shifting the buffering to the south
side of Church Street by creating a buffer zone of mixed use consisting of senior
housing or apartments and commercial uses. He stated that there is an
opportunity for his company and the property owner of the regional mall to swap
a 300-foot strip of land along the future Day Creek Boulevard between Church
Street and Foothill Boulevard with an equivalent strip of land from the regional
center along south side of Church Street. He believed that this would be a win-
win scenario because the future regional mall would have Day Creek Boulevard
street frontages while there would be buffering between the single family
residences and the regional shopping center from Church Street. The buffer zone
could be achieved by modifying the regional center zoning district to include a
mixed use of senior housing or apartments and less intensive commercial uses
with special design criteria for providing compatibility to adjacent single family use.
With or without swapping land, shifting the burden of buffering on the regional
mall site will place constraints on its development. Staff is of the opinion that a
buffer zone should be provided on the north side of Church Street.
Recommendation: A compatible land use such as Medium Residential or a larger open
space buffer should be provided between the regional center and the Low-Medium
Residential on the north side of Church Street. If the Commission determines that there
is merit in studying the buffering requirements on the south side of Church Street, then
direct the applicant to submit proposed changes to the text and graphics for the Victoria
Arbors Village and the text changes to the Regional Center Standards.
5. Subarea 5 - is approximately 51.8 acres and is located west of the future Day Creek
Boulevard, north and south of the future Church Street. The proposed changes are
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
GPA 98-02, VCPA 98-01, & ESPA 98-01 - AMERICAN BEAUTY
March 23, 1999
Page 8
replacing the current Regional Related Office/Commercial zoning to a succession of
land uses from Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre), Medium-High
Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre), and High Residential (24-30 dwelling units
per acre) zoning.
Staff Comments: The major concern is the compatibility of single family development
with future commercial centers. Again, land uses should be organized to avoid creating
land use conflicts. The applicant's reason for the proposed change was that the City
has too much commercial land and that the site's distance from Foothill Boulevard
would make it undesirable for commercial development. In considering the proposed
changes in previous workshops, the Commission questioned whether the City should
reduce the acreage for commercial property here. The consensus of the Commission
at the workshop was that there is not enough information to convince them to re-
designate this subarea to residential uses.
a. Consideration of Retaining the Regional Related Office/Commercial Designation:
Retaining the current land use designation would be status quo.
b. Consideration of Retaining the Regional Related Office/Commercial Designation
and Adding a Mixed Use Provision Within fhe District. At a previous workshop,
staff presented t~e option of adding a mixed-use provision of commercial, senior
housing, and apartments to the Regional Related Office/Commercial District,
subject to meeting certain site development criteria such as part of a larger
master planning, etc. This option will retain the current land use designation but
provide more flexibility and opportunities for mixed-use development.
Recommendation: Staff recommends retaining the current land use designation of
Regional Related Office/Commercial. If the Commission determines that there is merit
in having a mixed use in this land use category, then direct staff and the applicant to
provide detailed text, graphics, and design or special development criteria showing the
concept of a mixed use.
6. Subarea 6 - is approximately 26 acres in size and is located on the west side of
Etiwanda Avenue, north of Church Street and is within the Etiwanda Specific Plan. The
proposed change is from Office to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre)
and to change the boundary from the Etiwanda Specific Plan to the Victoria Community
Plan. The request to remove this property from the Etiwanda Specific Plan would allow
a smaller standard lot size of 5,000 to 6,000 square feet instead of the 10,000 square
foot lot size required in the Etiwanda Specific Plan.
Staff Comments: Staff is not opposed to residential development in this subarea but
believes that attention to lot size and orientation and the goals and policies of the
Etiwanda Specific Plan should be kept. Modifying the designation of this property would
leave a remnant Office/Professional designated parcel for the site occupied by the
Buddhist Temple. Primary access to this site is from the west through the Arbors
project which could be justification for including the west portion of the property under
the Victoria Community Plan. The retaining of property frontage along Etiwanda
Avenue under the standards of the Etiwanda Specific Plan would be recommended by
staff.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
GPA 98-02, VCPA 98-01, & ESPA 98-01 - AMERICAN BEAUTY
March 23, 1999
Page 9
a. Consideration of Retaining Office Designation for the 26-Acre Parcel in the
Etiwanda Specific Plan.
b. Consideration of Retaining the Office Designation along the Etiwanda Avenue
Street Frontage and the Remaining Area to be Low-Medium Residential within the
Etiwanda Specific Plan.
c. Consideration of Retaining the Office Designation along the Etiwanda Avenue
Street Frontage within the Etiwanda Specific Plan and the remaining area to be
Low-Medium Residential within the Victoria Community Plan.
Recommendation: Staff recommends retaining the current Office designation for an
area along the Etiwanda Avenue street frontages with a lot depth appropriate for office
and commemial development within the Etiwanda Specific Plan; and the remaining area
could be re-designated as Low-Medium Residential within the Victoria Community Plan.
F. Acreaqe for Park and Open Space: As discussed in a previous section of this report, the
park, open space, and lakes in the Lakes Village serve as key components of the Open
Space Element of the Community Plan. The 37 acres of park, lakes, and open space areas
link various parks within the entire planned community, provide open space for the residential,
commercial and office uses that surround the lakes, and provide a terminus to the regional
mall site. The impact identified by the EIR was based on the proposed Development Concept
"U," which requires a total of 20.68 acres. The amount of park and open space proposed
under Development Concept "U" is 13.7 acres. However, in response to the concerns raised
by the Commission at the workshops, the applicant revised his development concept, which
shows an increase in the acreage for open space in a form of buffering and pasees. The
total acreage, as provided by the applicant, is 16.8 acres. The issue is whether the buffering,
paseos, park, and wetland provide the same level of open space element as originally
envisioned within the planned community. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed
development concept lacks a strong focal point.
G. Wetlands: The applicant processed and received a 404 Permit from the Army Corps of
Engineers to remove 3 acres of the wetlands with the agreement of preserving 1.3 acres of
wetlands. Staff reviewed the applicant's proposal of preserving the wetland and raised the
long-term liability and maintenance issues. The Commission discussed the wetlands in the
workshops and was in agreement with staff regarding long-term liability and maintenance
issues. The consensus of the Commission was not to preserve the wetlands. Staff has been
researching this issue with the Army Corps of Engineers for the removal of the entire
wetlands. Staff will have updates at the meeting.
H. The Consideration by the City of Alternative Sites for Park and School Within the Prelect Area
of the Victoria Community Plan.
1. Schools - The applicant, early in the process, contacted the Etiwanda School District
to discuss the school impact issue. Also, staff has involved the Assistant
Superintendent of Etiwanda School District in the various meetings related to the
project. There is a mutual agreement between the applicant and the School District that
a 10-plus acre site for an elementary school within the Arbors project would be required.
The applicant has included a school site in his proposed development concept. The
school board has reviewed, and supports, the proposed location.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
GPA 98-02, VCPA 98-01, & ESPA 98-01 - AMERICAN BEAUTY
March 23, 1999
Page 10
2. Parks - Because the current Victoria Lakes Village shows a 7-acre, active park, the
applicant also included a similar size park site within his development concept. A
unique element of the Victoria Community Plan is to place a school and park side-by-
side for possible joint use and thereby increase the open view of a village. The
applicant's proposal shows a school and park adjacent to one another and centrally
located in the neighborhood. The Park and Recreation Commission also reviewed the
proposed concept location and supports it. The final acreage for the park will be
determined by the EIR mitigation and as approved by the Planning Commission. The
final shape and design of the park would have to be reviewed in greater detail by the
Park and Recreation Commission at a later date.
I. Related Out Parcels: As a result of the proposed project, there are several out parcels that
the Commission should consider with regards to the appropriate land use zoning. They are
as follows:
1. Two small parcels approximately one acre each, located at the south side of Base Line
Road east and west of Victoria Park Lane, are currently zoned Medium (8-14 dwelling
units per acre) Residential. Both parcels contain single family residences. It would be
appropriate to consider changing the zoning to be consistent with the surrounding land
uses. If the Commission concurs, then direct staff to initiate General Plan and Victoria
Community Plan Ar~endments for these two out parcels. The property
owners/residents of these two parcels have been kept informed of the proposed
development concepts.
2. Another out pamel is located at the northwest corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Church
Street and is currently zoned Office within the Etiwanda Specific Plan. The site
contains a single family residence. Staff believes that the current zoning of Office
should be maintained.
3. The third area consists of a 1 O-acre parcel located at the west side of Etiwanda Avenue
north of the most easterly project area. The site is partially developed with a Buddhist
Temple while the westerly half is undeveloped. The site is currently zoned Office within
the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Recently staff received two proposed subdivision maps
(TI' 15947 and 'ir 15948) for the area at the south west corner of Base Line Road and
Etiwanda Avenue and is being reviewed. With the proposed residential projects to the
north and the proposed land use changes to the west and south sides, the Commission
should review the appropriateness of the current land use for the site. If the
Commission determines that a review of the zoning for the parcel is warranted, then
direct staff to initiate General Plan and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendments to study
land use options for the parcel.
J. Amend the Circulation and Parks and Recreation Elements of the General Plan. The
Circulation Element would be amended to extend the length and change the alignment of
Victoria Park Lane to be reflective of the proposed Arbors Village, as shown in Exhibit "H."
In addition, the Parks and Recreation Element would show symbols of a school and a park
site within the area, and as shown in Exhibit '1."
K. Amend Various Graphics and Text for the Victoria Community Plan. Staff has reviewed the
first draft of the written and graphic descriptions of the proposed Arbors Village and provided
comments to the applicant stating that the proposed changes lack the sophistication of the
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
GPA 98-02, VCPA 98-01, & ESPA 98-01 - AMERICAN BEAUTY
March 23, 1999
Page 11
existing Lakes Village. Staff anticipates additional changes as a result of Commission's
review of the proposed land use changes. Therefore, staff recommends the Commission
direct the applicant to prepare written and graphic changes to the Community Plan reflecting
the recommended land use changes.
L. Modify the Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Uses and Various Development and Desiqn
Standards for the Reqional Related Office/Commemial, Reqional Center, and Community
Facilities Districts of the Victoria Communitv Plan. As discussed previously in the report, if
the Commission concurs with the merits of adding mixed use provisions, design and
development criteria to address the land use, and the buffering concerns, then direct the
applicant to prepare the proposed text and/or graphic changes subject to staff review before
forwarding to the Commission for review.
CORRESPONDENCE: The General Plan, Victoria Community Plan, and the Etiwanda Specific
Plan Amendments have been advertised for public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin
newspaper, the properties have been posted with three 4-foot by 8-foot large public hearing signs,
and notices were sent to property owners within 1,000 feet around the project site. Also key
community representatives and residents of the Victoria Planned Community and Etiwanda
Community have been invited to the workshops. The proposed amendments will be advertised
again once the EIR is completed a. nd ready to be reviewed by the Commission.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission discuss the issues listed above and
provide direction to staff and the applicant.
City Planner
BB:NF/jfs
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Project Site and Surrounding Areas
Exhibit "B" - Opportunities and Constraints Map
Exhibit "C" - Proposed and Existing Land Uses for the Project Site
Exhibit "D" - Excerpts of The Lakes Village in Victoria Community Plan
Exhibit "E" - Comparison Tables of Park and Open Spaces by Villages and
between the Lakes and the Arbors
Exhibit "F" - Proposed Land Use Changes by Subareas
Exhibit "G" - Planning Commission Workshop Minutes dated January 27,
February 10, February 24, and Mamh 10, 1999
Exhibit "H" - Amendment to Circulation Element of the General Plan
Exhibit "1" - Amendment to Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan
Exhibit "J" - City Council Staff Report on the Victoria Lakes Park Project dated
September 18, 1991
Exhibit "K" - Development Concepts "U," "XI," "X2"
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
GPA 98-02
VCPA 98-01 AND ESPA 98-01
PROJECT BOUNDARY
AREA
STUDY BOUNDARY --
AREA
N
EXHIBIT "A"
$
LAND USE CONFLICT, COMMERCIAL WINERY,
REQUIRES BUFFERING UNITY ASSET
BETWEEN SINGLE
WINERY, PARK,
FAMILY HOUSING
OPEN SPACE, CREATE
AND WINERY
A VISUAL
COMMUNITY ELEMENT
LAND USE
CONFLIC1,
EEDS BUFFERING
WETLANDS
"""" REGIONAL MALL LAND USE CONFLICT,
USE CONFLICT, REQUIRES BUFFERING
NEEDS PROPER FROM COMMERCIAL
FRANSITION OF DENSITY
AREA AND FREEWAY
STRONG NORTH - SOUTH CORRIDOR
FROM 210 FREEWAY TO REGIONAL MALL
' ' LEGEND ' ~-'-' ~"~;.~.'f.~t t
EXHIBIT "B"
OPPORTUNITIES
AND ~
CONSTRAINTS
'CONCEI~ 'p'~
LM
RR M'to.'. Pro
LM .~ LM&L
: LM
- ~.~3':..:i z~- % - toL
~ LM &P
to LM - ~ to
': ' ' ~ChmhSr' · ~ ....
to H
~ Project Bo~d~
~ Victoria
Communi~ PI~
~ ~ ~B ~ Etiwanda
Specific
~Ar~ of Pro~sed
Land Use
Amen~enm
Foo~ill Bird
L Low Densi~ ~.4
LM Low Medium Densi~ (4~
~ M Medium Den~i~ ~./~
MH Medium High Densi~ (14.24
H Hi~ Density (24.Jo
CF I
OP Office Park
RRC Regional Related Commercial
RR Regional Related Offic~Commercial
VC Village Commercial
PUBLIC & OUASI PUBLIC
P Park~School
SBCFCSan Bcm~dino County
Flo~ Control
Map So~c~: ~c CiW ofR~o Cu~onga Pl~nln8 Dcpmmcnc 1997. UC ~tility Co~idor
1~I6/98(CRGg3 I~IR)
Figure 3.3
EXHIBII "C"
/4
o so~ tooo' * ~ Proposed and Existing Land Uses
EXHIBIT "D"
VICTORIA I..,~I,~E$
~"rIE V-~?.T~GE OF V-~CT~R_IA L.~I~ES
A UNIQUE WATER-RELATED URBAN COMMUNI~f
The character of Victoria Lakes is formed by the unique
relationship of the residential, commercial and recreational land
uses surrounding the lakes which become the village's central
open space. The intent is to create a high quality, water related
community, with an active, people-oriented water edge that serves
the residents of the Victoria Lakes Village, the entire community
of Victoria, and the City of Rancho Cucamonga in general.
VIT3~GE ENTRY
The most gracious entrance to residenti~x portions of the Village
is on Victoria Park Lane at Baseline. North of Baseline, Victoria
Linear Park's landscape character and design is similar throughout
its entire length. South of Baseline, however, Victoria Park Lane
takes on a more formal character, with regularly spaced trees.
Victoria Park Lane terminates at a large circular pedestrian plaza
at the north end of North Victoria Lake. Victoria Park Lane
terminates at a large circular pedestrian plaza at the north end
of North Victoria Lake. There will be a lake overlook at this
point, a destination where pedestrians and bicyclists can gather
and look across the open vista created by the lakes and lakes'
edges. A conceptual plan of the pedestrian plaza is shown below:
[1] This circular pedestrian plaza shall be softened to reduce
the impact of the amount of hardscape.
PEDESTRIAN PLAZA
THE VILI._AGF- ECGES
The Village edges are the railroad tracks on the North,
~iwanda Avenue on the East, tke Devote Freeway on ~he
Southeast a_nd Day C:eek on the West. The edge treatment for
Etiwanda Avenue and the railroad tracks have been discussed
previously. The proposed t. reat~ent ~f the Day Creek rich,-
of-way and ~he adjoihlng Sou:hem California Edison corridor
is shown in below. Because of the excel!en~ visibility of
the southern half of the Village fr~m the Devote Freeway,
most of the land adjacent ~o. the freeway will be occupied by
the regional shopping center and related commercial
facilities. This serves the needs of the major department
s~ores for freeway visibility and access, and the needs of
the residential community for buffering from the freeway.
/ 5 C E
I
VTCTOI~IA LAKES LII~K ~ R~SIDENTIkL AND COMI~RCIAL COM/~J3~ITY
The lakes proposed for this Village will p~cvide the visual and
land use connection between the residential, commercial and
recreational facilities. [2] Some of the uses which may be
provided at the lakes include fishing, model boat sailing and
paddle boating pending Planning Commission and/or City Council
approval. Because of the change in grade, there will be a series
of terraced lakes, each large enough to create a dramatic visual
impact. An illustrative drawing depicts how the lakes might be
arranged to accomplish the intent of this plan is shown on Page
77. North Victoria Lake is bordered by single-family residential
to the east and a public park to the west. Central Victoria Lake
provides lake frontage to multi-family residential to the west,
single-family residential to the east, the park to the northwest
and multi-family to the southeast. South Victoria Lake is
situated between multi-family residential land uses and regional
'related uses.
75
PUBLIC PARK AT NORm %U/CTORIA IJ%KE
Along the western edge of North Victoria Lake, a public park
facility will be located. This park will serve the entire
community and provide uses compatible with the character of the
lake. Lake edges will be public to provide maximum access to
this special park. A conceptual plan of the park and lake is
shown on page 76a.
REGIONAL RELA%~ED USES ON L~KE EDGE
The regional related uses adjacent to South Victoria Lake would be
compatible with both the residential co~Lmunity to the north and
the regional center to the south. Some commercial activity, such
as restaurants, etc., would be appropriate in this area.
Additional residential uses, should they be necessary, would also
be appropriate on the lake edge.
TRAILS FOLLOW LAKE SYSTEH INTO HEART OF THE REGIONAL CENTER
[3] The park and trail system of Victoria Park Lane shall
continue around both sides of all three lakes down to Miller
Avenue where it is expected to cross Miller and continue into the
regional center. The quality of the edge, that is, whether it
appears as
a natural lake edge or an urban water edge may vary. [3]
However, the lower lake edge shall be designed with a more urban
water edge, such as bulk-heads. The Natural Lake Edge cross-
section shows a typical eight-foot trail and edge condition at the
lake in the residential areas along North Victoria Lake.
A cross section depicting a portion of the trail system that
connects the lake area to Victoria Loop Road between the
residential areas east of the lakes is shown on page 76a.
76
~- ~---.-'~;-~3'.;':.-.~,:~ ,~Sy_~,Z~.~~'t'''' ....
I -- .-.
~ '~: ~1
~ ....... ,. -,-,~ ILLUSTRATIVE CONCEPT PLAN
~ ~ ~.. ~. . .-,, ./ . VICTORIA LAKES SOUTH
~:~'~--.. ~..~"~ Victoria
,,,.[~h/,~. ~ ~lanned Community
~5~? in Rancho Cucamonga
.~_ I.:D DAT~
PARK / LAKE CONCEPT
TRAIL SECTION
(See Page 77)
RESIDENTIAL LAND USE IN VICTORIA LAKES
The residential land uses of this village will be consistent with
the character of the place tha~ is being proposed. Residential
densities will range from Low-Medium to Medium-High in this
village. The Low-Medium residential (LM) designation allows from
4 to 8 dwelling units per acre. The Medium-High Density
residential land use category (MI{) includes housing products in a
range of 14 to 24 dwellings per acre. Because of their location
on the lake edge these dwellings will be of quality character and
highly desirable, matching their unique setting.
78
~EVIS;D DA~'E I
/
VICTORIA LAKES
COMMUNITY PLAN
Victoria
~ann~ ~mmun~y
~o Cu~monga
~EV~SED DATE
REGIONAL CENTER IS URBAN FOCUS FOR VICTORIA
The regional center will be the commercial focus of Victoria and
of the region (which extends beyond the city of Rancho Cucamonga
to include western San Bernardino County). It is important that
this center fulfill its role as the active terminus of the
community-wide open space system, and as an outstanding regional
commercial facility. The array of department stores and
commercial activities that typically fill a regional center will
be a great credit to the city of Rancho Cucamonga, both in the
image it creates for the city, and in the revenue it provides
through sales taxes collected by the regional center merchants.
The pedestrian plaza and trail system that connects the center to
the community will make this development a unique place that will
function as the civic plaza for Rancho Cucamonga, and where many
public functions can occur.
On the following page is an illustrative diagram showing the
character of the center's north entry that will make this place
exciting, people-oriented and active. This entry to the regional
center is conceptually designed to function in concert with the
entry to the Regional Related uses directly north across Miller
Avenue. The potential for two specialty restaurants at this
location would include water features flanking their entry. The
trail system will have direct, convenient access to the center
from the expected specialty restaurant uses.
8O
~EVISED DATE . I
DEPT. STORE 6
A SPECIAL EN'£KY TO T~E REGIONAL CEnTeR AR~A
The main automobile entry into the center will be from the Devore
Freeway and Foothill Boulevard. There is an opportunity to create
a special entry into the regional center.
The drawing b~low is a typical cross-section of Day Creek
Boulevard, located west of the center, showing the kind of
planting that will help achieve the appropriate entry landscape.
Day cr~l~ ~o~.lz. va.r~ ar I/~cFor~ La 'k~
,'IEV[SED DATE I
I
TYPICAL REGIONAL RELATED LAND USES
The category called Regional Related Commercial and Office
Use includes those activities that typically orient
themselves to a regional center, but, for various reasons,
do not need to be contained within the center itself. Below
is a conceptual diagram that shows how these various uses
may fit into a coherent pattern. The illustration is not to
be construed as a specifically proposed plan at this time.
: , ~ ~ /
, '~
,I
/
/
. -~ F~ ~l~.
~ ~ ..~,,~/ .
L~ ~ ~ .., ,~/ ..
The intent of this diagram ~nd ~he _o__o .ng description,
however, is to describe what a tv~-ica!., scheme mi
South of Foothill might be a large home improvement center
including a lumber yard, nursery and do-it-yourself hardware
center. Facing Foothill, north of the home improvement
center the diagram shows a discount depar~men~ s~ore, and
next to it, a medium size motor hotel. At the north west
corner of the north-south boulevard and Foothill might be
another discount department store, facing the boulevard. A
high rise hotel wou~d probably be surrounded by quality
restaurants, banks, savings and loans or other uses desiring
prime visible locations. Behind the hotel, and paralleling
the western $C~_ corridor, smaller offices and commercial
buildings could develop that do not require high visibility,
such as a veterinarian's office, a T.V. repair center, an
office equi~-ment store, or other service commercial. At
Miller and Day Creek Boulevard, typical uses might 'include
various offices. At the intersection of Baseline and Day
Creek Boulevard a small conveniencs commercial center for
the Victoria Community might be established. Facilities
here mi~h~ include a locksmith, dry clsaners, a~.d a hardware
store. All streeta and parking lots will be landscaped and
will make provision fo: safe and efficient pedestrian and
bicycle circula~on. Zach project will have a landscaped
character rather ~han a 's~rlp development' image. This
wi~_l b, accomplished by minimizing driveway entrances ~o
major ar terial~, and landscaping the edges to buffer
objectionable views of parking and service areas.
Future market demand may indicate a need for additional
residential land uses within the Regional Related land use
category. Such use will be pc.--mitred if it is clear that
the amount of cu,,~ercial land uses will not be absorbed over
a reasonable period of time, or a concept of combined
commercial and residential land uses can be acccmp!ished.
VILLAGE COMMERCIAL CENTEF. ME~'TS LOCAL NEEDS
To provide for the convenience needs of local residents
within Victoria Lakes, a small village commercial center
should be centrally located. This center should contain
those facilities that are not normally found within a
regional center or its related facilities, such as a food
market or drug store. To assure convenient access by
pedestrians and bicycles, as well as automobiles, this
center should be located at Victoria Parkway and Baseline.
COMMUNITY FACILITIES
The Fire Station on Baseline near Day Creek will serve the
fire protection needs of the community. Should the
existing railroad right-of-way become a mass transit
corridor, a mass transit station could be located in the
area between Bas~!ine and the railroad tracks, west of Day
Creek Bouievard. Any parking that could not be accommodated
on this site could ideally be located in the SCE corridor
just east of the road. A mass-transit tie to the regional
center from this location would also be appropriate. This
site would also be an ideal location for other community
related facilities because of its central location and
excellent access.
Should this area not be suitable for a rapid transit station
or other community facilities, it should be developed with
residential land uses. Any land use consistent with the
Medium Density ("M") land use would be appropriate. In
addition, mobile home parks will be permitted here, and
should be developed according to the standards of the City
of Rancho Cuc~onga.
Comparison of Existing and Proposed Acreages
for
Park Open Space and Amenities
. ~. .... ~_~ ...... -;-.~: ~ ,~. -.~ Victoria-.-~. '.::D~ VictoHaArbors /.: .:. EIR,M. ifigatlon~
~eighborhood Park 5 7 6.33
Victoria Park Mae/Linear Park 10 5.7 3.81
Community Trails 3 0 0
Mkes 19 0 0
Vineyard Buffers 0 0 3.90
Wetland/Park Edge 0 1.0 2.24
Tot a] 37 13,7 16.28 20.68
* Active park acreage based on the proposed land uses according to Concept "U"
.~, ..... . ~ ,Victoria: ~,~::Victoria ,~ Vactona,~::<e:,g: -Victoria~= CTo;I.~
· ' ~, .Park ~
Neighborho~ Park 6 21 8 5 40
Victoria Park ~ne 4 20 12 10 46
Community Trails 8 13 5 3 29
Lakes* 19 19
T~tal by Village 18 54 25 37 134
· Lakes (Water Surhce Area) = 13 Acres
~ke Edge Trail = 6 Acres
Note: Acreages are rounded to the nearest acre,
EXBIBII "E"
SUBAREA NO. 2A
SUBAREA
_il l I ~Jl I ,,, I L,,, NO. 1
~ Base Line Rd
H
SUBAREA ,/u,o.,c
LM
NO. 2B ~ ~o ~,o ..
LM LM ~ L
~o L
SUBAREA
MR ~o
RR ~ LM ~ P
to LM ~ Mtl~o
NO.5
~ ~ Church St
"" SUBAREA
,o ~ ~" SUBAREA
~ ~c NO. 3 NO. 6
Io Mil
SUBAREA
NO. 4 ~ v~,o,,~
Communily Plan
RR RR %5 ~
Specilic [Sllm
, Area of I'ropoxed
~ Land Usc
Fooddll Bird R~SIDFNTIAI.
L Low Densliy
LM Low Medium Density (4.8 UU~IC'I
~ M Medium Dcnsiiy
Mil Medium Iligh Density (1~.~
I I I ligh Density
c~
CF Commercial Facilky
OP Omce Park.
RRC Regional Rclalcd Commercial
RR RcgionM Rcla~cd O~cc/Commcrcial
VC Village Commercial
P Pnrk~Sch~l
SBCFC San Bcrnardino County
FIo~ Con~rol
1~I6~gX(CR(JAJI/EIR)
GPA 98-02/VCPA 98-01/ESPA 98-01 Figure 3.3
N ~.~g i EXHIBIT "F"
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Adjourned Meeting
February 24, 1999
Chairman McNiel called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning
Commission to order at 7:35 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains Room at Rancho
Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: John Mannerino, Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart
ABSENT: Rich Macias, Peter Tolstoy
STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Dan James, Senior
Civil Engineer; Duane Morita, Contract Planner
OLD BUSINESS
A. THE VICTORIA ARBORS '(FORMERLY VICTORIA LAKES) - AMERICAN BEAUTY
DEVELOPMENT CO. - An overview of the proposed land use and development concepts for
Victoria Arbors within the Victoria Community Plan on approximately 291.8 acres of land,
generally bounded by Base Line Road, Foothill Boulevard, Etiwanda Avenue, and the Day
Creek Channel - APN: 227-201-04, 13 through 18, 22, 28 through 30, and 36; 222-201-33;
227-161-33, 35, 36, and 38; and 227-171-08, 11, 12, 14, 20, 22, and 23.
Nancy Fong, Senior Planner provided an overview of the project issues and the Commission
concerns and comments expressed at the last workshop
John Morrisette, American Beauty Development Co., summarized that he took the Commission's
concerns seriously and went back to the drawing board to review their development concepts. He
then handed out colored development concepts showing two design alternative plans to the
Commission and staff for discussion.
Bob Lacoss, PDS West, presented the two design alternative plans to the Commission. He
explained that Design Alternative A is a mixed use (senior housing and commercial) designation
along the east and west sides of the winery property with a buffer landscape area consisting of a
double row of trees and vineyards separating the residential development immediately to the south.
He then described Design Alternative B as similar to the first one except that the senior housing
was being proposed near the corner of Base Line Road and Victoria Park Lane. He thought that
senior housing or high density residential could be proposed along areas south of Church Street,
which he felt would buffer the regional shopping center to the south.
Mr. Morrisette felt the City has an over abundant supply of commercial areas already and the loss
of commercial land within the project site would not adversely affect the fiscal soundness of the
City. He introduced Matt Disston, an economics consultant, to provide his fiscal opinion.
Matt Disston outlined his qualifications. He supported Mr. Morrisette's comments that the City has
large amount of approved commercial land and stated the following:
· City has approximately 1,800 to 1,900 acres of commemial land
· Only 400 to 500 acres of commercial land are needed to support the City
· Region is "retail-rich"
· Foothill Boulevard is the commercial spine for the City
Base Line Road is not a good retail area
Mr. Disston concluded that office development is not viable for the area because of the current
market.
Gino Filippi, Filippi Winery, indicated that he preferred Design Alternative A.
John Goldman, Etiwanda School District, indicated that the proposed school "fits" nicely within the
area. He too supported Design Alternative A. He liked the joint use of the school and park and
liked the access roads. He did not object to the location of the wetland in relation to the park and
school.
John Lyons, resident, suggested the City establish a building moratorium for the area. He
suggested that commercial be allowed from Foothill Boulevard to Base Line Road.
Mrs. Little, resident, inquired when a grocery store would be built in the Etiwanda area.
Mr. Buller, City Planner, responded that he did not believe a grocery store would be built in the area
until more residential development occurs. He indicated that the City recognizes the lack of
supermarkets in the area. He then provided direction to the Planning Commission on issues to
discuss for the evening.
Commissioner Mannerino encouraged the protection of the winery property's integrity and
supported Design Alternative A.
Commissioner Stewart believed that the site could serve as a tourist destination point for the City
and did not support development of senior housing within the area. She supported Design
Alternative A and encouraged commercial uses for the area.
Chairman McNiel supported the location of the school and discussed the land swap issue. He
encouraged the need to further evaluate the commercial viability of the area.
Mr. Buller announced that the project would be scheduled for a March 23, 1999, Planning
Commission meeting to further discuss the issues. He indicated that text to the Victoria Community
Plan would have to be changed to ensure that the Arbors project compliments the winery property
and that design guidelines would have to be provided as to what the City envisions for the site in
relationship to design, trails, etc. He also indicated that staff was researching the wetland issue
to determine whether it should be retained onsite. He then introduced the next item of discussion
relating to development west of Day Creek Boulevard. He suggested that an overlay zone could
be created to allow mixed use. He also reiterated that the commercial site would be valuable in the
future and stated that he was reluctant to relinquish commercial zoning for the area.
Mr. Morrisette agreed that further analysis should be conducted to determine the viability of
commercial development in the area.
Commissioner Mannerino felt that Route 30/210 would make the area valuable in the future. He
did not envision large commercial development in the area. He supported the idea of allowing
mixed use within the area.
PC Adjourned Minutes "~ ~ ~:' ~, ._~ February 24,1999
Commissioner Stewart agreed with Commissioner Mannerino and did not support residential use
for the area west of Day Creek Boulevard. She supported the idea of mixed use for the area.
Mr. Buller then introduced the next item of discussion relating to the Buddhist temple parcel. He
indicated that the representatives of the temple supported retention of the office designation and
would object to a residential designation. He indicated that the site might be too large and deep
for office development and that staff would evaluate other land use options.
Ms. Fong indicated that the applicant is proposing to take parcels out of the Etiwanda Specific Plan
area and include them in the Victoria Community Plan area.
Mr. Buller requested discussion relating to the office parcels.
Chairman McNiel reminded everyone that the office classification was originally intended to allow
for local and neighborhood offices, such as dentist offices. He expressed concern that this had not
occurred.
Commissioner Mannerino did not envision any potential for office use in the area.
Mr. Buller indicated that he received comments from Commissioners Tolstoy and Macias that were
to be reflected in the minutes. He said Commissioner Tolstoy indicated the following:
Provide strong buffering to the winery and the regional center from single family residential
developments
The lakes are amenities for the entire planned community. The City approved the Lakes
Village in exchange for higher densities. The proposed reduction in densities does not relieve
the applicant's obligation to provide sufficient amenities for the planned community in some
form or another if not the lakes
He reported that Commissioner Macias indicated the following:
Provide good buffering to the winery
Believed that Team I of the Design Charrette is the most realistic
Look for sufficient open space (not necessarily the lakes) that maintains the integrity of the
Lake's Village and the Victoria Community Plan
Chairman McNiel expressed the need for substantial park/open space amenities.
Commissioner Mannerino did not consider the lakes as usable open space.
Commissioner Stewart expressed the need for the types of open spaces that people could walk
through because the regional shopping area is a terminus for the region. She indicated that the
project needs to be creative so as to encourage those pedestrian activities.
Mr. Buller next presented the Community Trail System exhibit and discussed how people would
move through the area. He then announced the next workshop would discuss fiscal impacts and
phasing of improvements.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments at this time.
PC Adjourned Minutes February 24, 1999
ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Commission adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Brad Buller
Secretary
PC Adjourned Minutes '~-4-~ '~ ~ February 24, 1999
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Adjourned Meeting
February 10, 1999
Chairman McNiel called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning
Commission to order at 7:25 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains Room at Rancho
Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California.
ROLL CALL,
COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Rich Macias, John Mannerino, Larry McNiel, Para Stewart,
Peter Tolstoy
ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Nancy Fong,
Senior Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Rudy Zeledon, Assistant
Planner
NEW BUSINESS.
A. PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW 99-01 - MIGHTY DEVELOPMENT, INC. - A request for
confirmation of the grading concept for the previously approved Tentative Tract 13674,
consisting of 18 lots on 11.29 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (up to 2
dwelling units per acre), located on the west side of Amethyst Street, north of Valley View
Drive - APN: 1061-401-03.
Brad Buller, City Planner, opened the meeting by introducing the project to the Commission and
briefly explaining the purpose and goals of the pre-application review process.
John Wang, representative for Mighty Development Inc., explained that Tentative Tract Map
No. 13674 expired in May of 1993, a few months before the State Legislature passed the law that
granted a three-year automatic extension. He indicated that their intention is to now resubmit the
Tentative Tract Map and he requested comments from the Commission on the appropriate
direction to take. He went on to explain that the previously approved grading plan was designed
to accommodate drainage from north of the tract to the south. He introduced a revised south gate
entrance concept based on City Engineering Department Standards.
Rudy Zeledon, Assistant Planner, summarized comments regarding the grading and site plans. He
pointed out that even though the project was approved prior to the adoption of the Hillside
Development Ordinance, it still meets the intent of the ordinance. He explained to the Commission
that mass grading is often defined as the movement of large quantities of earth over a large area
and the disruption of the natural topography of the land; however, in order to meet the intent of the
Hillside Ordinance, mass grading was proposed in order to reconstruct the natural slopes of land
to properly accommodate drainage and street layouts. He said that split level foundations were
also proposed in order to minimize alterations of the natural land form. He suggested the
Commission may want to discuss the proposed use of cross-lot drainage and explained that the
previously approved map was approved prior to the adoption of Resolution No. 92-17, which limits
cross-lot drainage to flow from one lot to another only. He pointed out that Lots 16 through18 all
drain through Lot 15 and Lots 9 through 11 drain through Lot 8. He said that because of the
downward slopes on Lots 9 through 11, cross-lot drainage was really the only acceptable approach
because the only other alternative would be to create steep slopes with high retaining walls to
direct the drainage flow directly north to the street, He explained that this would require intensive
grading, which would disrupt the natural slope of the land.
Chairman McNiel asked what the existing grade of the site is.
Mr. Zeledon indicated that the grade is approximately 12 percent.
Chairman McNiel thought that cross-lot drainage is a "recipe for disaster." He supported the
grading plan but thought that the proposed cross-lot drainage plan should be reconsidered. He
agreed that the cross-lot drainage through Lots 9 through 11 on the south portion of the property
could be considered but felt the cross-lot drainage on Lots 16 through 18 could be addressed.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt cross-lot drainage creates maintenance problems. He suggested the
applicant rethink the use of cross-lot drainage, especially on Lots 15 through 18. He asked how
the drainage flow on Amethyst Street would be addressed.
Mr, Buller responded it was unknown at this time but it would be carefully addressed when the
project is resubmitted.
Commissioner Mannerino voiced his concerns about the maintenance problems associated with
cross-lot drainage. He agreed with the previous Commissioners that the use of cross-lot drainage
for this project should be reconsidered, especially for Lots 15 to 19..
Mr, Buller summarized the Commissioner's comments. He stated that the Commission appeared
to be in agreement that, with the exception of some of the cross-lot features, the proposed grading
plan would be acceptable. He also stated that the Commission would like staff and the applicant
to revisit the cross-lot drainage on Lots 15 through 19 but accepted the use cross-lot drainage on
the southern Lots 8 through 11. He said the Commission determined that other grading conflicts
may result from modifying the drainage concepts for Lots 8 to 11 that would not be consistent with
the development to the south.
Chairman McNiel concurred with Mr. Buller's summary.
Mr. Buller commented that staff would work with the applicant in an attempt to resolve the cross-lot
drainage issues.
OLD BUSINESS
B. THE VICTORIA ARBORS (FORMERLY VICTORIA LAKES) - AMERICAN BEAUTY
DEVELOPMENT CO. - An overview of the proposed land use and development concepts for
Victoria Arbors within the Victoria Community Plan on approximately 291.8 acres of land,
generally bounded by Base Line Road, Foothill Boulevard, Etiwanda Avenue, and the Day
Creek Channel - APN: 227-201-04, 13 through 18, 22, 28 through 30, and 36; 222-201-33;
227-161-33, 35, 36, and 38; and 227-171-08, 11, 12, 14, 20, 22, and 23.
Brad Buller, City Planner, explained that the purpose of the workshop was for discussion only and
not for decision making.
-2- February 10, 1999
PC Adjourned Minutes .~~ ~
Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, presented a recap from the January 27 meeting and noted that each
of the Commissioners were given copies of the minutes of the public hearings for the development
of the Victoria Community Plan. She also gave an overview of the six concepts of the Design
Charrette.
Chairman McNiel opened the meeting for comments.
Commissioner Mannerino stated the six concepts all have similar characteristics but he particularly
liked the concepts from Teams 2 and 3. He questioned whether it is appropriate to have concepts
that go beyond the winery boundary.
Mr. Buller replied that concepts could go beyond the winery boundary.
Commissioner Macias stated that his major concern is the compatibility of surrounding land use
with the winery site. He questioned whether the Commission was being asked to advise the
Redevelopment Agency on the compatible land use for the winery.
Mr. Buller replied affirmatively. He stated that the winery could be treated as the "jewel" or the focal
point within the proposed Arbors project where land uses around it should be complimentary.
John Morrisette, American Beauty Development Co., requested direction from the Commission so
that he could plan the buffering around the winery.
Commissioner Macias responded that the winery should be the central focus of the proposed
project and that the EIR must address its historic significance and the potential adverse impacts
from the adjacent land uses.
Commissioner Stewart commented that she would like the preservation of the winery site because
of its historic significance. She went on to say that the school and the park sites should not relate
to the winery, a mixed use zoning should be planned around the winery and beyond the site's
boundary, and the site should have an entrance from Day Creek Boulevard to enhance tourism.
She believed that senior apartments and garden types of commercial development with arbors and
trellises would go well with the winery site.
Commissioner Tolstoy agreed that the winery needs to be preserved. He commented that land
uses planned around the winery should compliment the site and that having Day Creek Boulevard
exposure would enhance the viability of the winery.
Chairman McNiel agreed with the comments from the Commissioners and that the winery is a
"jewel." He remarked that historic sites such as the Thomas Winery have lost the identity and the
essence of historic significance because the grapevines and structures pertinent to winery facilities
were taken out.
Commissioner Macias agreed that the integrity and the identity of a winery facility must be
maintained to create a draw to the site.
Jim Frost, Etiwanda resident, stated that the City started a Task Force with the goal of reviewing
the current General Plan and bringing it to the next millennium. He added that the Commission
should look at the project site as a clean slate and take advantage of reviewing it as such when
planning the appropriate land uses.
Mr. Buller summarized that the Commission's direction was to preserve the winery as the focal
feature and to plan complimentary land uses around it.
PC Adjourned Minutes .~,~,.~3~. ~ ~2 February 10, 1999
Mr. Morrisette asked the Commission whether they would consider single family development if
proper buffering were provided.
Mr. Buller asked the CommiSsion to discuss the buffering issues with respect to the Regional
Center and the loss of open space/lakes (Subarea 1 ) and the proposed residential development
west of Day Creek Boulevard (Subarea 2) and west of Etiwanda Avenue (Subarea 3).
The consensus of the Commission was to provide a strong buffer against the Regional Center.
The Commission also stated that the loss of the lakes would mean the loss of view corridor which
would need to be mitigated.
The consensus of the Commissioners was that they do not support residential development south
of Church Street and that there is not enough information for review to support converting
commercial and office zoned land to residential development.
Mr. Bullet asked the Commission to discuss the wetland issue.
The consensus of the Commission was not to keep the wetland. The Commission directed staff
to obtain more information from the Army Corps of Engineer with regards to the long term
responsibility and maintenance of the wetland.
Mr. Buller commented that the next workshop topics of discussion would be the buffering issues
with the winery and the Regional Center and the fiscal issues of converting commercial and office
zoned land to residential uses.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments.
ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Commission adjourned at 10:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Brad Buller
Secretary
PC Adjourned Minutes -4- February 10, 1999
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Adjourned Meeting
January 27, 1999
Chairman McNiel called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning
Commission to order at 8:30 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains Room at Rancho
Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Rich Macias, John Mannerino, Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart,
Peter Tolstoy
ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Dan James, Senior
Civil Engineer; Rebecca Van Buren, Associate Planner
NEW BUSINESS
A. PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW 98-13 - SUNRISE DEVELOPMENT - The proposed
development of a 59-bed assisted living facility for senior citizens on a 1.5 acre site located
at 9519 Base Line Road in the Office Professional District - APN: 208-541-01.
Brad Buller, City Planner, explained the purpose of the pre-application review process. He
introduced the Sunrise Development project and requested that the applicant describe the nature
of the proposed assisted living facility and its development plan.
Wolf gang Hack, project architect, introduced Bill Herrick, Sunrise Development, and David Wagner,
civil engineer. Mr. Hack described the goals of Sunrise and its desire to provide a high quality
facility with a strong residential character. He stated most residents are generally in good health
and ambulatory, but require assistance in cooking or personal care. He presented the site plan,
described the architectural features, and presented photographs of a newly-constructed Sunrise
facility.
Mr. Herrick explained the differences between acute care, skilled nursing and assisted living. He
said assisted living patients are mostly ambulatory and almost, but not quite, functional in daily
activities. He indicated some are at a stage of life where they do not really need, but desire, to
have extra care.
Rebecca Van Buren, Associate Planner, stated the use is consistent with the zoning and staff does
not have any major issues with the project. She noted the applicant filed a preliminary review so
the technical issues have been identified and forwarded to the applicant. She indicated the site is
within a small Office-Professional island surrounded by residential, She pointed out the parcels
to the west are awkward shaped lots such that a master plan of access will be requested.
Chairman McNiel asked the applicant to describe the rooms and kitchen arrangements.
Mr. Hack explained rooms are single or double bedroom, have a small refrigerator, but do not have
kitchens. He said there is a main dining room for all residents, and a smaller, informal activity area
which would have cereal and snacks for more flexibility.
Commissioner Stewar'[ asked how many Alzheimer and dementia patients are accommodated.
Mr. Hack stated it is a small group, about 15 patients. He indicated the area is an outdoor area
secured for their protection.
Commissioner Macias asked about the tenancy of the facility.
Mr. Hack replied it is month-to-month rentals ranging from about $1,800 to $3,000 a month
depending upon room and care.
Commissioner Stewart asked what attracted Sunrise to this site.
Mr. Herrick stated in addition to size and availability of land, it involves the demographics of
qualified care-givers, such as the sons and daughters that care for their parents, and the qualified
seniors.
The Planning Commission discussed the need to ensure the compatibility between the assisted
care facility and the residential neighborhood, as well as the personal safety of patients with traffic
on Base Line Road. The Commission said a neighborhood meeting would be beneficial if the
applicant decides to submit a formal application.
Mr. Buller summarized the discussion. He stated he did not hear issues with the proposed design
that could not be addressed. He said a master plan and neighborhood meeting will be requested.
He indicated the architecture is moving in the right direction.
The Sunrise development team thanked the Commission for its comments.
B. THE VICTORIA ARBORS (FORMERLY VICTORIA LAKES) - AMERICAN BEAUTY
DEVELOPMENT CO. - An overview of the proposed land use and development concepts for
Victoria Arbors within the Victoria Community Plan on approximately 291.8 acres of land,
generally bounded by Base Line Road, Foothill Boulevard, Etiwanda Avenue, and the Day
Creek Channel - APN: 227-201-04, 13 through 18, 22, 28 through 30, and 36; 222-201-33;
227-161-33, 35, 36, and 38; and 227-171-08, 11, 12, 14, 20, 22, and 23.
Brad Buller, City Planner, explained that the purpose of the workshop was for discussion only and
not for decision making.
Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, presented the staff report.
Mr. Buller summarized the issues as follows: the proper edge treatment for the winery given the
unknown development proposal of the site; the inherent land use conflicts between single family
residential development and the commercial development or the proximity to the freeway; the
appropriateness of giving up commercially zoned land for residential development at the west side
of Day Creek Boulevard; the lack of community facility within the plan; and, the change from office
zoned land to residential development within the Etiwanda Specific Plan.
Chairman McNiel opened the meeting for public comment.
PC Adjourned Minutes --~ /__iL/ January 27, 1999
Nick Karavidas, Filippi Winery, stressed the importance of buffering the winery with vineyards.
Marsha Banks, Etiwanda resident, reminded the Commission that Eitwanda Avenue was the first
street in the area to have river rock curb and stressed the importance of the continuation of this
special curb treatment. She felt the development proposal is detrimental to the winery because it
crowds the site with small houses.
Jim Banks, Etiwanda resident, commented on the history of the Victoria Community Plan and
observed there was a commitment to give higher density to the developer in exchange for a
regional mall to benefit the City and the lakes as public recreation to benefit the Etiwanda area.
He suggested that the Commission review the minutes of the public hearings back in the 1980s.
Commissioner Mannerino indicated he is particularly concerned with the wetland. He believed that
the wetland would create nuisance problems such as odors, vector control, etc. He remarked that
he needs to see numbers and facts before considering giving up land zoned for commercial and
office.
Commissioner Stewart agreed with Commissioner Mannerino that she has not been convinced to
give up the commercially zoned land west of Day Creek Boulevard for residential development.
She stated that buffering the winery is a major issue.
Commissioner Macias asked about the phasing construction of the school and the park. He stated
that the City should be cautious in accepting any wetland because of long term maintenance issues
with Army Corps of Engineers which would be very expensive. He commented that the EIR should
address the impact of the proposed development to the winery and mitigation measures. He felt
the school should not be too close to the winery. He requested information on the history of the
lakes and the Victoria Planned Community.
Chairman McNiel agreed with the comments from the other Commissioners and stated that
information on the history of the Victoria Planned Community and the phasing of the project should
be provided.
Mr. Buller commented that the Design Charrette on the winery planned on Saturday would provide
results that would give a clearer direction of any development proposal for the winery site. He
summarized the topics of discussion for the next workshop as follows: history of the Planned
Community, the lakes, open space/park, and the winery.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments at this time.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
C. QUARTERLY DISCUSSION AND REVIEW OF DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE PROJECTS-
A discussion and review of projects considered by Design Review Committee during previous
quarter.
PC Adjourned Minutes ~ -~-,~ ,~~--.~/-'~ January 27, 1999
The Planning Commission briefly discussed the list of projects reviewed during the last quarter and
indicated an interest in a field trip to review some of the developments that are currently in the
construction stage.
ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Commission adjourned at 10:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Brad Buller
Secretary
PC Adjourned Minutes January 27, 1999
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Adjourned Meeting
March 10, 1999
Chairman McNiel called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning
Commission to order at 8:20 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains Room at the Rancho
Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Rich Macias, John Mannerino, Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart,
Peter Tolstoy
ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Dan James, Senior
Civil Engineer; Duane Morita, Contract Planner; and Rebecca Van Buren,
Associate Planner
OLD BUSINESS
A. THE VICTORIA ARBORS (FORMERLY VICTORIA LAKES) - AMERICAN BEAUTY
DEVELOPMENT CO. - An overview of the proposed land use and development concepts for
Victoria Arbors within the Victoria Community Plan on approximately 291.8 acres of land,
generally bounded by Base Line Road, Foothill Boulevard, Etiwanda Avenue, and the Day
Creek Channel - APN: 227-201-04, 13 through 18, 22, 28 through 30, and 36; 222-201-33;
227o161-33, 35, 36, and 38; and 227-171-08, 11, 12, 14, 20, 22, and 23.
Mr. Brad Buller, City Planner, explained those issues and items to be discussed at the workshop,
including fiscal implications and phasing of improvements to service the project. He summarized
the fiscal impact report prepared by Agajanian and Associates. He explained that the report
concluded that though the proposed project would be a net fiscal gain for the City, the amount of
gain would not be as great as the approved Lakes project.
Commissioner Macias inquired as to what the City strategy was for commercial development in the
City.
Mr. Buller responded that this particular issue would be addressed with the City's General Plan
Update.
Mr. Matt Disston, DMG Economics, provided an overview of his review of the Agajanian report. He
agreed that the regional mall site was a good location for commercial development, as were areas
along Foothill Boulevard. He suggested that commercial development along Day Creek was not
advantageous and explained why. He clarified that this review was completed within one week and
is very preliminary,
Commissioner McNiel asked Mr, Disston how could "borderline" commercial development in the
west side survive?
Mr. Disston responded that any commercial use would survive if it was economically viable. He
also noted that 5,000 roof tops were required to service a grocery store.
Mr. Buller indicated that this issue was very complex and that the Planning Commission should
hear the applicant's conclusions tonight, but address any comments during the March 23, 1999,
Planning Commission public hearing.
Mr. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, provided an overview of the project's improvement phasing
plan. He mentioned that improvements north and south of Church Street could be developed
independently.
Chairman McNiel indicated that he did not support half street improvements. He preferred street
improvements be provided on both sides of the road and suggested that Church Street be
improved to full width. The full Commission concurred with Chairman McNiel.
Mr. Bob Lacoss, PDS West, presented drawings of the green belt paseos being proposed with their
application.
Chairman McNiel inquired as to what the City's obligation is for maintaining landscaping.
Mr. Buller responded that the city would maintain the landscaping through a Landscape
Maintenance District.
NEW BUSINESS
B. PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW 99-02 - OVERLAND COMPANY - Consideration of land use
and site plan alternatives for approximately 150 acres of land located south of Interstate 15,
north of Foothill Boulevard, and west of East Avenue in the Etiwanda Specific Plan -
APN: 1100-031-08, 1100-041-04 through 10, 1100-061-02 through 04, 1100-071-01 and 02,
1100-081-01 through 06, 1100-031-01 and 02, 1100-141-01 and 02, 1100-151-01 and 02,
1100-181-01 and 04, and 1100-191-04 and 05.
Brad Buller, City Planner, explained the purpose of the pre-application review process.
Joseph Oleson, project representative, introduced Fred Liao of Overland Company. Mr. Oleson
stated that Overland Company is working in collaboration with Nelson Chung of Pacific
Communities, who owns the 283 single family lot subdivision recently approved in this area
(Tentative Tract 15711 ). Mr. Oleson identified seven sites which surround Tentative Tract 15711.
Mr. Oleson provided an overview of the package provided to the Commissioners showing
development concepts for Planning Areas "A" through "G."
Rebecca Van Buren, Associate Planner, provided an overview of the issues for each planning area.
Ms Van Buren stated that staff was concerned with the shifting of the neighborhood park from
Tentative Tract 15711 to a site along the freeway and, secondly, the proposed Office Professional
use in the triangular area labeled Planning Area "G" (south of the freeway, west of Etiwanda
Avenue, and north of Foothill Boulevard). She noted that there is an existing row of houses which
would become a poorly planned island in the center of the office area. She stated that staff
recommends the park remain in the approved location as shown in Tentative Tract 15711 plans
and that the triangle be either comprehensively planned to integrate all uses or left alone.
-2- March 10, 1999
PC Adjourned Minutes ~- ~'
Commissioner Macias commented that he did not feel the park should be moved from its
centralized location in the neighborhood.
Commissioner Stewart concurred with Commissioner Macias and indicated that she was not
convinced an office/professional land use would be viable in the triangular Planning Area "G."
Commissioner Tolstoy also agreed with the other Commissioners. He stated that the present
location allows park expansion into the utility corridor. He further commented that the triangular
area is problematic for an office use because it has very little exposure to the street. He indicated
that multi-family (Planning Area "E") might be a good transition to the commercial corridor.
Commissioner Mannerino stated that he was not opposed to multi-family residential transitioning
to the commercial corridor. He commented that the air pollution associated with a freeway is not
conducive to a park. He noted that an office/professional use in the triangle would only be feasible
for stand-alone businesses.
Chairman McNiel expressed his view of the park issue which differs from his colleagues. He
envisioned two parks, an Etiwanda Avenue park and a utility easement park. He stated that multi-
family next to a commercial corridor might be viable. He further said that the office/professional
triangle is questionable; it may not be planning for success. He elaborated that the site would be
difficult to access and would need a use that did not rely upon much traffic.
Mr. Buller summarized the discussion and clarified that comments regarding the shifting of multi-
family land use should not be interpreted as increasing density overall. He further elaborated that
a master plan for the entire triangle bounded by Foothill Boulevard, Etiwanda Avenue, and the I-15
Freeway should be presented to' show alternatives and that the park should be retained in a
centrally accessible location to the neighborhood it serves.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None
ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Commission adjourned at 10:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Brad Buller
Secretary
PC Adjourned Minutes -3- March 10, 1999
' ' ....... ;"'"~'~'-': .... ' Figure III 3
· - I ¢ ............ x~ CIRCULATION PLAN
; ~ ' i i COLLECTOR ............
i! ~ SECONDARY ......
· ' i MAJOR ARTERIAL ..............
"/ " i _~ MAJOR DIVIDED
ARTERIAL ..........
\ · EXISTING INTERCHANGE
'~ 0 PROPOSED INTERCHANGE
~ (~ FREENVAY INTERCHANGE
II GRADE SEPARATION
~'~ ~ · INTERSECTION FOR
POSSIBLE WIDENING
~ SPECIAL BOULEVARD
(,..?__ ~ SPECIAL DESIGN
z~. r"~-~, ..... SPECIAL IMPACT STUDY ZONE
EXTEND VICTORIA
PARK LANE
~ . CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
' ' ' :':.' PARKS AND
I .... " " RECREATION PLAN
, ~._ · .. : Z~? ,:---:- /~
...... : ' ~.
. . , ~ ...... -[? ~1 ~ PARKS
' " "; '"' '"'~"" ~' ' ~ PROPOSED PARKS
:' -~r~ ..... ",' :. --.~ , ~ , . ~ .-.
............. [~ EXISTING PARKS
, ,,- ......... :...~ . ~ ; ~ ',
', \ ; __ ,' ; . . . ,. ,_ FLOATING OESIGNATION
· -.. ~ .,A ~JA ' "
m ;----;~-- ....... ~ SCHOOLS*
', ~ EXISTING SCHOOLS
...... · ,, ~ PROPOSED SCHOOLS
""' ~-- ~. -- .. ,' ~ SPECIAL USE FACILITY
~ ~_~ .............................
% ~ '-'....
PARKS
:1 _~1 i ; ADD .' ..,
~ ~..il... ! l_. ,' ', ""
PROPOSED ..,o
~ ". I i L '" ~' PARK ..,,
= I N I :1 ! PROPOSEOELEME. AR¥
;I SCHOOL
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CITY OFRANCHOCUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: September 18, 1991
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Rick Gomez, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: STATUS OF VICTORIA LAKES PARK PROJE¢?
The City Council has requested an update on the status of the
proposed Victoria Lakes Park for the September 18, 1991 Council
agenda. The primary questions identified by the City Council have
been addressed as follows:
OUESTION NO. I - Where is the Lakes Park in the process?
On March 1, 1989 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 393,
approving Victoria Community Plan Amendment 88-05. This
approval was for-land use revisions and circulation changes
for ~he L~kes South Village (south of Base Line Road).
Conceptual designs for the Lakes Park were reviewed by both
the Planning Commission and City Council as part of this
amendment.
On June 12, 1991, the Planning Commission adopted their
Resolution No. 91-75 approving Tentative Tract 15060. This
approval was for the master "superblock" map for the Lakes
South Village, which created a parcel for the Lakes Park. A
condition of approval requires that the Lakes Park be
completed prior to the occupancy release of the 500th dwelling
unit. The WilliamLyon Company is currently working on future
tract map applications which would subdivide individual lots
for development.
,,j,,
EXHIBIT
All public facilities are accessible to all people.
OUEBTION NO. 4: How is the Lakes Park orooosg~ ~0 ~'
The proposed Victoria Lakes Park encompasses a total of 25
acres. The park, comprising of a trail, play area, parking
lot, and maintenance building takes up 12 acres. The lakes,
comprising of the upper lake being 7.4 acres, the middle lake
being 4.1 acres, the lower lake being 1.34 acres, and the
ponds being 0.16 acres takes up 13 acres. The lakes will have
a concrete edgin~ wi~h periodic clusters of boulders. The
slopes of the lakes will be concrete with a fiber
reinforcement over a m-~hrane liner and a geotextile matting.
The slopes will be at a 5:1 ratio until it reaches the bottom
of t_he lake at a depth of 8 feet. The bottom will have the
membrane liner and geote~ile matting.
There will be no flow of water between the lakes but, by means
of a pump, water will be circulated to give the affect of
water flowing from the upper lake to the lower lakes.
The surrounding tracts will use the dirt excavated.from the
lakes to balance the grading. Any definite phasing schedule
as to when excavation occurs in conjunction to overall grading
operations has not been finaled.
OUEBTION NO Sz What is the costs for maintenance of the Lakes
with'the Lakes Vilage being the colsest and the Groves Village
being the furthest from the Lakes park. This results in the
Lakes Village bearing the majority of the maintenance cost
with it proportionately decreasing to the remaining Villages
in Victoria based on distance. Even within the Lakes Village
itself, as you go further away from the park, there is a
decrease in assessment.
The following are the estimated assessment ranges for
residential properties:
Lakes $70.66 - $128.47
Windrows $21.70 - $ 25.63
Vineyards $16.28 - $ 19.15
Groves $10.85 - $ 12.77
These costs are in 1991 dollars and the precise assessment
must be refined based upon final construction drawings for the
Lakes Park and the final subdivisions. These cost projections
are, however, within a reasonable range of probability. These
have been calculated based on spreading the cost on both
residential and non-residential properties. Any delays will
have to incorporate a 6% annual inflation factor.
Should you have any additional questions regarding these
ieeu/s, p~ contact me anytime prior to the Council
Attachments
LINE ROlO
N.4.R
t
CHURCH ~
MEDIUM
RE~gD~gT~L N~P.
HCTOR~ LOOP
Map Source: ^meric~m Beauty Dew:lopmcnt Co.. 1998.
I~16~8(CRG8~ I~IR)
Figure 3.6
Development Concept U
Basel/ne Road
~ Not A Part
~O'X ll0'Lots
LM LM
4§'X 90' §5'X ll0'Lots
Lots 50'X I00'
Lots
LM "Soft"Commercial/Mixed Use
45'X 90'
Lots
Medium -: -
,. H. igh: -!.. Not A Part
Potential Regional Commercial Cente¢
Community Center
m vineyard Buffer
Foothill Blvd.
The Arbors- Rancho Cucamonga EXHIBIT "K-2"
i~IAGRAMATIC PLAN- ALTERNATIVE 1 Development
CAMONGA 220 LP - 16380 Vcntura Blvd., Suite 401 - Encino, CA 91436 Concept X1
PD$
West
~oselin¢ l~oad
Not A Part
LM
50'X ll0'Lots r
65'X IlO'
LM LM
45'X 90' ' 55'X IlO'Lots L~
Lots 50'X 100'
Lots
?,o f t" Commerclol/ Mi~ed Use
Medium .'~
Residential .~"
Not A Part
Potential Regional Commercial Center
Community Center
Vineyard Buffer
Foothill glvd,
The Arbors - Rancho Cucamonga EXHIBIT. "K-3"
DIAGRAMATIC PLAN -ALTERNATIVE 2 Development
CUCAMONGA 220 LP - 16380 Ventura Blvd., Suite 401 - Encino, CA 91436 Concept
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA --
STAFF REPORT
DATE: March 23, 1999
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Dan Coleman, Principal Planner
BY: Rebecca Van Buren, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-05 -
QUIKSET - A request to review a master plan of development for a concrete and
plastic products manufacturer for a total of 161,400 square feet of office and
manufacturing buildings on a 40-acre site within the Heavy Industrial District
(Subarea 15) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 12167 Arrow Route -
APN: 229-121-15
In response to new developments within the Quikset Organization, the applicant has respectfully
requested their application be withdrawn. No further action on this project by the Planning
Commission is necessary.
Principal Planner
DC:RVB:Is
Attachment:: March 18, 1999 letter from Master Development, applicant representative
ITEM F
MASTER' DEVELOPMENT
March 18, I999
Via F&xand US Mail
909-477-2847
City of Rancho Cucamonga Pleamlng Commission
c/o Ms. Rebecca Van Buren
Associate Planner
Commuai .ty Development Department
Plarmiag Division
The Ci~ of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA. 91729
Re: Design Review' 99-05 - Quickset Organl~fion
Dear Ms. Van Buren:
Per our discussion and on behalf of the Applicant, we respe, cu~ly request that the Planning
Commission withdraw thc above application for design review approval. The applicam will not
be proceeding with thc preca.s~ concrete operation on thc subject property. Shortly, a new design
review application will be submincd to City staff for a industrial building project.
We appreciate the effort the City sta. ffhas demonstrated through tltis process and we look
fomard to developing the property for higher and better use.
Very Truly Yours,
Bruce McDonaJd
President
cc: Karl Stockbridgc
Ken Cohen
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA --
STAFF REPORT
DATE: March 23, 1998
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Bullet, City Planner
BY: Salvador M. Salazar, AICP, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTAND DEVELOPMENT/DESIGN REVIEW98-32
- HERITAGE HOSPITAL - A request to construct an approximately 56,896 square
foot (120 beds) one-story Skilled Nursing Facility on approximately 3.95 acres of
land and to revise the Rancon Master Plan (totaling 33.14 acres of land) located in
the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. The
property is located east of Eucalyptus Street on the south side of White Oak Avenue
- APN: 208-352-24. Related file: Design Review 90-20 and Lot Line Adjustment
439.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoninq (to the proposed skilled nursinq facility):
North - Hotel; Industrial Area Specific Plan (Subarea 7)
South - Vacant; Industrial Area Specific Plan (Subarea 7)
East Vacant; Industrial Area Specific Plan (Subarea 7)
West Hospital; Industrial Area Specific Plan (Subarea 7)
B. General Plan Desiqnations:
Project Site - Industrial Park
North - Industrial Park
South - Industrial Park
East Industrial Park
West Industrial Park
C. Parkinq Calculations:
Number of Number of
Type Number Parking Spaces Spaces
of Use of Beds Ratio Required Provided
Nursing Facility 120 1/4 beds 30 66*
* A total of 354 parking spaces is required for the operation of the existing hospital and the
skilled nursing facility. The project will provide a total of 358 parking spaces on both
parcels.
ITEM G
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DR 98-32 - HERITAGE HOSPITAL
March 23, 1999
Page 2
ANALYSIS:
A. Backqround: On October 9, 1991, the Planning Commission approved the Master Plan for
the Rancon Center. The Master Plan divided the site into 18 parcels ranging in size from
0.97 to 4.66 acres. Project amenities included items such as a one-acre plaza and green belt
paseos linking the project elements together. All development within the Master Plan is
required to obtain approval of a separate Development/Design Review.
B. General: The skilled nursing facility is a permitted use in the Industrial Area Specific Plan
(Subarea 7) (Medical/Health Care Services). The facility will operate 24 hours a day.
C. Site Characteristics: The site is currently vacant with vegetation consisting of vineyards and
weeds. The site is relatively fiat with a north to south slope of approximately 2 percent. The
developer is proposing to construct and to operate a new, one-story, 56,896 square-foot
skilled nursing facility within a 3.95 acre site on the northeasterly portion of the Master Plan.
An existing medical complex is located on the west side of the subject property. The hospital
and skilled nursing facility are designed to operate together. The Master Plan and proposed
design provides for a transition between the two projects utilizing landscaping and pedestrian
walkways.
The skilled nursing facility building will have a total of 120 beds and is separated into four
separate wings. The purpose of this new facility is for Heritage Hospital to extend its services
to Alzheimer, Acute Care, Skilled Nursing and Psychiatric Care patients. The Floor Plan of
the facility is as follows: the main entrance is located on the north side of the building; and the
main entrance area from the drop-off area is accentuated by decorative paving and trellis.
Additionally, in order to provide privacy and easy access to the nursing facility, each of the
four wings has a separate entrance to the central area of the building. The Acute Nursing
section is located on the west side of the building. The Alzheimer section is located on the
northeast section and the Psychiatric wing is located on the southeast section of the building.
Each wing has a private courtyard. The courtyard area for each wing is approximately
550 square feet in size.
The proposed design of the skilled nursing facility compliments the architectural style of
surrounding buildings. Additionally, in order to further enhance the architectural appearance
of the facility, staff is recommending as a condition of approval, that the developer provide a
minimum of two tones on the stucco veneer color (natural grey).
D. Master Plan: The revision to the Rancon Master Plan consists on the shifting of a property
line to the south from its present location. The property line is being shifted in order to make
the subject parcel large enough to accommodate the proposed skilled nursing facility. A Lot
Line Adjustment (LLA 439) has been filed in order to accommodate the adjustment. No other
revisions are proposed to the Master Plan.
E. Desiqn Review Committee: On March 2, 1999, the Design Review Committee (McNiel,
Stewart, Henderson) considered and recommended approval, subject to minor revisions, of
the Development/Design Review application and the proposed modification to the Master
Plan. See Exhibit"H."
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR 98-32 - SKILLED NURSING FACILITY
March 23, 1999
Page 5
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23RD DAY OF MARCH 1999.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Larry T. McNiel, 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 23rd day of March 1999. by the following vote-to-wit;
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: '
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
.PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DR 98-32 - HERITAGE HOSPITAL
March 23, 1999
Page 3
F. Technical/Gradinq Review Committees: The Technical/Grading Committees have reviewed
the project and recommend approval with conditions.
G. Environmental Assessment: The applicant completed Part I of the Initial Study and staff has
completed Part II. Staff has found that there are no impacts associated with the project.
Therefore, if the Planning Commission concurs with these findings, then issuance of a
Negative Declaration would be in order.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve
Development/Design Review 98-32 and Revision to the Rancon Master Plan (Design Review 90-20)
through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with Conditions and issuance of a Negative
Declaration.
Brad Buller
City Planner
BB:SS:mlg
Attachments: Exhibit"A" - Location Map
Exhibit"B" - Site Plan
Exhibit "C" - Grading Plan
Exhibit "D" - Landscape Plan
Exhibit "E" - Floor Plan
Exhibit"F" - Elevations
Exhibit "G" - Initial Study
Exhibit "H" - Design Review Committee Action Comments dated March 2, 1999
Resolution of Approval with Conditions
/~I~INITY MAP
~x'~rT "A'~
TYPI~CAL STREET SECTIONS VICINITY MAP LOTTING DIAGRAM - ' ....
, . ........
"'-,-" CONCEPT SITE PLAN
~. ~ ~ RANCON CENTER
AIO ~ c,. o~ ...c.o
,' F2 ~.o. ~?rr sc.,
PLANT $CJ--~DULE ~i~!I
® -
DIO ~)? "';'"
A ,;:;. A5 co~w^.o ,::!:( L1.3
· . ,~
All ~_oo. ~
SIGHT LINE STUDY
ROOF PLAN & BUILDING SECTIONS
,,,
NORTH ELEVATION
NORTH ELEVATION/BL~DING
$OIJ~H I~.~VATION
PROPOSED ELEVATIONS
PROPOSED ELEVATIONS
City of Rancho Cucamonga
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
INITIAL STUDY PART II
BACKGROUND
1. Project File: DEVELOPMENT/DESIGN REVIEW 98-32
2. Related Files: DEVELOPMENT/DESIGN REVIEW 90-20
3. Description of Project: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND
DEVELOPMENT/DESIGN REVIEW 98-32 HERITAGE HOSPITAL - A request to construct
an approximately 56,896 square foot (120 bed) skilled nursing facility on approximately 3.95
acres of land and revise the Rancon Master Plan (Design Review 90-20) totaling 33.14
acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan,
located east of Eucalyptus Avenue on the south side of White Oak Avenue -
APN: 208-352-41
4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Heritage Hospital
10841 White Oak Avenue ,
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
5. General Plan Designation: Industrial Park
6. Zoning: Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan
7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project is surrounded to the north by a hotel.
to the west by an existing hospital, and to the east and west by vacant parcels.
8. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
9. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Salvador M. Salazar, AICP
(909) 477-2750
10. Other agencies whose approval is required:
California Department of Fish and Game
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Development Review 98-32 Page ?
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless
Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages.
( ) Land Use and Planning ( ) Transportation/Circulation ( ) Public Services
( ) Population and Housing (X) Biological Resources ( ) Utilities and Service Systems
( ) Geological Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources ( ) Aesthetics
( ) Water ( ) Hazards ( ) Cultural Resources
( ) Air Quality ( ) Noise ( ) Recreation
( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
(X) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment.
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
( ) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described
on an attached sheet have been added to the project, or agreed to, by the applicant. A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
( ) I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
( ) I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based upon
the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant
Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but must analyze only the effects that
remain to be addressed.
( ) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects
1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Signed: ~~--~
February 25, 1999
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
'Development Review 98-32 Page 3
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an explanation
is required for all "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation
Incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact" answers, including a discussion of ways to
mitigate the significant effects identified.
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over
the project? ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly
or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? ( ) ( ) (X)
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Development Review 98-32 Page 4
b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Seiche hazards? ( ) ( ) (X)
e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) ( ) (X)
f) Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( ) ( ) (X)
g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
h) Expansive soils? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
4. WATER. Will the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or
the rate and amount of surface water runoff? ) (X)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? (X)
c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved
oxygen, or turbidity)? (X)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body? (X)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of
water movements? ( ) (X)
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? ( ) ) (X)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) ( ) (X)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) ( ) (X)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies?
( ) ( ) (X)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
'Development Review 98-32 Page 5
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
cause any change in climate? ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ( ) ( (X)
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
uses? ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) ( ) (X)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ) ( ) (X)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ) ( ) ( ) (X)
g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ) ( ) ( ) (X)
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their
habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish,
insects, animals, and birds)? ( ) ( ) (X) ( )
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees,
eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Development Review 98-32 Page 6
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g.,
eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ( iX)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal
pool)? ( ) ( ) ( (X)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) ( ) ( ) iX)
Comments:
a) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service identifies the project area soil type as Tujunga-Delhi
Sand Soil which is a type of soil that is associated with the endangered Delhi Sands
flower-loving fly (DSF). A habitat assessment was prepared (Impact Sciences,
November 20, 1998) by a biologist permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to
conduct surveys for DSF. In summary, the results of the habitat-based survey indicate
that the site does not currently support habitat consistent with potential DSF habitat.
However, sandy/loamy soils are present and several scattered native plant species were
recorded on-site. These species do not constitute a functional native plant community
consistent with occupied DSF habitats and/or relatively undisturbed potential DSF
habitat. Moreover, the upper five feet of soils (characterized as Delhi sands or Tujunga
loams) are comprised of imported fill material. As such, the natural Quaternary alluvial
layer has been buried beneath the fill material. Major soil perturbation, such as those
associated with the placement of extensive amounts of fill material (up to five feet) on
site, reduce the potential occurrence of DSF. Therefore, based on the biological report,
the proposed development of the 3.5 acre site will not likely result in adverse effects to
DSF.
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal'.
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ( ) ( ) iX)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? ( ) ( ) iX)
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region
and the residents of the State? ( ) ( ) iX)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Development Review 98-32 Page 7
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited to:
oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazard? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
10. NOISE. Willtheproposalresultin:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Schools? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
e) Other governmental services? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Development Review 98-32 Page 8
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Wouldthe
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? ( (X)
b) Communication systems? ( (X)
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? ( (X)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? ) ( (X)
e) Storm water drainage? ( ) ( (X)
f) Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( (X)
g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) ( ) (X)
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Create light or glare? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) (X)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) (X)
c) Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) (X)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( ) (X)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? ( ) (X)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
'Development Review 98-32 Page 9
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) ( ) ) (X)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) ( ) ) (X)
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have the
potential to degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal, or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Short term: Does the project have the potential to
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-
term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on
the environment is one which occurs in a relatively
brief, definitive period of time, Long-term impacts
will endure well into the future,) ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have
environmental effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Development Review 98-32 Page 10
EARLIER ANALYSES
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process,
one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per
Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and
such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The following
earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the City
of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply):
(X) General Plan EIR
(Certified April 6, 1981)
(X)Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update
(SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989)
(X) Industrial Area Specific Plan EIR
(Certified September 19, 1981)
APPLICANT CERTIFICATION
I certify that I am the applicant for the prOJect described in this Initial Study. I acknowledge that I
have read this initial Study and th~ proposed mitigation measures. Further, I have revised the
project plans or proposals and/or hereby agree to the proposed mitigation measures to avoid the
effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant environmental effects would
OCCUr.
Signature: Date:
Print Name and Title:
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:00 p.m. Sal Salazar March 2, 1999
DESIGN REVIEW 98-32 - HERITAGE HOSPITAL (NURSING CARE FACILITY) - Design Review
approval for the construction of a new 56,896 square foot skilled nursing building and revision to the
Rencon Center Master Plan (Design Review 90-20). The Master Plan is located on the north side of
Civic Center Drive between VVhite Oak and Red Oak Streets.
Backaround: On October 9, 1991, the Planning Commission approved the Master Plan for the Rencon
Center. The Master Plan is divided into 18 parcels ranging in size from 0.97 to 4.66 acres. Project
amenities include items such as a one-acre plaza and green belt paseos linking the project elements
together. All development within the Master Plan is required to obtain approval of a separate
DevelopmentJDesign Review.
Desian Parameters: The site is currently vacant with vegetation consisting of vineyards and weeds.
The site is relatively fiat with a north to south slope of approximately 2 percent. The developer is
proposing to construct a new, one-story, 56,896 square-foot skilled nursing facility on the northeasterly
portion of the Master Plan. An existing medical complex is located on the west side of the subject
property. The Master Plan and proposed design provides for a transition between the two projects
utilizing landscaping and (recommended) pedestrian walkways.
The skilled nursing facility building will have 120 beds and is separated into four separate wings. Under
current regulations, the site is required to provide 30 parking spaces. The site provides the minimum
number of parking spaces as required under the Development Code. The purpose of this new facility
is for Heritage Hospital to extend its services to AIzheimer, Acute Care, Skilled Nursing and Psychiatric
Care patients. The Floor Plan of the facility is as follows: The main entrance is located on the north
side of the building. The main entrance area from the drop-off area is accentuated by decorative
paving and trellis. Additionally, in order to provide privacy and easy access to the nursing facility, each
of the four wings has a separate entrance to the central area of the building. The acute nursing
section is located on the west side of the building. The Alzheimer section is located on the northeast
section and the psychiatric wing is located on the southeast section of the building. Each wing has a
private courtyard. The courtyard area for each wing is approximately 550 square feet in size.
The skilled nursing facility building is done in good taste and compliments the architectural style of
surrounding buildings. Although at the time the report was prepared, staff did not have a materials and
color board sample to analyze them. Staff is of the opinion, however, that the building texture and
colors could be designed to compliment surrounding buildings.
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee
discussion.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
1. Landscaping along the frontage of the property. Staff is recommending that this landscaped area
be redesigned. Landscape treatment along this street shall be provided to ensure the parking
areas are adequately screened from adjacent street views. Berming in these parking areas shall
be a minimum of 3 feet high and have a natural appearance in form.
2. The applicant is proposing to install two new monument signs on the property. Under current
regulations the site is permitted to have one monument sign only. Therefore, staff is
recommending the developer to remove one of them.
3. The southwest portion of the building is proposed to be primarily hardscape with two palm trees.
However, staff is recommending the developer to increase the number of trees and to add
outdoor furniture similar to the one used in the courtyard areas.
DRC COMMENTS
DR 98-32 - HERITAGE HOSPITAL
March 2, 1999
Page 2
4. Green belt/pedestrian links between adjoining propedies. Staff is recommending that the
developer incorporate two additional green belt/pedestrian links between the existing Hospital
and the proposed skilled nursing facility.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Design Review Committee to approve the project,
subject to the recommended modifications. All changes to the development plan shall be reviewed and
approved by the City Planner prior to Planning Commission review.
Desion Review Committee Action;
Members Present: Larry McNiel, Para Stewart, Larry Henderson
Staff Planner: Salvador M. Salazar
The developer agreed to modify the plans as recommended by the Design Review Committee and
staff.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
DEVELOPMENT/DESIGN REVIEW NO. 98-32 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
AND OPERATION OF A ONE-STORY 56,896 SQUARE-FOOT SKILLED
NURSING FACILITY IN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK DISTRICT OF THE
INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, AND A REVISION TO THE Rancon
MASTER PLAN, LOCATED EAST OF EUCALYPTUS STREET ON THE
SOUTH SIDE OF WHITE OAK AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN
SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 208-352-24.
A. Recitals.
1. Heritage Acute Care/Skilled Nursing Facility has filed an application for the construction
and operation of a new one-story 56,896 square foot skilled nursing facility and a revision to the
Rancon Master Plan (Design Review 90-20) as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter
in this Resolution, the subject DevelopmentJDesign Review request is referred to as "the
application."
2, On the 23rd day of March 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed meeting on the application and concluded said meeting on
that date.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
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 March 23, 1999, including wdtten and oral staff reports, together with public
testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to property located east of Eucalyptus Street on the south
side of White Oak Avenue; and
b. The property to the north of the subject site is developed with a hotel, the property
to the east and south are vacant, the property to the west is improved with a hospital; and
c. The proposed Skilled Nursing Facility project is allowed in the Industrial Area
Specific Plan (Subarea 7) (Medical/Health Care Services); and
d. The project will comply with all applicable provisions of the Development Code,
Industrial Area Specific Plan, and the General Plan; and
e. The project is designed to be compatible with surrounding development and
provide a high degree of aesthetic appeal; and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR 98-32 - SKILLED NURSING FACILITY
March 23, 1999
Page 2
f. The proposed use is in accordance with the goals of the General Plan and the
Industrial Area Specific Plan, (Subarea 7) Industrial Park.
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 properties 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 reports included for the environmental assessment for the
application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will
have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration based upon the
findings as follows:
a. 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; said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the
independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and
considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the application.
b. 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-1-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above,
this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth
below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference:
PlanninR Division
1) The minimum width for the drive aisle around the building shall be
26 feet from face of curb to face of curb.
.PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR 98-32 - SKILLED NURSING FACILITY
March 23, 1999
Page 3
2) The developer shall provide a pedestrian walkway connecting the
existing hospital with the proposed skilled nursing facility. Final
location and design to be reviewed and approved by the City Planner.
3) The developer shall be required to enhance the pavers, with additional
amenities, at the main driveway. Final design and style to be reviewed
and approved by the City Planner,
4) All other design modifications recommended by the Design Review
Committee shall be incorporated into the project.
5) Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall obtain a letter
of drainage acceptance from the property owner located on the south
side of the project site.
Enqineerinq Division
1) The developer shall install ultimate sidewalk along the west side of
White Oak Avenue from the project boundary to Civic Center Drive and
improvements up to the end of curb return. The developer shall be
entitled to reimbursement from future development of the site.
Condition No. 3 will change to include the above information.
2) The three cul-de-sacs shown on the plan will be plan checked upon
development of the site. The developer does not need to change any
plans.
3) A contribution in-lieu of construction for the Foothill Boulevard median
island shall be paid to the City as indicated below. The amount of the
contribution shall be prorated on a per acre basis from the total
contribution attributable to Parcel Map 6725. The calculated amount
for said contribution is $753.56 per acre.
4) Lot Line Adjustment 439 has to be approved and recorded, prior to
issuance of any building permit.
5) Install ultimate sidewalk along west side of White Oak Avenue from
project boundary to Civic Center Drive.
6) Revise existing Street Improvement Plans, City Drawing No. 404,
Sheets 1, 16, and 17, to reflect the above improvements as required
by the City Engineer.
7) Driveway accent paving shall be located outside the public right-of-
way.
8) All toes of slopes shall be located outside the Line of sight for the drive
approach and the future cul-de-sac opposite Elm Avenue. The tree
and signage placement within "Areas of Concern" shall be approved
by the City Engineer.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR 98-32 - SKILLED NURSING FACILITY
March 23, 1999
Page 4
9) The three interior cul-de-sacs shown on the proposed Master Plan
amendment do not conform to City Standards (see attached Standard
Drawing No. 111). In particular, Street "C" is shown with a centerline
radius substantially less than the 300-foot minimum for local residential
streets (600 feet for local industrial). Thus, the narrow portion of Parcel
2, adjacent to the proposed project, will extend further west than is
indicated.
Fire Prevention/New Construction Unit
1) Applicant must review Ordinance No. 22 for special access
requirements and classifications of occupancy in accordance with
KACT-24/1994 UBC.
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.
Note: A separate grading plan check submittal is required for all new
construction projects and for existing buildings where
improvements being proposed will generate 50 cubic yards or
more of combined cut and fill. The Grading Plan shall be
prepared, {;tamped and signed by a California Registered Civil
Engineer.
Fire District
1) Existing fire hydrants not shown on plan. Additional fire hydrants will
be required per UFC and/or Fire District ordinance.
2) Turning radius may be insufficient to accommodate fire apparatus.
Inside and outside turning radius to be shown on Fire District access
driveways.
3) Fire hydrant spacing will be per Fire District ordinance/standard.
4) Building to be fully fire sprinklered.
5) Fire alarm system required. Smoke detectors required. Fixed fire
extinguishing system required for all cooking surfaces,
6) Fire extinguishing systems and fire alarms to be monitored 24 hours a
day.
7) Portable fire extinguishers required.
8) Heavy timber trellises to be fire sprinklered.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
STANDARD CONDITIONS
PROJECT #: Develoment/Design Review 98-32
SUBJECT: Construction of a skilled nursin,q facility
APPLICANT: Heritage Hospitat (WRS Architects)
LOCATION: East of Eucalyptus, south side of White Oak Avenue
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACTTHE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS:
General Requirements ComJ)le[~on Dale
1. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its /
agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative,
to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or
employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or
employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole
discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation
shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition.
2. The developer shall commence, participate in, and consummate or cause to be commenced, /
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 formed by the District and the developer by the time recordation
of the final map occurs.
B. Time Limits
1. Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission. if building permits are not /____
issued or approved use has not commenced within 24 months from the date of approval.
Projec'~ No. DP,
Completion Date
C. Site Development
1, The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include
site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and
grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, Development Code
regulations, and the Industrial Area Specific Plan.
2, Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions
of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner,
3. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and
State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with, Prior to occupancy, plans shall be
submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Division
to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy.
4. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be
submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits,
5. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for
consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment,
building, etc,) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved
use has commenced, whichever comes first.
6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code,
all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the
time of building permit issuance.
7. A detailed on-site lighting plan, including a photometric diagram, shall be reviewed and approved
by the City Planner and Police Department (477-2800) prior to the issuance of building permits.
Such plan shall indicate style, illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to
adversely affect adjacent properties.
8. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be
located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete
or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. For single
family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults.
9. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner,
including proper illumination.
10. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property
owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape
maintenance shall be submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and approved prior
to the issuance of building permits.
11. Trash receptacle(s) are required and shall meet City standards. The final design, locations, and
the number of trash receptacles shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the
issuance of building permits.
D. Building Design
1. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or
projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and
streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated
$c. ,,,~,~
Project NO. DR qS.3.~
Completion Date
with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Details shall be
included in building plans.
E. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans)
1. All parking spaces shall be 9 feet wide by 18 feet long. When a side of any parking space abuts
a building, wall, support column, or other obstruction, the space shall be a minimum of 11 feet
wide.
2. All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of § feet and shall
contain a 12-inch walk adjacent to the parking stall (including curb).
3. Textured pedestrian pathways and textured pavement across circulation aisles shall be provided
throughout the development to connect dwellings/units/buildings with open
spaces/plazas/recreational uses.
4. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances,
and exits shall be striped per City standards.
5. Handicap accessible stalls shall be provided for commercial and office facilities with 25 or more
parking stalls. Designate two percent or one stall, whichever is greater, of the total number of
stalls for use by the handicapped.
6. Carpool and vanpool designated off-street parking close to the building shall be provided for
commercial, office, and industrial facilities at the rate of 10 percent of the total parking area. If
covered, the vertical clearance shall be no less than 9 feet.
7. Motorcycle parking area shall be provided for commercial and office facilities with 25 or more
parking stalls. Developments with over 100 parking stalls shall provide motorcycle parking at the
rate of one percent. The area for motorcycle parking shall be a minimum of 56 square feet.
8. Bicycle storage spaces shall be provided in all commercial, office, industrial, and multifamily
residential projects or more than 10 units. Minimum spaces equal to five percent of the required
automobile parking spaces or three bicycle storage spaces, whichever is greater. After the first
50 bicycle storage spaces are provided, additional storage spaces required are 2.5 percent of
the required automobile parking spaces. Warehouse distribution uses shall provide bicycle
storage spaces at a rate of 2.5 percent on the required automobile parking spaces with a
minimum of a 3-bike rack. In no case shall the total number of bicycle parking spaces required
exceed 100. Where this results in a fraction of 0.5 or greater, the number shall be rounded off
to the higher whole number.
F. Landscaping
1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping
in the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and
submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior
final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision.
2. 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 the grading plans. The
location of those trees to be preserved in place and new locations for transplanted trees shall be
shown on the detailed landscape plans. The applicant shall follow all of the arborist's
recommendations regarding preservation, transplanting, and trimming methods.
3. A minimum of 20% of trees planted within industrial projects, and a minimum of 30% within __1__1
commercial and office projects, shall be specimen size trees - 24-inch box or larger.
4. Within parking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-gallon tree for every three parking __/ /
stalls, sufficient to shade 50% of the parking area at solar noon on August 21.
5. 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.
6, All private slopes of 5 feet or less in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater 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.
7. All private slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater / /__
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 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.
8. 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.
9. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on the
perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer.
10. AIl walls shall be provided with decorative treat ment. If located in public maintenance areas, the
design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division.
11. 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.
12. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of
Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code.
G. Signs
1. The signs (only one monument sign) indicated on the submitted plans is conceptual only and not
a part of this approval. Any signs proposed for this development shall comply with the Sign
Ordinance and shall require separate application and approval by the Planning Division prior to
installation of any signs.
H. Other Agencies
1. The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location
of mail boxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for
mail boxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mail boxes and the design of the
4 (~., ~) c~
Project No. DR 98-:&2
Completion Date
overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of
building permits.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
I. Site Development
1. Plans shall be submitted for plan check and approved prior to construction. AIl plans shall be
marked with the project file number (i.e., CUP 98-01). The applicant shall comply with the latest
adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National
Electric Code, Title 24 Accessibility requirements, and all other applicable codes, ordinances,
and regulations in effect at the time of issuance of relative permits. Please contact the Building
and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts.
2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new commercial or industrial development or addition
to an existing development, the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate.
Such fees may include, but are not limited to: Transportation Development Fee, Drainage Fee,
School Fees, Permit and Plan Checking Fees.
3. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tracFparcel map recordation and
pdor to issuance of building permits.
4. Construction activity shall not occur between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. Monday
through Saturday, with no construction on Sunday.
New Structures
1. Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for the property line clearances considering
use, area, and fire-resistiveness.
2. Roofing material shall be installed as for wind-resistant roof covering at wind velocity not less
than 90 mph.
K. Grading
1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City
Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in
substantial conformance with the approved grading plan.
2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to
perform such work.
3. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACTTHE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909)477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
L. Street Improvements
1. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to:
Project NO. DR 98-~2
Completion Date
Curb & A.C. Side* Odve Street Street Comm Median Bike Other
St, eel Name Gutter Pvmt walk Appr. Lights Trees Trail Island Trail
White Oak Ave. C X X X E
Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement
reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan check. (c) If so marked, sidewalk
shall be curvilinear per Standard 114. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu of construction fee shall be
provided for this item. (e) Install R26(s) signs.
2. improvement Plans and Construction:
a. Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights
on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil
Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be
posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City
Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior
to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first.
b. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a
construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any
other permits required.
c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and
interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction
project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and
interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside
of BCR, ECR, or any other locations approved by the City Engineer.
Notes:
(1)Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200
feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer.
(2) Conduit shall be 3-inch (at intersections) or 2-inch (along streets) galvanized steel
with pull rope or as specified.
e. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City
Standards or as directed by the City Engineer.
f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with
adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash
deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded
upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
g. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be
installed to City Standards, except for single family residential lots.
h. Street names shall be approved by the City Planner prior to submittal for first plan check.
3. Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in t__
accordance with the City's street tree program.
4. Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with
adopted policy. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project
intersections, including driveways. Local residential street intersections and commercial or
industrial driveways may have lines of sight plotted as required.
M. Public Maintenance Areas
1. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting
Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or issuance of building
permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer,
N. Utilities
1. Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas,
electric power, telephone, and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility
Standards. Easements shall be provided as required,
2. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary.
3. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the
Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the
Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernard/no. A letter of compliance from
the CCWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first.
Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 90 days prior to final map approval
in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential
projects.
General Requirements and Approvals
1. A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated operating costs for all
new street lights for the first six months of operation, prior to final map approval or prior to
building permit issuance if no map is involved.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTIONINEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730,
FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
P. General Fire Protection Conditions
1. Mello Roos Community Facilities District requirements shall apply to this project.
2. Fire flow requirement shall be 3,000 gallons per minute.
X a. A fire f/ow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire
department personnel prior to water plan approval.
X b. For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional fire flow test of the on-site
hydrants shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire
department personnel after construction and prior to occupancy.
3. Fire hydrants are required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed,
and operable prior to delivery of any combustible building materials on site (i.e., lumber, roofing
materials, etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire department personnel.
4. Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided prior to water plan approval. Required hydrants,
if any, will be determined by the Fire District. Fire District standards require a 6-inch riser with
a 4-inch and a 2-1/2-inch outlet. Substandard hydrants shall be upgraded to meet this standard.
Contact the Fire Safety Division for specifications on approved brands and model numbers.
5. Prior to the issuance of building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be
submitted to the Fire District that an approved temporary water supply for fire protection is
available, pending completion of the required fire protection system.
6. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for all hydrants and installed prior to final
inspection.
7. An automatic fire extinguishing system(s) will be required as noted below:
X Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15.
Note: Special sprinkler densities are required for such hazardous operations as woodworking,
plastics manufacturing, spray painting, flammable liquids storage, high piled stock, etc. Contact
the Fire Safety Division to determine if the sprinkler system is adequate for proposed operations.
8. Sprinkler system monitoring shall be installed and operational immediately upon completion of
sprinkler system.
9. A fire alarm system(s) shall be required as noted below:
X Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15.
X California Code Regulation title 24.
10. Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District's fire lane standards, as noted:
X All roadways per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 22.
11. All trees and shrubs planted in any median shall be kept trimmed to a minimum of 14 feet,
6 inches from the ground up, so as not to impede fire apparatus.
12. 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.
13. Gated/restricted entry(s) require installation of a Knox rapid entry key system. Contact the Fire
Safety Division for specific details and ordering information.
14. $677.00 per building Fire District fee(s), and a $1 per"plan page" microfilm fee will be due to the
Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District prior to Building and Safety permit issuance. *'
A Fire District fee in the amount of $132.00 shall be paid at the time of Water Plan submittal.
*'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.
15. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1994 UBC, UFC,
UPC, UMC, NEC, and RCFD Standards 22 and 15.
Project NO. DR 98-32
Completion Date
Q. Special Permits
1. Special permits may be required, depending on intended use, as noted below:
~X a. Compressed gases (storage, handling, or use exceeding 100 cubic feet).Storage of
readily combustible material.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE
WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
R. Security Lighting
1. All parking, common, and storage areas shall have minimum maintained 1-foot candle power.
These areas should be lighted from sunset to sunrise and on photo sensored cell.
2. All buildings shall have minimal security lighting to eliminate dark areas around the buildings, with
direct lighting to be provided by all entryways. Lighting shall be consistent around the entire
development.
3. Lighting in exterior areas shall be in vandal-resistant fixtures.
S. Building Numbering
1. Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime
visibility.
2. At the entrances of complex, an illuminated map or directory of project shall be erected with
vandal-resistant cover. The directory shall not contain names of tenants, but only address
numbers, street names, and their locations in the complex. North shall be at the top and so
indicated. Sign shall be in compliance with Sign Ordinance, including an application for a Sign
Permit and approval by the Planning Division.
3. All developments shall submit a 8 ~" x 11" sheet with the numbering pattern of all multi-tenant
developments to the Police Department.
T. Alarm Systems
1, Install a burglar alarm system and a panic alarm if needed. Instructing management and
employees on the operation of the alarm system will reduce the amount of false alarms and in
turn save dollars and lives,
2. Alarm companies shall be provided with the 24-hour sheriffs dispatch number: (909) 941-1488.
City of Rancho Cucamonga
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The following Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act Section 21091 and 21092 of the Public Resources Code.
Project File No.: Design Review 98-32 Public Review Period Closes: March 23, 1999
Project Name: Project Applicant: Heritage Hospital
Project Location (also see attached map): The propen'y is located east of Eucalyptus Street on the South
Side of White Oak Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County - APN: 208-352-24.
Project Description: A request to construct an approximately 56,896 square foot (120 beds) one-stor~
Skilled Nursing Facility on approximately 3.95 acres of land and to revise the Rancon Master Plan (totaling
33.14 acres of land) located in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan.
Related file: Design Review 90-20 and Lot Line Adjustment 439.
FINDING
This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has conducted an
Initial Study to determine If the project may have a significant effect on the environment and Is
proposing this Negative Declaration based upon the following finding:
[] The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant
effect on the environment.
[] The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects but:
(1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this
proposed Negative Declaration was released for public review would avoid the effects or
mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and
(2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project as revised may have a
significant effect on the environment.
If adopted, the Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will not be required.
Reasons to support this finding are included In the attached Initial Study. The project file and all
related documents are available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division at
10500 Civic Center Drive (909) 477-2750 or Fax (909)477-2847.
NOTICE
The public is Invited to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration during the review period.
March 23, 1999
Date of Determination Adopted By C'~ ~
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA --
STAFF REPORT
DATE: March 23, 1999
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Brent Le Count, AICP, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-04
SILVERADO GROUP - A request to build a 3-story, 34,860 square foot hotel as part
of a master planned development with three other commercial buildings on 5 acres
of land in Subarea 7 (Industrial Park) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan located on
the south side of Foothill Boulevard between Aspen and Spruce Streets - APN: 208-
352-82. Related file: Parcel Map 15282.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Requested Action: Approval of a 3-story hotel and a master plan for development of three
other commercial buildings. ·
B. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoninq'
North - Terra Vista Shopping Center; Community Commercial District Terra Vista
Community Plan
South - Offices; Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 7 (Industrial Park)
East Magic Wok restaurant; Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 7 (industrial Park)
West Applebee's restaurant and Brooklyn Deli restaurant (under construction); Industrial
Area Specific Plan Subarea 7 (Industrial Park)
C. General Plan Desiqnations:
Project Site - Industrial Park
North Community Commercial
South - Industrial Park
East Industrial Park
West Industrial Park
D. Site Characteristics: The site has frontage on both Foothill Boulevard and Laurel Street with
existing curb and gutter improvements on both streets. The site has been rough graded and
slopes at approximately 3 to 4 percent from north to south, with a 14-foot grade difference
from Foothill Boulevard to Laurel Street. Slopes are proposed along the south side of Foothill
Boulevard (down slope) and along the north side of Laurel Street (up slope) to accommodate
the grade. Slopes along street frontages present a design challenge for screening of parking
areas due to the difficulty of providing berms, and a challenge for required handicap access.
This is especially true along the Laurel Street frontage where the site (parking area) is
elevated above the street.
ITEM H
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DR 99-04 - SILVERADO GROUP
March 23, 1999
Page 2
E. Parkinq Calculations:
Number of Number of
Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces
of Use Footaqe Ratio Required Provided
Hotel 124 rooms 1/room 124 128
Office 6,500 1/250 26 28
Retail 3,615 1/250 14 20
Restaurant 6,950 1/100 70 71
TOTAL 234 247
ANALYSIS:
A. General: The hotel is intended to serve business travelers. It would rely on restaurant and
consumer service uses in the vicinity rather than providing them within the hotel. At this time,
the other three buildings are anticipated to be a restaurant, retail, and business services. The
project will take primary access from Foothill Boulevard; however, access is also available
from Aspen Street to the west, Laurel Street to the south, and Spruce Avenue to the east.
The hotel building is proposed to have stucco, brick veneer, and copper roofing. The use of
brick veneer and copper roofing is intended to compliment the Applebee's restaurant
architecture to the northwest.
B. Desiqn Review Committee: The Committee (McNiel, Stewart, Henderson) reviewed the
project on March 2, 1999 and requested revisions. The Committee (McNiel, Stewart,
Henderson) again reviewed the project on March 16, 1999, and recommended approval with
conditions (see Exhibit "G").
C. Technical Review Committee: The Technical and Grading Review Committees reviewed the
project and recommended approval subject to the conditions outlined in the attached
Resolution of Approval.
D. Environmental Assessment: The applicant completed Part I of the Initial Study and staff has
completed Part II. Staff has found that there may be a significant noise impact caused by
traffic on Foothill Boulevard and Laurel Street. A noise study was required to address noise
levels and identify mitigation. The report found that the traffic noise would be reduced to
acceptable levels of the wall and window construction proposed by the project. The site is
identified as potential Delhi Sands Flower Loving Fly (DSF) habitat. A biological assessment
was conducted which indicates that the site is not suitable DSF habitat. No mitigation is
necessary. If the Planning Commission concurs with these findings, then issuance of a
Negative Declaration would be appropriate.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DR 99-04 - SILVERADO GROUP
March 23, 1999
Page 3
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development
Review 99-04 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with conditions and issuance
of a Negative Declaration.
rad Buller --
City Planner
BB:BLC:mlg
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Utilization Map
Exhibit "B" ~ Site Plan/Master Plan
Exhibit "C" - Grading Plan
Exhibit "D" - Landscape Plan
Exhibit "E" - Hotel Floor Plans
Exhibit "F" - Elevations
Exhibit "G" - Design Review Committee Action Agendas dated March 2 & 16, 1999
Exhibit "H" - Initial Study Part II
Resolution of Approval with Conditions
· $ilverodo
~ Group
~" ~ Hotels
;
IIIII II
I -'
FOO THIL L ~UL E VARD
LAUREL STREET ~
, Rrsr. ki
~"" ~ TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP AND CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN
~..,,= .~ TPM NO 15282
FOO~I-IILL BOULEVARD
FO ./ILL BOULEVARD
·
·
RANCHO
HOTEL
SOUTH ELEVATION ~ Tr~CAL EL£VAnO~ NOTES: '~''
AJ-~
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:40 p.m. Brent Le Count March 2, 1999
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-04 - SILVERADO GROUP -
A request to build a 3-story, 34,860 square foot hotel as part of a master planned development with
three other retail buildings on 5 acres of land in Subarea 7 (Industrial Park) of the Industrial Area
Specific Plan located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between Aspen and Spruce Streets -
APN: 208-352-82. Related File: Parcel Map 15282.
Desiqn Parameters: The site has frontage on both Foothill Boulevard and Laurel Street with existing
curb and gutter improvements on both streets. The site has been rough graded and slopes at
approximately 3 to 4 percent from north to south, with a 14 foot grade difference from Foothill
Boulevard to Laurel Street. Slopes are proposed along the south side of Foothill Boulevard (down
slope) and along the north side of Laurel Street (up slope) to accommodate the grade. Slopes along
street frontages present a design challenge for screening of parking areas due to the difficulty of
providing berms, and a challenge for required handicap access. This is especially true along the
Laurel Street frontage where the site (parking areas) is elevated above the street.
The exterior walls of the hotel building are proposed to have stucco and decorative block veneer
treatment. Asphalt shingle roofing is proposed due to its lighter weight in comparison to concrete tile.
The applicant contends that the roof planes will not be visible due to the height of the building;
however, staff respectfully disagrees because the building will be visible from Foothill Boulevard and
other public streets.
Staff Comments: The following ~;omments 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. Replace fluted block veneer and split face block veneer with brick veneer for a richer look
consistent with Applebee's to the northwest. Brick would also complement the copper roofing
proposed.
2. Eliminate composition shingle as roofing and replac, e with fiat concrete tile.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
1. Provide variation and undulation in slopes along street frontages to elicit a softer, more natural
appearance. Aisc suggest varying slope grade and rounding off top and toe of slope. Intent
of Industrial Area Specific Plan is to create 3-foot high berms to screen parking.
2. Copper roofing shall be real copper as opposed to copper-looking metal roof product.
3. The main hotel entrance on the east side of the building should have a double door foyer
design to help mitigate strong Santa Ana winds.
4. Provide dense tree planting around main hotel entry to enhance entry statement and protect
area from strong Santa Ana winds.
5. Provide tall, vertical trees, such as Mexican Fan Palms, along north and east sides of hotel
between building and driveways.
DRC COMMENTS
DR 99-04 - SILVERADO GROUP
March 2, 1999
Page 2
6. Provide intensified landscaping, including hedgerow planting and Iow walls along the Laurel
Street frontage to screen views of parking areas from the street.
7. Decorative driveway and pathway paving shall match that of Applebee's. Majority of Foothill
Boulevard entrance driveway throat should have decorative paving.
8. Enclose pool/spa area with a decorative masonry wall and/or wrought iron fence.
9. Provide a clearer pedestrian connection from the large parking area to the east and the main
hotel entrance. Also, consider a pergola extending from the copper roof entry element out into
the parking area to further enhance the entry statement.
10. Provide a sidewalk, with handicap ramps and striped crosswalks, connecting all three pads
along Foothill Boulevard.
11. Provide ADA handicap access, with maximum 5 percent grade, to connect from public sidewalk
on Foothill Boulevard to on-site (see Comment #10 above).
12. Pedestrian pathways appear to be approximately 3 feet in width, which is very tight. Suggest
at least 4 to 5 feet of width and provision of occasional "nodes" with benches or similar along
the paths.
13. Eliminate 3-foot wide pathway along east side of building, which leads to nowhere and replace
with landscaping.
14. All roof drainage fixtures shall be located inside the building. No exterior down spouts or other
drainage fixtures.
15. Trash enclosure on south side of building should be as decorative as possible given proximate
to Laurel Street.
Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion:
1. Any roof-mounted equipment, such as HVAC, satellite dishes or other form of communication
fixtures shall be completely screened through the use of decorative walls that are incorporated
into the building architecture,
2. Provide, at a minium, one tree per 30 linear feet of building wall exposed to public view, one
tree per 30 linear feet of site perimeter, and one tree per 3 parking spaces to provide shade.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be revised per the above comments and
be brought back for further review.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Larry McNiel, Para Stewart, Larry Henderson
Staff Planner: Brent Le Count
CONSENT CALENDAR COMMENTS
8:10 p.m. Brent Le Count March 16, 1999
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-04 - SILVERADO GROUP -
A request to build a 3-story, 34,860 square foot hotel as pad of a master planned development with
three other retail buildings on 5 acres of land in Subarea 7 (Industrial Park) of the Industrial Area
Specific Plan located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between Aspen and Spruce Streets -
APN: 208-352-82. Related File: Parcel Map 15282.
Desiqn Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Larry Henderson
Staff Planner: Brent Le Counl
The Committee (McNiel, Stewart Henderson) reviewed the revised project and recommended
approval subject to the following:
1. The alignment of the main driveway intersection near the center portion of the site shall have
as little offset as possible.
2. Brick veneer shall have 90 degree angled pieces for corner treatment to avoid a grout line at
building corners.
3. Staff shall verify with Building and Safety Division that the light roof material proposed can
handle seasonal high winds.'
City of Rancho Cucamonga
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
INITIAL STUDY PART II
BACKGROUND
1. Project File: Development Review 99-04
2. Related Files:
3. Description of Project:
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-04 - SILVERADO
GROUP - A request to build a 3-stor~, 34,860 square foot hotel as part of a master planned
development with three other retail buildings on 5 acres of land in Subarea 7 (Industrial
Park) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard
between Aspen and Spruce Streets - APN: 208-352-82. Related File: Parcel Map 15282.
4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Silverado Group
7514 Brava Street
La Costa, CA 92009
5. General Plan Designation: General Industrial
6. Zoning: Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 7 (Industrial Park)
7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The site has frontage on both Foothill Boulevard
and Laurel Street with existing curb and gutter improvements on both streets. The
Applebee's restaurant is located to the northwest and the Brooklyn Deli restaurant is under
construction to the southwest. To the east is the Magic Wok restaurant. The Terra Vista
shopping center is to the north across Foothill Boulevard and to the south lie offices.
8. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
9. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Brent Le Count
(909) 477-2750
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 99-04 Page 2
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless
Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages.
( ) Land Use and Planning (~/) Transportation/Circulation ( ) Public Services
( ) Population and Housing (v') Biological Resources ( ) Utilities and Service Systems
(v') Geological Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources (~) Aesthetics
(~) Water ( ) Hazards ( ) Cultural Resources
( ) Air Quality (v') Noise ( ) Recreation
( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment.
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
( ) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described
on an attached sheet have been added to the project, or agreed to, by the applicant. A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
( ) I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
( ) I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based upon
the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant
Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but must analyze only the effects that
remain to be addressed.
( ) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects
1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Signed:
Brent Le Count
Associate Planner
March 1, 1999
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
-DR 99-04 Page 3
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an explanation
is required for all "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation
Incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact" answers, including a discussion of ways to
mitigate the significant effects identified.
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) ( ) (~')
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project? ( ) ( ) (v')
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? ( ) ( ) (v")
d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? ( ) ( ) (v')
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? ( ) ( ) (v')
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? ( ) ( ) (~')
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in
or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 99-04 Page 4
b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) (~')
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) (~')
d) Seiche hazards? ( ) (~/)
e) Landslides or mudfiows? ) (v')
f) Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ) (v/)
g) Subsidence of the land? ) (v')
h) Expansive soils? ( ) (~/) ( )
i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~')
Comments:
h) According to Figure V-5 of the General Plan, the site contains Tujunga-Delhi soil
association which 'may have soil bearing capacities that could limit some
development. Structures proposed on this soil type should be permitted only after
a site specific investigation has been performed that indicates the soils can
adequately support the weight of the structure." A soils report will be required prior
to issuance of permits. The impact is not considered significant.
4. WATER. Will the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? ( ) ( ) (v') ( )
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? ( ) ( ) ) (~)
c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration
of surface water quality (e.g., temperature,
dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? ( ) ( ) ) (v')
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body? ( ) ( ) ) (v')
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction
of water movements? ( ) ( ) ) (v~)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 99-04 Page 5
0 Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations, or through substantial loss of
groundwater recharge capability? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~')
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~/)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~')
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for public water
supplies? ( ) ( ) ( )
Comments:
a) The project will increase the amount of surface runoff due to the amount of hard
scape proposed. However, the drainage will be conveyed to facilities designed to
handle the flows. The impact is not considered significant.
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to
an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) ( ) (v')
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) ( ) (v')
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
cause any change in climate? ( ) ( ) (~')
d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ( ) (v')
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) ( ) (~') ( )
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 99-04 Page
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ) ( ) ( )
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses? ) ( ) )
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) ( ) )
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~)
0 Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~,)
g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ( ) ( ) ( )
Comments:
a) The project will generate additional vehicular movement. The City's General Plan
and Industrial Area Specific Plan address the short term and long term cumulative
traffic impacts upon surrounding streets. Based on this information, the proposed
project has no potential to alter the present pattern of circulation. The impact is not
considered significant.
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their
habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish,
insects, animals, and birds)? ( ) ( ) (~,,,) ( )
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees,
eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? ( ) ( ( ) (v')
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g.,
eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? ( ( ( ) (¢)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and
vernal pool)? ( ) ( ( ) (v~)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) ( ( ) (v')
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
'DR 99-04 Page 7
Comments:
a) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service identifies the project area as potential habitat for
the Delhi Sands Flower Loving Fly (DSF). As a result, habitat assessment and
biological survey were required to determine potential impacts to the DSF habitat.
These surveys, which were conducted by a biologist permitted by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service to conduct surveys for DSF. Results of the surveys (Tierra Madre
Consultants, Inc, December 28, 1998) indicated that the site does not contain
adequate DSF habitat since there is a lack of actual Delhi series soils present, the
site has been disturbed through rough grading practices, and there are not extensive
areas of exposed sand. No other unique, rare, or endangered animal species are
known to be located on the project site.
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans? ( ) ( ) (~)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? ( ) ( ) (~/)
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of future value to
the region and the residents of the State? ( ) ( ) (v')
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v~)
b) Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v")
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of
potential health hazards? ( ) ( ) ( )
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable
brush, grass, or trees? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
'DR 99-04 Page 8
10. NOISE. Will the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) ( ) (~') ( )
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) ( ) (v') ( )
Comments:
a) The project will increase existing noise levels because the site is currently vacant.
However, the increase will be nominal in relation to existing surrounding
development and traffic. The impact is not considered significant.
b) According to Figure V-9 of the General Plan, the site is subject to future noise levels
between 60 and 65 dB CNEL. New construction may only be undertaken after a
detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise
insulation features included in the project design. A noise study was conducted
(P.A. Pardini and Associates, February 26, 1999) which indicated that the maximum
ultimate exterior traffic noise level impacting the building is 65.1dB CNEL which
results in a maximum interior noise level of 40 dB CNEL with windows closed. The
building is proposed to have closed windows with individual air conditioning units for
each room. Therefore, the traffic noise is mitigated via project design. The impact is
not considered significant.
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an
effect upon or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the fo/lowing areas:
a) Fire protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
c) Schools? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
e) Other governmental services? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
'DR 99-04 Page 9
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? ) ( ) ( ) (v')
b) Communication systems? ) ( ) ( ) (~/)
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? ) ( ) ( ) (v')
d) Sewer or septic tanks? ) ( ) ( ) (~')
e) Storm water drainage? ) ( ) ( ) (v')
f) Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v~)
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposah
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~/)
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
( ) ( ) ( ) (,/)
c) Create light or glare? ( ) ( ) (v') ( )
Comments:
c) New light and glare will be created since the site is currently vacant. However, a
Standard Condition of Approval will require the preparation of a photometric diagram
to demonstrate that no light or glare will be cast upon adjacent properties or public
rights-of-way. The impact is not considered significant.
14, CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~/)
c) Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~/)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 99-04 Page 10
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
( ) ( ) ( )
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within
the potential impact area? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
15, RECREATION, Would the proposah
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) ( ) (~')
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) ( ) (v')
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have
the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of
a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal,
or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~.)
b) Short term: Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of
long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term
impact on the environment is one which occurs
in a relatively brief, definitive period of time.
Long-term impacts will endure well into the
future.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (~)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
-DR 99-04 Page 11
c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that
are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have
environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
EARLIER ANALYSES
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process,
one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per
Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and
such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The following
earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the City
of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply):
(v') General Plan EIR
(Certified April 6, 1981)
(v')Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update
(SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989)
Industrial Area Specific Plan EIR
(Certified September 19, 1981 )
APPLICANT CERTIFICATION
I certify that I am the applicant for the project described in this Initial Study. I acknowledge that I
have read this Initial Study and the proposed mitigation measures. Further, I have revised the
project plans or proposals and/or hereby agree to the proposed mitigation measures to avoid the
effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant environmental effects would
occur.
Signature: Date:
Print Name and Title:
City of Rancho Cucamonga
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The following Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review In accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act Section 21091 and 21092 of the Public Resources Code.
Project File No.: Development Review 99-04 Public Review Period Closes: March 23, 1999
Project Name: Project Applicant: Silverado Group
Project Location (also see attached map): Located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between
Aspen and Spruce Streets - APN: 208-352-82.
Project Description: A request to build a 3 - story, 34,860 square foot hotel as part of a master planned
development with three other retail buildings on 5 acres of land in Subarea 7 (industrial Park) of the
Industrial Area Specific Plan. Related File: Parcel Map 15282.
FINDING
This Is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has conducted an
Initial Study to determine If the pr~)Ject may have a significant effect on the environment and Is
proposing this Negative Declaration based upon the following finding:
[] The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a
significant effect on the environment.
[] The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects but:
(1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this
proposed Negative Declaration was released for public review would avoid the effects or
mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and
(2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project as revised may have a
significant effect on the environment.
If adopted, the Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will not be
required. Reasons to support this finding are included in the attached Initial Study. The project
file and all related documents are available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning
Division at 10500 Civic Center Drive (909) 477-2750 or Fax (909) 477-2847.
NOTICE
The public is Invited to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration during the review period.
March 23, 1999
Date of Determination Adopted By
SPRUCE AVE.
NOT A PART
>I
--J' O APPROXIMATE
¢'f~I SAMPLE LOCATION
ji SUBJECT
~I .StTE ,.
I'-- S2e %
LL ~) OBSERVED STOCKPILE
(-+2 FEET HIGH)
! .<
NOT A PART
$11F: LOC~IION MAP
N.T.S.
+/- ACRE PARCEL, FOOTHILL BLVD.
Southern California Geotechnical
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA
PROJECT NO. 98G179
I!
PLATE I ~-~
""t"'t.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW NO. 99-04, A REQUEST TO BUILD A 3-STORY, 34,860 SQUARE
FOOT HOTEL AS PART OF A MASTER PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WITH
THREE OTHER COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS ON 5 ACRES OF LAND IN
SUBAREA 7 (INDUSTRIAL PARK) OF THE INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC
PLAN, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD
BETWEEN ASPEN AND SPRUCE STREETS, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN
SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 208-352-82
A. Recitals.
1. Silverado Group has filed an application for the approval of Development Review No. 99-
04, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject
Development Review request is referred to as "the application."
2. On the 23rd day of March 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a meeting on the application and concluded said meeting on that date.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
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 March 23, 1999, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission
hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to property located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard
between Aspen and Spruce Streets with a street frontage of 563 feet on Foothill Boulevard and
309 feet on Laurel Street and lot depth of 395 feet and is presently vacant; and
b. The property to the north of the subject site is developed with the Terra Vista
Shopping Center, the property to the south consists of offices, the property to the east is vacant and
occupied by a restaurant, and the property to the west is developed with a restaurant and a
restaurant under construction; and
c. The project includes berming and landscaping along street frontages to screen
views of parking from the streets; and
d. The project is consistent with Industrial Area Specific Plan objectives in that it
provides convenient services to workers and business visitors as well as the needs of local
businesses; and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
'DR 99-04- SILVERADO GROUP
March 23,1999
Page 2
e. The project is consistent with Industrial Area Specific Plan objectives in that it
provides high quality architecture compatible with existing development and is a positive
enhancement to the immediate area.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above,
this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and
b. That the proposed use is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code
and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and
c. That the proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of
the Development Code; and
d. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration,
together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the
application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will
have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration based upon the
findings as follows:
a. That the Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated
thereunder; that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the
independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and
considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the application.
b. That, based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into
the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur.
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-1-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above,
this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth
below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference:
Planninq Division
1) The alignment of the main driveway intersection near the center portion
of the site shall have as little offset as possible.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR 99-04 - SILVERADO GROUP
March 23, 1999
Page 3
2) Provide enhanced paving, stop signs, and other vehicle control
measures to enhance vehicle safety at the main driveway intersection
near the center portion of the site.
3) Provide terraced retaining wall(s) along the Laurel Street frontage
where slope grade is 2:1 or steeper.
4) Brick veneer shall have 90 degree angled pieces for corner treatment
to avoid a grout line at building corners.
5) Provide a bench at the northeast corner of the building.
6) Provide Palm tree planting around entire building to the satisfaction of
the City Planner.
7) Provide variation and undulation in slopes along street frontages to
elicit a softer, more natural appearance.
8) Provide dense shrub planting, including hedgerow planting along the
Laurel Street frontage to screen view of parking areas from the street.
9) Copper roof material on porte-cochere element shall be real copper.
10) Provide double d6or foyer design for main hotel entry on east side of
building to mitigate seasonal high winds.
11) Provide dense tree planting around hotel entrance to enhance entry
statement and to mitigate seasonal high winds.
12) Decorative driveway paving and parking lot light standards shall match
that of the Applebee's restaurant to the northwest.
13) All roof drainage features shall be located inside the building. No
exterior down spouts.
14) Enclose pool/spa area with a decorative masonry wall and/or wrought
iron fence.
15) Any roof or ground mounted equipment shall be completely screened
from view.
~ Division
1) Provide a right turn lane from the Foothill Boulevard drive approach
with Standard Drawing No. 119. The right turn lane shall be 11 feet
wide and at least 210 feet long, including the transition. Sidewalk shall
be 6 feet wide curb adjacent along the right turn lane and should
meander for the balance of the project frontage, The driveway shall be
35 feet wide at the right-of-way.
2) Parcel Map 15282 shall be recorded, prior to issuance of building
permits.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR 99-04 - SILVERADO GROUP
March 23, 1999
Page 4
3) The vacation of that portion of vehicular access rights to Foothill
Boulevard required for the project shall be processed through the City
and approved, prior to the issuance of building permits.
4) A contribution in lieu of construction for the Foothill Boulevard median
island shall be paid to the City as indicated below. The amount of the
contribution shall be prorated on a per acre basis from the total
contribution attributable to Parcel Map 10444. That total contribution
shall be one-half the cost of the median (estimated at $60.00 per linear
foot) times the length of the Foothill Boulevard frontage from a
protection of the westerly right-of-way line for Aspen Street to a
projection of the westerly right-of-way line for Spruce Avenue:
a) Contribution for Parcel 4 (Development Review 99-04) of
Tentative Parcel Map No. 15282 shall be paid, prior to approval
of the final parcel map.
b) Contribution for Parcels 1, 2, and 3 of Tentative Parcel Map
No. 15282 shall be paid, prior to building permit issuance for
these parcels.
5) Parkway shall slope at two percent from the top of curb to 1-foot
behind the sidewalk along all street frontages.
6) All frontage improvements shall be installed with the first parcel to
develop in Tentative Parcel Map 15282.
7) To reflect new or relocated improvements, existing Street Improvement
Plan No. 404 shall be revised by a registered civil engineer. Plan
check fees will be required.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23RD DAY OF MARCH 1999.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Larry T, McNiel, Chairman
A'I-rEST:
Brad Bullet, 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 23rd day of March 1999, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: R ~
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
STANDARD CONDITIONS
PROJECT #: Development Review 99-04
SUBJECT: RC Hotel
APPLICANT: Silverado Group
LOCATION: South side of Foothill Boulevard between Aspen and Spruce Streets
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT,
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACTTHE PLANNING DIVISION, (909)477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS:
General Requirements Completion Dato
1. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its
agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative,
to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or
employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or
employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole
discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation
shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition.
2. The developer shall commence, participate in, and consummate or cause to be commenced,
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 formed by the District and the developer by the time recordation
of the final map occurs.
3. A copy of the signed Resolution of Approval or City Planner's letter of approval, and all Standard
Conditions, shall be included in legible form on the grading plans, building and construction
plans, and landscape and irrigation plans submitted for plan check.
B. Time Limits
1. Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, if building permits are not
issued or approved use has not commenced within 24 months from the date of approval.
C. Site Development
1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include
site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and
grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, Development Code
regulations, and the Industrial Area Specific Plan.
2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions
of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
3. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and
State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be
submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Division
to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy.
4. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be
submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits.
5. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for
consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment,
building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved
use has commenced, whichever comes first.
6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code,
all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the
time of building permit issuance. '
7. A detailed on-site lighting plan, including a photometric diagram, shall be reviewed and approved
by the City Planner and Police Department (477-2800) prior to the issuance of building permits.
Such plan shall indicate style, illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to
adversely affect adjacent properties.
8. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be
located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete
or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. For single
family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults.
D. Shopping Centers
1. The Master Plan is approved in concept only. Future development for (each building pad/parcel)
shall be subject to separate DevelopmentJDesign Review process for Planning Commission
approval. Modifications to the Shopping Center Master Plan shall be subject to Planning
Commission approval.
2. A uniform hardscape and street furniture design including seating benches, trash receptacles,
free-standing potted plants, bike racks, light bollards, etc., shall be utilized and be compatible
with the architectural style. Detailed designs shall be submitted for Planning Division review and
approval prior to the issuance of building permits.
3. Provide for the following design features in each trash enclosure, to the satisfaction of the City
Planner:
a. Architecturally integrated into the design of (the shopping center/the project).
b. Separate pedestrian access that does not require the opening of the main doors and to / /
include self-closing pedestrian doors.
c. Large enough to accommodate two trash bins. / /
d. Roll-up doors. / /
e. Trash bins with counter-weighted lids. / /
f. Architecturally treated overhead shade trellis. / /
g. Chain link screen on top to prevent trash from blowing out of the enclosure and designed / /__
to be hidden from view.
4. Graffiti shall be removed within 72 hours.
5. The entire site shall be kept free from trash and debris at all times and in no event shall trash and
debris remain for more than 24 hours.
6. Signs shall be conveniently posted for "no overnight parking" and for "employee parking only."
7. All operations and businesses shall be conducted to comply with the following standards which
shall be incorporated into the lease agreements for all tenants:
a. Noise Level - All commercial activities shall not create any noise that would exceed an / /
exterior noise level of 60 dB'during the hours of 10 p.m. until 7 a.m. and 65 dB during the
hours of 7 a.m. until 10 p.m.
b. Loading and Unloading - No person shall cause the loading, unloading, opening, closing,
or other handling of boxes, crates, containers, building materials, garbage cans, or other
similar objects between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. unless otherwise specified herein,
in a manner which would cause a noise disturbance to a residential area.
8. Textured pavement shall be provided across circulation aisle, pedestrian walkway, and plaza.
They shall be of brickJtile pavers, exposed aggregate, integral color concrete, or any combination
thereof. Full samples shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the
issuance of building permits.
9. All future building pads shall be seeded and irrigated for erosion control. Detailed plans shall be
included in the landscape and irrigation plans to be submitted for Planning Division approval prior
to the issuance of building permits.
10. The lighting fixture design shall compliment the architectural program. It shall include the plaza
area lighting fixtures, building lighting fixtures (exterior), and parking lot lighting fixtures.
11. All future projects within the shopping center shall be designed to be compatible and consistent
with the architectural program established.
12. Any outdoor vending machines shall be recessed into the building faces and shall not extend into
the pedestrian walkways. The design details shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner
prior to the issuance of building permits.
Completion Date
E. Building Design
1. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or
projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and
streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated
with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Details shall be
included in building plans.
2. For commercial and industrial projects, paint roll-up doors and service doors to match main
building colors.
F. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans)
1. All parking spaces shall be 9 feet wide by 18 feet long. When a side of any parking space abuts
a building, wall, support column, or other obstruction, the space shall be a minimum of 11 feet
wide.
2. All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet and shall
contain a 12-inch walk adjacent to the parking stall (including curb).
3. Textured pedestrian pathways and textured pavement across circulation aisles shall be provided
throughout the development to connect dwellings/units/buildings with open
spaces/plazas/recreational uses.
4. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances,
and exits shall be striped per City Standards.
5. Plans for any security gates shall be submitted for the City Planner, City Engineer, and Rancho
Cucamonga Fire Protection District review and approval prior to issuance of building permits.
For residential development, private gated entrances shall provide adequate turn-around space
in front of the gate and a separate visitor lane with call box to avoid cars stacking into the public
right-of-way.
6. Handicap accessible stalls shall be provided for commercial and office facilities with 25 or more
parking stalls. Designate two percent or one stall, whichever is greater, of the total number of
stalls for use by the handicapped.
7. Motorcycle parking area shall be provided for commercial and office facilities with 25 or more
parking stalls. Developments with over 100 parking stalls shall provide motorcycle parking at the
rate of one percent. The area for motorcycle parking shall be a minimum of 56 square feet.
8. Bicycle storage spaces shall be provided in all commercial, office, industrial, and multifamily
residential projects or more than 10 units. Minimum spaces equal to five percent of the required
automobile parking spaces or three bicycle storage spaces, whichever is greater. After the first
50 bicycle storage spaces are provided, additional storage spaces required are 2.5 percent of
the required automobile parking spaces. Warehouse distribution uses shall provide bicycle
storage spaces at a rate of 2.5 percent on the required automobile parking spaces with a
minimum of a 3-bike rack. In no case shall the total number of bicycle parking spaces required
exceed 100. Where this results in a fraction of 0.5 or greater, the number shall be rounded off
to the higher whole number.
9. Carpool and vanpool designated off-street parking close to the building shall be provided for
commercial, office, and industrial facilities at the rate of 10 percent of the total parking area. If
covered, the vertical clearance shall be no less than 9 feet.
Project No. DR ~*o4
Completion Oate
G. Landscaping
1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping
in the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and
submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior
final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision.
2. A minimum of 30% within commercial and office projects, shall be specimen size trees - 24-inch
box or larger.
3. Within parking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-gallon tree for every three parking
stalls, sufficient to shade 50% of the parking area at solar noon on August 21.
4. 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.
5. All private slopes of 5 feet or less in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater 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.
6. All private slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater
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 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.
7. For multi-family residential and non-residential development, property owners are responsible
for the continual maintenance of all landscaped areas on-site, as well as contiguous planted
areas within the public right-of-way. All landscaped areas shall be kept free from weeds and
debris and maintained in healthy and thriving condition, and shall receive regular pruning,
fertilizing, mowing, and trimming. Any damaged, dead, diseased, or decaying plant material shall
be replaced within 30 days from the date of damage.
8. 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.
9. Special landscape features such as mounding, alluvial rock, specimen size trees, meandering /
sidewalks (with horizontal change), and intensified landscaping, is required along Foothill
Boulevard and Laurel Street.
10. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on the ____ /
perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer.
11. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the /
design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division.
project NO DR
CompleUon Date
12. 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, i
13. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of
Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code.
H. Signs
1. The signs indicated on the submitted plans are conceptual only and not a part of this approval.
Any signs proposed for this development shall comply with the Sign Ordinance and shall require
separate application and approval by the Planning Division prior to installation of any signs.
2. A Uniform Sign Program for this development shall be submitted for City Planner review and
approval prior to issuance of building permits.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
I. Site Development
1. Plans shall be submitted for plan check and approved prior to construction. All plans shall be
marked with the project file number (i.e., DR 99-04). The applicant shall comply with the latest
adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National
Electric Code, Title 24 Accessibility requirements, and all other applicable codes, ordinances,
and regulations in effect at the time of issuance of relative permits. Please contact the Building
and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts.
2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new commercial or industrial development or addition
to an existing development, the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate.
Such fees may include, but are not limited to: Transportation Development Fee, Drainage Fee,
School Fees, Permit and Plan Checking Fees.
3.Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tractJparcel map recordation and
prior to issuance of building permits.
4. Construction activity shall not occur between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. Monday
through Saturday, with no construction on Sunday.
J. New Structures
1. Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for the property line clearances considering
use, area, and fire-resistiveness.
2. Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for required occupancy separation(s).
3. Roofing material shall be installed as for wind-resistant roof covering at wind velocity not less
than 90 mph.
4. Plans for food preparation areas shall be approved by County of San Bernardino Environmental
Health Services prior to issuance of building permits.
K. Grading
1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City
Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in
substantial conformance with the approved grading plan.
2.A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to
perform such work.
3. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
L, Dedication and Vehicular Access
1. Reciprocal access easements shall be provided ensuring access to all parcels by CC&R's or by __ __/
deeds and shall be recorded concurrently with the map or prior to the issuance of building
permits, where no map is involved.
2. Easements for public sidewalks and/or street trees placed outside the public right-of-way shall /
be dedicated to the City.
3. Additional street right-of-way shall be dedicated along right turn lanes, to provide a minimum of /
7 feet measured from the face of burbs. If curb adjacent sidewalk is used along the right turn
lane, a parallel street tree maintenance easement shall be provided.
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. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to:
Curbs A.C. Side- Ddve sxreetlstreet IcommlMec~ianI Bike I Otr erl
Laurel Street X E X F
Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement
reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan check. (c) If so marked, sidewalk
shall be curvilinear per Standard 114. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu of construction fee shall be
provided for this item. (e) Reconstruct existing drive approach 35 feet wide. (f) Post R26 or
R25(s) signs.
3. Improvement Plans and Construction:
a. Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights
on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil
sc. ,,,~.~9 7 )..~ .~C],
Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be
posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City
Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior
to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first.
b. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a __/____
construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any
other permits required.
c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and __/__ __
interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction __/__ __
project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and
interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside
of BCR, ECR, or any other locations approved by the City Engineer,
Notes:
(1)Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200
feet apart, unless othenNise specified by the City Engineer,
(2) Conduit shall be 3-inch (at intersections) or 2-inch (along streets) galvanized steel
with pull rope or as specified.
e. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City __1__1__
Standards or as directed by'the City Engineer.
f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with __/ /
adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash
deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded
upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
g. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be /
installed to City Standards, except for single family residential lots.
h. Street names shall be approved by the City Planner prior to submittal for first plan check. __ __/__
4. Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in __ __/
accordance with the City's street tree program.
5. Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with /
adopted policy. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project
intersections, including driveways. Local residential street intersections and commercial or
industrial driveways may have lines of sight plotted as required.
6. A permit shall be obtained from Caltrans for any work within the following right-of-way: Foothill __ __/__
Boulevard.
N. Public Maintenance Areas
1. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting __ __/__
Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or issuance of building
permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer.
Projec~ NO. DR
Completion Date
O. Utilities
1. Provide separate utility services to each pamel including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas,
electric power, telephone, and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility
Standards. Easements shall be provided as required.
2. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary.
3. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the
Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the
Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from
the CCVVD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first.
Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 90 days prior to final map approval
in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential
projects.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730,
FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
P. General Fire Protection Conditions
1. Mello Roos Community Facilities District requirements shall apply to this project.
2. Fire flow requirement shall be 3,000 gallons per minute.
X a. A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire
department personnel prior to water plan approval.
X b. For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional fire flow test of the on-site
hydrants shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire
department personnel after construction and prior to occupancy.
3. Fire hydrants are required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed,
and operable prior to delivery of any combustible building materials on site (i.e., lumber, roofing
materials, etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire department personnel.
4. Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided prior to water plan approval. Required hydrants,
if any, will be determined by the Fire District. Fire District standards require a 6-inch riser with
a 4-inch and a 2-1/2-inch outlet. Substandard hydrants shall be upgraded to meet this standard.
Contact the Fire Safety Division for specifications on approved brands and model numbers.
5. Prior to the issuance of building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be
submitted to the Fire District that an approved temporary water supply for fire protection is
available, pending completion of the required fire protection system.
6. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for ail hydrants and installed prior to final
inspection.
7. An automatic fire extinguishing system(s) will be required as noted below:
X Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15.
Proiect NO. DA 9q.04
Completion Date
Note: Special sprinkler densities are required for such hazardous operations as woodworking,
plastics manufacturing, spray painting, flammable liquids storage, high piled stock, etc. Contact
the Fire Safety Division to determine if the sprinkler system is adequate for proposed operations.
8. Sprinkler system monitoring shall be installed and operational immediately upon completion of
sprinkler system.
9. A fire alarm system(s) shall be required as noted below:
X Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15.
X California Code Regulations Title 24.
10. Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District's fire lane standards, as noted:
X All roadways per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 22.
11. Fire department access shall be amended to facilitate emergency apparatus.
12. Emergency access, a minimum of 26 feet wide, shall be provided, and maintained free and clear
of obstructions at all times during construction, in accordance with Fire District requirements.
13. All trees and shrubs planted in any median shall be kept trimmed to a minimum of 14 feet,
6 inches from the ground up, so as not to impede fire apparatus.
14. A building directory shall be required, as noted below:
X Standard Directory in main lobby.
15. 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.
16. $677.00 Fire District fee(s), and a $1 per "plan page" microfilm fee will be due to the Rancho
Cucamonga Fire Protection District prior to Building and Safety permit issuance. *'
A Fire District fee in the amount of $132.00 shall be paid at the time of Water Plan submittal.
*'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.
17. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1994 UBC, UFC, / /
UPC, UMC, NEC, and RCFD Standards 22 and 15.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
Q. Security Lighting
1. All parking, common, and storage areas shall have minimum maintained 1-foot candle power. __1 /
These areas should be lighted from sunset to sunrise and on photo sensored cell.
2. All buildings shall have minimal security lighting to eliminate dark areas around the buildings, with __/
direct lighting to be provided by all entryways. Lighting shall be consistent around the entire
development.
3. Lighting in exterior areas shall be in vandal-resistant fixtures. /
R. Security Hardware
1. A secondary locking device shall be installed on all sliding glass doors. /
2. All roof openings giving access to the building shall be secured with either iron bars, metal gates, __/__
or alarmed.
S. Security Fencing
1. When utilizing security gates, a Knox box sub-master system security device shall be used since
fire and law enforcement can access these devices.
T. Windows
1. All sliding glass windows shall have secondary locking devices and should not be able to be lifted
from frame or track in any manner.
2. Store front windows shall be visible to passing pedestrians and traffic.
U. Building Numbering
1. Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime
visibility.
SC - 1/19~39 11 .J.~ ,/~
03-23-99
City of Rancho Cucamonga Vineyard Shell
10500 Civic Center Dr. 8919 Foothill Blvd
Rancho Cucamonga C A 91729 Rancho Cucamonga C A 91730
Attn: Donald Granger
Planning Commission
Dear Sirs.
At this time we are requesting to withdraw the appeal for sign permit 98-30.
We are exploring other changes to our monument price signs in hopes that this
will resolve the visibility issue. This was one of the reasons that we had requested
an extension until April 4-28-99 Commission meeting, in order to allow us the time
needed to finalize these changes and to study the results.
We appreciate the time that you have put into this matter, and hope that we can
resolve this issue soon.
Sincerely,
Art Flores
RECEIVED
MAR 3 1999
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P~anning Division
~ I /I
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: March 23, 1999
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Donald Granger, Planning Technician
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF A SIGN PERMIT NO. 98-30 - FLORES - An appeal of the City
Planner's decision regarding a wall price sign for Vineyard Shell, a service station
and mini-market in the Community Commercial District (Subarea 2) of the Foothill
Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and
Vineyard Avenue - APN: 208-192-06. (Continued from March 10, 1999).
BACKGROUND: In a letter datedMarch 8, 1999, the applicant requested a time extension to the
April 28, 1999 Planning Commission meeting. The applicant cited the need for additional
preparation time because of "business-related" issues. The Planning Commission, noting the fact
that the sign is illegal and non-permitted, granted an extension to March 23, 1999, giving the
applicant an opportunity to explain in greater detail the need for an extension to April 28, 1999.
For the Commission's information, the applicant recently submitted and received approval for
changing the two monument signs and one wall sign to a Mobil brand gasoline. The approved
Mobil signs are consistent with staff's suggestion of placing the gasoline prices nearest the curb
face for increased visibility as shown in Exhibit "B."
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission uphold, by minute action,
the City Planner's decision and deny the appeal.
Respectfully submitted,
Buller
City Planner
BB:DG:mlg
Attachments: Exhibit 'A" - Applicant's Letter Dated March 8, 1999
Exhibit "B" - Approved Mobil Monument
Exhibit "C" - Staff Report Dated March 10, 1999
ITEM I
03-8-1999
City of Rancho Cucamonga Vineyard Shell
10500 Civic Center Dr. 8919 Foothill Blvd.
Rancho Cucamonga C A 91729 Rancho Cucamonga 91730
Attn: Donald Granger
Planning Commission
Dear Sirs.
! am writing to request a continuance for item" F" on the March 10 th planning
commission meeting regarding sign permit 98--30. We are not prepared to appear
by 3-10-99 due to business related issues. We need some time to prepare for this
meeting. Please reschedule this item on the 4-28-99 planning commission meeting.
Your understanding in granting this continuance will be greatly appreciated.
Si_.~rcly
Art and Diana Flores
RECEIVED
MAR 0 9 lej99
City ol Rancho Cucamonga
P~annino Division
13' - 5"
' 4' - 0 %" ',
, 3' - 0W' ,
, ,,,~ ~,,~ ~,,
' ' 3'- , V.O. ' '
',- ,, 10 'A" V.Q. 2'- 10V~'
Mobil
1NEW FACES ONLY FOR TWO EXISTING D/F MONUMENT SIGI'
Lr~_ Cucamonga, CA ~p~oveo aY,
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: March 10, 1999
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Donald Granger, Planning Technician
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF A SIGN PERMIT NO. 98-30 - FLORES - An appeal of the City
Planner's decision regarding a wall price sign for Vineyard Shell, a service station
and mini-market in the Community Commercial district (Subarea 2) of the Foothill
Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the southwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and
Vineyard Avenue - APN: 208-192-06.
ABSTRACT: The applicant is seeking approval to install a third pricing sign at the northwest tower
elevation. The applicant contends that the installation of the third price sign is necessary for both
public visibility and sales volume. ·
BACKGROUND: On July 27, 1994, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit
93-46 for the construction of a gas station and mini-market. Subsequently, in March of 1996, the
Planning Division approved a sign package for the Vineyard Shell that included two monument
signs for the Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue frontages (Exhibit "D") and one Shell logo
sign on the northwest tower elevation.
ANALYSIS: Presently, the applicant has installed a third price sign adjacent to the wall logo sign
on the northwest tower elevation, as shown in Exhibit "E," The Sign Ordinance states that "the
monument sign shall be designed to include the identification of the station and gasoline prices. No
other price signs are allowed." Approval of the third wall price sign would be inconsistent with the
Sign Ordinance. Staff has made field visits to all service stations in the City and found them to have
gasoline pricing signs on monument signs only. Therefore, approval of the appeal would set a
precedent for the City and would lead to more requests by other service stations,
The two existing monument signs for the station are located 19½ feet behind the curb face, just
behind the right-of-way on Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue. Staff finds no justification for
a visibility or business identification hardship. To further increase the visibility, the applicant could
request to switch the pricing sign cabinet with the shell logo sign cabinet so that the pricing sign is
closer to the property line, as shown in Exhibit "F." Another option that the applicant could explore
is to relocate the monument signs closer to the building.
Based upon the above analysis, staff concluded that the Vineyard Shell has adequate business
identification and advertising opportunity. Staff also finds no unique circumstances about the
request that would justify any action for approval.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
SP 98-30 - FLORES
March 10, 1999
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission uphold the City Planner's
decision and deny the appeal by minute action.
Respectfully submitted,
City Planner
BB:DG/jfs
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Appeal Request Letter
Exhibit "B" - City Planner Denial Letter Dated January 11, 1999
Exhibit "C" - Site Plan
Exhibit "D" o Existing Monument Sign Elevation
Exhibit "E" - Proposed Wall Sign Elevation
Exhibit "F" - Suggested Placement Change to Price Sign Cabinet
Exhibit "G" - Excerpt from Sign Ordinance
VINEYARD SHELL
8919 FOOTHILL BL.
RANCHO CUCAMONGA 91730
(909)453-0100
The City of Rancho Cucamonga / - 2/- '~ ~
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga 91729
SUBJECT: SIGN PERMIT. 98-30
To the Planning Division:
Dear Sirs:
I am '.wiring this letter to appeal your decision about the price sign at my service
station, on Foothill and Vineyard. The reason that this sign '.vas needed '.vas due
to the many customer complaints about th~of visibili~ of the prices on the
existing monument signs. Due to the set back lhe signs are too far on the propcrt~y.
and many customers complain that they could not see t%at this ,.vas a service
station, and the prices were not visible to them until they had already passed
the station.
On Vineyard Ave.traveling south or north bound it is impossible to sec thc monument
sign unless you are walking. Traveling east on Foothill the trees obstruct the view
of the price sign.
Since we installed the price sign on the comer customers are able to sec thc prices
and we have seen a tremendous increase in business and positive comments
about finally being able to see the prices. It is required by law to post thc prices
in a visible location.
We invested 2.5 Million in this business due to the rigid requirments imposed by
the City of R.C. We need to maintain a certain amount of business to meet our
financial obligations . If your decision is to remove our sign it '.viii adversely
affect our business. We ~vould be willing to remove the prices from the monument
signs or if you have any other sugesstions please let us know.
T H E C I T Y 0 F
NC HO C UC A vlO NG A
January 11, 1999
Mr. Art Flores
Vineyard Shell
376:2 Henderson Place
Claremont. CA 91711
SUBJECT: SIGN PERMIT NO. 98-30
Dear Mr. Flores:
Thank you for submitting the above-described sign permit application i'or a proposed thir~l ga soline price sign.
As a result of reviewing your proposed sign with the current Sign Ordinance, staff has made the following
findings and determination:
1. Service stations are permitted one wall sign and one monument sign per street frontage up to a
maximum of three signs, which could be a combination of wall and monument signs. However only
monument s gns are allowed to include the gasoline prices. No other price signs are allowed.
2. The site already has two monument signs with gasoline prices, one each at Vineyard Avenue and
Foothill Boulevard.
3. The proposed gasoline price sign placed at Ihe northwest (tower) elevation is a wall sign which is not
allowed. However. the shell logo wall sign is acceptable in its present location.
Based on the above analysis and findings, your sign permit application is denied. The gasoline price wall
sign shall be removed within 21 calendar days from the date of this letter. This decision shall be 6hal
i'ollowlng a ten-day appeal period beginning with the date of this letter. Appeals must be filed in writing with
the Planning Commission Secretary. state the reason for appeal, and be accompanied by the $62 appeal fee.
For your information the City now has a provision to allow the identification oi' subtenants within a service
station. The sign standards are one wall sign per subtenant up to a maximum of two per station and a
maximum of 12 square feet per sign. Therefore, you could submit a separate sign permit application
requesting a wall sign for your other business, Church's Fried Chicken.
Ii' you have any questions, please contact Donald Granger, Planning Technician, at (909) 477-2750.
Sincerely,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
City Planner
BB:DG/jfs
cc: Brian Jackson. Code Enforcement Officer .~(,. ~_..~
10~0 C,,._ C.n..r Or~v. PO BO, 807 · Pen ,3]. CA q1720
Existing Monument Sign Elevation
i
Possible Alternative Monument Cabinet Design
~ ..................................................
Gas 109 9/10 Shell
· ~ Prices119 9/10 Logo
.- Here 129 9/10~ Here
_14.20.100 Permitted Sians - Commercial and Office ZQne~ - The following signs may be permitted in the commercial and office zones
subject to the provisions listed:
CLASS SIGN TYPE MAXIMUM NUMBER MAXIMUM SIGN AREA MAXIMUM HEIGHT REMARKS
u~a~ be s~iec~ t~ m~.w ~
22 Revised 8~97
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 23, 1999
TO: ~airman and Members of the Planning Commission
FRO,,~,/~rad Buller, City Planner
On the afternoon of March 22, 1999, the architect for Center of His Will Christian Faith Center
submitted the material previously requested in the City's letter of incompleteness of July
6, 1998. With the information, the Church requested a withdrawal of its appeal of the City
Planner's denial due to incompleteness. As a result of this new information and request,
the Planning Commission may consider the following alternatives:
1. Act on staff's report recommendation and deny the appeal request and affirm the
City Planners denial without prejudice due to application incompleteness. This
would still allow the church to reapply (with a new fee and supporting information)
for a new use permit application.
2. Accept the church's withdrawal of the incompleteness/denial appeal and allow staff
to reopen and continue the existing CUP 98-12 application with the recently
submitted incompleteness plans and information.
Staff has recommended representatives of the Church to attend the meeting should the
Commission have any questions about the scheduling of anticipated improvements.
BB:AW:Is
Attachments: Letter from John Melcher, March 22, 1999
JOHN MELCHER, AIA · ARCHITECT
6779 Treeline Place · P. O. Box 1085 ° Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701 · 909.948.8777 · FAX 909.948.8677
9839
22March 1999
RECEIVED
Alan Warren, AICP, Associate Planner MAR ~ ~ 'Jt:J{J~
CITY OF ILt~NCIIO CUCAMONGA
10500 Civic Center Drive City o! Rancho Cucamonga
P. O. Box 807 P~anning Division
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Subject: Conditional Use Permit No. 9§-12
9330 Scvcmh Street, Suite G
(Center of His Will Christian Faith Center)
Dear Alan:
Thc following materials are submitted 'Mth this letter itl response to the City's completeness
letter of July 6, 1998:
1. Letter of Pastor Gloria llaywood dated January 12. 1999. Thc letter provides
information about chorch operating hours and other details.
2. Tenant listings for 9330 Seventh Street and 9350 Seventh Street. Thc £ormcr houses the
church: it and thc latter arc the two buildings most likely to be impacted by church
operations.
3. Site plan of Pacific Gulf Business Park, tile prc~jcct within v, hich the clmrcb is located.
4. Eight (8) copies of Drawing Number I as prepared by this ol'ficc. ]'he drawing includes
a floor plan of thc church's space; a partial site plan of the project, showing thc building
in which the church is located in relationship to adjacent buildings within the project and
to Hellman Avenue; and a 1994 Cali£omia Building Code analysis.
To the best of my knowledge and belief, these materials respond fully to thc City's complctcncss
concerns. A number of comments were included/attached to thc completeness letter that arc
better addressed in the tenant improvement drawings which will be submitted in cmmcction with
the church's application for a building permit; those comments are hereby acknowledged and thc
tenant improvement drawings wilt contain a propcr rcsponsc to each of them.
Pastor Haywood has asked mc to withdraw thc church's appeal o1'thc City's finding or
incompleteness, which is scheduled to be heard by thc Planning Commission tomorrow evening,
and to resume review of its CUP application. If I'or any reason this isn't possible, or if you need
further information o£ any sort, please let mc know right away.
9839
Alan Warren, AICP
22March 1999
Page 2
Thank you very much for thc consideration thc City has shown thc church throughont this matter.
and for your continuing assistance with it.
Sincerely,
AIA / ARCHI'I'ECT
attachment(s): as listed
cc: Pastor Gloria Haywood
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA --
STAFF REPORT
DATE: March 23, 1999
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Bullet, City Planner
BY: Alan Warren, AICP, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF INCOMPLETENESS FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-12 -
PASTOR GLORIA HAYVVOOD - An appeal of the City Planner's denial of a
Conditional Use Permit due to a determination of incompleteness for an application
to establish a church within 3,200 square feet of leased space in a multi-tenant
industrial center, located in Subarea 3 (General Industrial) of the Industrial Area
Specific Plan at 9330 Seventh Street, Suite "G"- APN: 209-171-57.
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION: On May 31, 1998, the church began operating without proper
City permits. On June 17, 1998, Pastor Gloria Haywood submitted an application requesting a
Conditional Use Permit to operate a church facility within an existing multi-tenant industrial center
at the northeast corner of Seventh Street and Hellman Avenue. Under Industrial Area Specific Plan
provisions, religious assembly may be conditionally permitted within Subarea 3 (Table II1-1, revised
November 1996).
On July 6, 1999, Planning staff responded to the application with an incompleteness letter. The
letter outlined those items that needed to be submitted to satisfy minimum application requirements.
Additional items were also requested in order to make an informed decision regarding the
appropriateness of the use within the complex. Planning requests included the following:
1. Provide a list of tenants/businesses within the complex. The list is to include business
addresses, total floor area for each use, description of the activity/business, and hours of
operation.
2. Provide a fully dimensioned Floor Plan, drawn to scale. Dimension all room sizes, corridors,
hallways, and aisle widths.
3. Submit a revised letter or new letter stating how long the church has been at this present
location.
Because the building, designed as an industrial facility, was not constructed to satisfy building code
requirements for public assembly, the Building and Safety Division's Fire Prevention/New
Construction Unit included a number of items to be covered in the requested resubmittal. These
issues were raised at that time because of the scope of the required building code safety items.
Staff requested that the resubmittal show sufficient detail so that the applicant understood the scope
and potential costs of the mandatory code requirements. Most of the safety issues could be shown
on an improved floor plan as requested by Planning staff.
ITEM J
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
'CUP 98-12 APPEAL - HAYWOOD
March 23, 1999
Page 2
Church representatives met with City staff (Planning, Building, and Fire Safety) to ascertain the
requirements for continuing the process. After more than 120 days, no additional information was
submitted and the City Planner denied the application without prejudice because of inaction on the
incompleteness items. The Church filed an appeal of the denial on November 23, 1998. Also, the
church enlisted the services of an architect, familiar with City procedures, to help on improving the
application plans and exhibits to keep the application open and moving forward. Planning staff
withheld action of the appeal application in hopes that the requested information would be submitted
and that the CUP process could continue. After a number of contacts with the architect, staff
anticipated that the requested information would soon be submitted. No additional submittals were
provided and the City Planner decided that action on the appeal request must be scheduled. As
of the writing of this report, the Planning Division has not received any of the incompleteness
information requested in July of 1998. Staff believes that an informed decision cannot be made
without the requested information.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission affirm the City Planner's
denial of CUP 98-12 because of application incompleteness.
Respectfully submitted,
City Planner
BB:AW/jfs
Attachments: Exhibit"A" - Appeal Letter
Exhibit "B" - Site Plan
Exhibit "C" - Floor Plan
Exhibit "D" - Letter of Incompleteness dated July 6, 1998
Exhibit "E" - Letter of Denial dated November 16, 1998
Resolution of Denial
CE~\'TE~=~. .F HIS ~I/ILL CHRISTLq:V FA£;t-~ CE.'VTER
9330 Sevetlth Street. &tile G
Rancho Cucamottga. CA 91730
[909) 944-9744
No'vember 2.1. 1995
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPEAL
To the Cia.' or Rancho Cucamon§a.
We res!~.',effully ~ubmitted a request for a Conditional Use Permit from the Cit,' of Rancho Cu~mon~
Ia allow us to conduct Church Sen'ices at 93..10 Seventh Street. Unit G in thc ~itv of Rancho Cucamonga.
Wc have been at this location since May 31. 199~1.
It has N.x:n an on-going process for us as tlc h3¥c cominuallv atmmptcd lo gel clarification for the items or
completeness. The irffommtion for thc completion included'mare' items for 'New Construction.' which *~crc
not applicable to us. Whcn t~c applied for thc conditional u~ pc~lit ~c t~crc moving into an existing building
,,t ith no construction changes. From thc first receipt ortho letter rot completion ~c hat'c spoken ~vcral times
ovcr thc tclcphonc to Alan Warren as ~cll as made numerous visits to tile Cit.' to spcak with him.
Wc cominucd Ia return back to thc city becau~ t~c couldn't get thc full under'standing as to ~hat ~c ~tcrc Ia do.
In thc meamimc t~c mci with city fire dcpartmcm inspectors. At that time ~c only had t.~o small items. ~hich
included adding blank covers Ia our fu.m box and removing an extension cord. ~,V~ ~crc told that thcv ~tould bc
back on October 8. 1995 Ia rcinspcct tho.~' itcms and thcv ~ould then %~ ritc them off. ~ 1o this ~[cJ no one
has rctumc~ A~in. rye bavc ~llcd mvc~l limes do~t n'to [he city [o gel thc rcins~lion and no one
~ow who ~ould ~vc come out in thc first placc.
In our pursuit lo complctc our items t~c contacted Mr. Dan Colcm=n on No~cm~r 4. 1998. ~ ho was cxtrcmclv
hclpful. He I~k thc time lo explain lo mc thc n~d oran archit~t ~u~ of thc buil~ng c~cs. Mr. Calera
stated tM[ 'he ~*ould ~ happy lo nt~l t~Sth us and our architect and that hc ~tas there to hclp
I a'as concerned a~ut thc 30 ~y cxlcnsion and ~*'as advi~d N' Mr. Colcnmn I~t ~¥ould not ~ a problcm.
Hc a~urcd mc I~[ thc Jmcrcst is lo ensure that we continue ~*~r~ng toward [he con~lional u~
Mtcr my com'cr~tion ~tSth Mr. Coloron l immc~atclv con=mcd thc archi[~ Pctc Pi~si who ~u~ of his
hmW ~load rcrc~ed mc [o Jan Mclchcr. Mr. Mclchcr and I ~d an ap~intmcn[ on Novcm~r 19, 1998 at
2:~ p.~ Al l~t ~mc fimc we were met ~,5~ ci~' officimls tuning a notice not to ~vc mni~s an~orc in
· c racilid~. ~. mtcd a letter ~d ~n ~[cd ~' ~c ci~ rot 11/16/98 c~lai~ng a ~nial. which ~ ~d
r~civc~ ~c loner ~d come on 11~ 1/98, ~c ~smrk shows roiled on I 1/19/98..
Wc arc ~ng for an ap~l orthc con~[io~l u~ ~mi[ applimtion duc to our constant acfivc pursuit
comply ~{lh m'c~ing I~l wc ~¥c undcml~ lo do. ~r archil~. Mr. Mclchcr. ~gun ~¥orking ~{th u~ on
~ur~y. Novcm~r 19. 1998. Plca~ r~onsldcr our applimtlon and an cxtcmion ~ l~[ wc my condnuc
Wing mmicc ~*hilc thc archit~l is completing ~c plans. ~nk you in a~'ancc for Your
Im)' ~ con~m~ at (~9) 944-9744.
Sinccrclv
~or Gloria Ha>x~
PACIFIC GULF BUSINESS PARK
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA
Leasing & 3fa~lagegnent Office
9500 7d~ St. Suite "L"
~ ~.~.~ ~l~ -.~ ~~ ...............
C~,~4 ~
IIII ' ~ I IIIIIIIi
~ ~E~ To ~l~[d A~. ~
Roil-Up Door Exit Door
3200 SQ FT
Pulpit Area
AISLE
WOMEN'S RESTROOM
_1 I l
IIALL
PASTORS OF/.1CE FRO~rr ] I
OFHCE RECEPTION AREA
D NC J-fO
July 6, 1998
Pastor Gloria Haywood
9335 Calle Vejar
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 98-12 - 9330 SEVENTH STREET, SUITE "G"
Dear Pastor Haywood:
Your application for the above-referenced project has been reviewed for completeness and accuracy of filing.
As a result of the review, the project application has been found to be incomplete for processing. Attached
please find a list outlining additional information needed prior to finding /he application complete, non-
conformities with development standards, and major design issues.
Further processing of your project cannot begin until, at a minimum, the Completeness Items are submitted
and the application accepted as complete. However, to expedite processing of your project, it is
recommended that all issues on the attached list be addressed now. Submit eight copies of the information
requested to the Planning Division as soon as possible. The applicant must submit the information
and/or plans necessary to make the application complete within 60 days of the date of this letter.
Failure to submit within this time limit may result in denial of your application.
This decision regarding the incomplete status of your application shall be final following a ten-day appeal
period beginning with the date of this letter. Only Completeness Items may be appealed at this time. A
written statement of reasons for the appeal must be submitted lo Ihe Planning Commission Secretary and
be accompanied by a 562 appeal fee.
Should you have any questions regarding the review process, or if we can be Of further assistance, please
feel free to contact the project planner, Alan Warren, at (909) 477-2750, Monday through Thursday from 7:00
a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Sincerely,
CO..M~ DEVEL.,ffil~NT DEPARTMENT
Principal Planner
DC:AW:mlg
Attachment
cc: Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer
Karen Mosley. Office Specialist II
4 , - ...........
FILE NO.: CUP 98-12
(COMPLETENESS COMMENTS)
NOTE: This information is provided to assist in the preparation cfa development package complete
for processing. Additional information or comments may be necessary based upon a more thorough
analysis during the Development Review Process.
I. Planninq Division:
A. Completeness Items * Additional information that must be submitted prior to finding the
application complete:
1. Provide a list of tenants/businesses within the complex. The list is to include business
addresses, total floor area of each use, description of the activity/business, and hours of
operation. The center's leasing agent may be able to help you in obtaining this information.
2. Provide a fully dimensioned Floor Plan drawn to scale. Dim.ension all room sizes,
corridors, hallways and aisle widths.
3. Submit revised letter or new letter stating how long the church has been at this present
location.
II. Buildinq and Safety Division:
A. Completeness Items - Additional information that must be submitted prior to finding the
application complete: If you have any questions regarding the Building comments, please
contact Alien Brock, Building Plan Check Manager at extension 2233.
1. Plans are incomplete and additional informalion is required. Refer to enclosed
'Preliminary/Technical Project Review* comments of June 30, 1998 for construction and
occupancy issues. Building Code issues relate to safety concerns regarding the use of an
induslrial building for public assembly uses.
2. Project has outstanding life safety issues which require additional submittals by proponent
(prior to Planning commission), as noted:
a. Plan is incomplete and requires additional information such as, accurate dimensions,
type of construction, is structure sprinklered?, etc.
b. Substantial requirements may arise outlining a more detailed review such as,
occupant Icad/occupancy, existing, restroom facilities, etc.
3. Exterior walls shall be constructed of the required fire rating in accordance with UBC Table
5-A.
4. Openings in exterior walls shall be protected in accordance with UBC Table 5-A.
5. Plans shall be submitted and plans approved prior to construction in accordance with 1994
UBC, UFC, UPC, UMC, and NEC.
6. Submit three (3) complete sets of plans including the following:
a. Site/Pict Plan.
;:5-?
COMPLETENESS COMMENTS
CUP 98-12
Page 2
b. Foundation Plan.
c. Floor Plan.
d. Ceiling and Floor Plan.
e. Electrical Plans (2 sets detached) including size of main switch, number and size'of
service entrance conductors, panel schedules, and single line diagrams.
f. Plumbing and Sewer Plans including isometrics, underground diagram, water and
waste diagram, sewer or seplic system location, fixture units, gas piping, and heating
and air conditioning.
7, Submit two (2) sets of structural calculations, energy conservation calculations, and soils
report. Architect's/Engineer's stamp and 'we[" signature is required, prior to plan check
submittal.
8. Upon tenant improvement plan check submittal, additional requirements may be required.
9. Contractors must show proof of State and City licenses and Workers' compensation to City
prior to permit issuance.
10. Business shall not open for operation prior to posting the Certificate of Occupancy issued
by the building and S;~fety Division.
Ill. Fire Prevention/New Construction Unit:
A. Completeness Items - See page 4 of "Preliminary Project Review" commenls of June 30. 1998.
Fire Code issues relate to safety concerns regarding the use of an industrial building for public
assembly uses. It' you have any questions regarding the Fire comments, please contact John
Thomas, Fire Plan Check Manager at extension 2202.
1. An automatic fire extinguishing system(s) will be required as noted below:
a. Confirm if sprinklers are existing,
Note: Special sprinkler densities are required for such hazardous operations as
woodworking, plastics manufacturing, spray painting, flammable liquids storage,
high piled stock, etc. Contact the Fire Safety division to determine if sprinkler
system is adequate for proposed operations.
2. A fire alarm system(s) shall be required as noted below:
a. Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District ordinance 15.
3. A Knox rapid entry key vault shall be installed prior ID final inspection. Proof of purchase
shall be submitted prior to final building plan approval. Conlact the Fire Safety Division for
specific details and ordering information.
4. A Fire District fee in the amount of $132.00 and a $1 per "plan page" microfilm fee will be
due to t.he Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District prior to building and Safety permit
issuance.
COMPLETENESS COMMENT,..
CUP 98-12
Page 3
Note: Separate plan check fees for fire prolection systems (sprinklers, hood systems,
alarms, etc.) and/or any consultant reviews will be assessed upon submital of
plans.
5. Plans shall be submitted and plans approved prior to construction in accordance with 1994
UBC, UFC, UPC. UMC, NEW, and RCFD Standards 22, 15.
6. Special permits may be required, depending on intended use. as noted below:
a. Places of assembly (except churches, schools, and other non-profit organizations).
T h E C I T Y 0 F
DA NC C UC A HO NG A
November 16, 1998
Pastor Gloria Haywood
9335 Calle Vejar
Rancho Cucamongao.CA 91730
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE P~RMIT NO. 98-12 iCENTER OF HIS WILL CHRISTIAN FAITH
CENTER), 9330 SEVENTH STREET, SUITE "G"
Dear Pastor Haywood:
Based upon a review of your application file, staff has determined that it has now been more than
120 days since our notification that your application was incomplete. Also, it has been over 30 days
since our notification of our intent to deny your application due to inaction on your incomplete
application. To date, the City has not received the requested plans and/or information nor a letter
of withdrawal or letter requesting continuance on the matter.
Therefore, pursuant to Development Code Section 17.04.020.B, your application has been denied
~reiudicAt9 refile at a later date;
This decision shall be final following ~] ten-day appeal period beginning with the date of this letter.
Appeals must be filed in writing with the Planning Commission Secretary, state the reason for the
appeal, and be accompanied by a $62 appeal fee.
As a result of this action, the use of the subject site as a church assembly facility must cease until
the required conditional use permit and building permits have been approved and inspected for final
compliance with City regulations. Should you have any questions regarding the above, please do
not hesitate to contact Alan Warren, project planner, at (909) 477-2750.
Sincerely,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
City Planner
BB:AW/jfs
cc: Karen Mosley, Public Service Technician Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer
Richard Alcom, Code Enforcement Supervisor
Jim Schroeder, Building Inspection Supervisor
Moyor Williom J. AloxonrJ~}r ,/~ C~unc~lmornr~or Pr.t~.~l
Cv'-: Ce"~e' Dn,,'e PO ~a< ~3' · r.,:.:;":-~c Cucc:r'n.'~;:; ?. · :.;'2. ;G';:-:' '2 ',Si], · F,,:.,,' ';GO~
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AFFIRMING AND
UPHOLDING THE CITY PLANNER'S DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 98-12 BECAUSE OF AN INCOMPLETE APPLICATION,
AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORTTHEREOF - APN: 209-171-57.
A. Recitals.
1. On June 17, 1998, Pastor Gloria Haywood submitted Conditional Use Permit No. 98-12
on behalf of the Center of His Will Christian Faith Center, Inc. to operate a church facility in an
existing multi-tenant industrial complex at 9330 Seventh Street, Unit "G." Hereinafter in this
Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit application is referred to as "the application."
2. On July 6, 1998, a letter of application incompleteness was sent by the City to the
applicant requesting additional information regarding the application and surrounding uses.
3. On November 16, 1998, pursuant to Development Code Section 17.04.020.B, the City
Planner denied the application without prejudice because of the incompleteness of the application.
4. On November 23, 1998, Pastor Gloria Haywood filed an appeal of the City Planner's
denial of the application.
5. On March 23, 1999, 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.
6. 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 at the above-
referenced public hearing on March 23, 1999, including written and oral staff reports, together with
public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The use in question, a church facility, may be authorized at the location requested
in Subarea 3 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan (ISP) subject to conditional use permit approval
as specified in Table II1-1 of the ISP; and
b. That the applicant submitted an incomplete conditional use permit application and
was informed of the incomplete items within 30 days of the application submittal; and
c. Development Code Section 17.04.020.A.3 requires the applicant to respond to
incompleteness items within sixty (60) days of the notice of incompleteness. The applicant has not
submitted the requested information.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
APPEAL OF CUP 98-12 - HAYWOOD
March 23, 1999
Page 2
d. Development Code Section 17.04.020.B allows for denial of applications when
information is not provided within the time period specified by the Development Code. Information
whose absence would constitute a reason for such denial includes (17.04.020.B.1 .c):
"Information without which the City's decision to approve a project
would not be supported by substantial evidence."
e. That the applicant has not provided the information requested to make the
application complete and, as a result, the processing of the application has not progressed to a
point where the City may hold the required public hearing; and
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2
above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. That the applicant has not provided sufficient information in order for the City to
make a determination of the compatibility of the use with the surrounding land uses; and
b. That the applicant has been given more than sufficient time to gather and submit
the requested application information.
4. Based upon the finding~ and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1,2, and 3 above, this
Commission hereby denies the requested appeal of the City Planner's decision and reaffirms his
determination to deny the subject application without prejudice to reapply for the same permit.
5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23RD DAY OF MARCH 1999
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Larry T. McNiel, Chairman
A3-1'EST:.
Brad Buller, Secretary
I, Brad BuGler, 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 23rd day of March 1999, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ~ ~' ~