HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012/03/14 - Agenda Packet - PC THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
RANCHO
CUCAMONGA MARCH 14, 2012 - 7:00 PM
Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center
Council Chambers
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California
I. CALL TO ORDER
Roll Call
Chairman Munoz_ Vice Chairman Howdyshell
Fletcher_ Wimberly _ Oaxaca _
• II. ANNOUNCEMENTS
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
February 8, 2012 Regular Meeting Minutes
February 22, 2012 Regular Meeting Minutes
February 22, 2012 Adjourned Workshop Minutes
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non-controversial.
They will be acted on by the Commission at one time without discussion. If anyone has
concern over any item, it should be removed for discussion.
A. DISPOSITION OF CITY OWNED PROPERTY ON THE EAST SIDE OF
DOLCETTO PLACE, NORTH OF GARCIA DRIVE AND SOUTH OF VIA
VENETO DRIVE, ADJACENT TO TENTATIVE TRACT 18096—A request
to find the quit claiming of Lots D and E of Tract 15711-1 in conformance
with the General Plan - APN 1100-181-37 and 1100-181-38.
•
1 of 4
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MARCH 14, 2012
RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
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. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2011-00873 - AT&T MOBILITY - a
request to modify the existing wireless communication facility housed in a
57- foot, 6- inch high cross tower (MDR 00-14) in order to replace the 3
existing antennas with 6 new antennas and related equipment for a site
located on the north side of Highland Avenue and west of Cambridge
Avenue in the Low(L) Residential District at 9944 Highland Avenue-APN:
0201-055-49. Staff has determined that this project is categorically
exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1
exemption - existing facilities).
VL NEW BUSINESS •
C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2010-00188 AND ENTERTAINMENT
PERMIT DRC2010-00189 - A request to initiate the review of a business
known as Mc Alan's Pub & Grill located at 6321 Haven Avenue - APN:
0201-272-06.
VII. PUBLIC COMMENTS
This is the time and place for the general public to address the commission. Items lobe
discussed here are those that do not already appear on this agenda.
VIII. COMMISSION BUSINESS/COMMENTS
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.
•
2of4
T
1
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MARCH 14, 2012
RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
1, Lois J. Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was
posted on March 8, 2012, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code
Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga.
If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting,
please contact the Planning Department at (909) 477-2750. Notification of 48
hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility. Listening devices are available for the hearing impaired.
INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC
TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION
• The Planning Commission encourages free expression of all points of view. To allow all
persons to speak, given the length of the agenda, please keep your remarks brief. If
others have already expressed your position,you may simply indicate that you agree with
a previous speaker. If appropriate, a spokesperson may present the views of your entire
group. To encourage all views and promote courtesy to others, the audience should
refrain from clapping, booing or shouts of approval or disagreement from the audience.
The public may address the Planning Commission on any agenda item. To address the
Planning Commission, please come forward to the podium located at the center of the
staff table. State your name for the record and speak into the microphone. After
speaking, please sign in on the clipboard located next to the speaker's podium. It is
important to list your name, address and the agenda item letter your comments refer to.
Comments are generally limited to 5 minutes per individual.
If you wish to speak concerning an item not on the agenda, you may do so under"Public
Comments." There is opportunity to speak under,this section prior to the end of the
agenda.
Any handouts for the Planning Commission should be given to the Planning Commission
Secretary for distribution to the Commissioners.
All requests for items to be placed on a Planning Commission agenda must be in writing.
The deadline for submitting these items is 6:00 p.m. Tuesday, one week prior to the
meeting. The Planning Commission Secretary receives all such items.
AVAILABILITY OF STAFF REPORTS
Copies of the staff reports or other documentation to each agenda item are on file in the
•
3 of 4
1
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MARCH 14, 2012
RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
offices of the Planning Department, City Hall, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive,
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. These documents are available for public
inspections during regular business hours, Monday through Thursday, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00
p.m., except for legal City holidays.
APPEALS
Any interested party who disagrees with the City Planning Commission decision may
appeal the Commission's decision to the City Council within 10 calendar days. Any
appeal filed must be directed to the City Clerk's Office and must be accompanied by a
fee of$2,216 for maps and $2,328 for all other decisions of the Commission. (Fees are
established and governed by the City Council).
Please turn off all cellular phones and pagers while the meeting is in session.
Copies of the Planning Commission agendas and minutes can be found at
www.CitvofRC.us
•
•
4of4
I
Vicinity Map
OPlannin g Commission ss on Meeting
March 14, 2012
---- - -----------
- -------------- ,
rj y •y E ;a o
E _ _ >
> I
a Q x x
d
i
j � U I
c O
d
19th St
c
i
Base Line Base Line
Church
Church
oothille —r---
A
AMIN
Foothill
c
d
A
Arrow Arrow
Jersey z R !
8th o 3
x w
> _
>
m
(7 6th` m HN c 6th W N
4th Q 4th
• C * Meeting Location:
City Hall
10500 Civic Center Drive
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
t
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• Regular Meeting
February 8, 2012
Chairman Munoz called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning
Commission to order at 7:25 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chambers at Rancho
Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Richard Fletcher, Lou Munoz, Francisco Oaxaca
ABSENT: Ray Wimberly, Frances Howdyshell
STAFF PRESENT: Steven Flower, Assistant City Attorney; Steve Fowler, Assistant Planner;
Larry Henderson, Principal Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer;
Mayuko Nakajima,Assistant Planner; Lois Schrader, Planning Commission
Secretary; Tabe Van der Zwaag, Associate Planner
x x x x x
ANNOUNCEMENTS
None
• x x x x x
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by Oaxaca (Howdyshell,Wimberly absent), carried 3-0-2,to
approve the minutes of January 25, 2012.
x x x x x
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Chairman Munoz indicated that because of his employment in the communications field, he would
feel that'in the public's interest he should recuse himself on the following item. He noted that this
would create a lack of quorum and therefore no action would be taken on Item A.
A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2011-00873 - AT&T MOBILITY - A request to modify the
existing wireless communication facility housed in a 57-foot, 6-inch high cross tower(MDR 00-
14) in order to replace the 3 existing antennas with 6 new antennas and related equipment for a
site located on the north side of Highland Avenue and west of Cambridge Avenue in the Low(L)
Residential Development District at 9944 Highland Avenue - APN: 0201-055-49. Staff has
determined that this project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1
Exemption - Existing Facilities).
• Steven Flower,Assistant City Attorney said the item would be re-noticed and scheduled for a future
meeting.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2011-00254-ALL •
STATE PAPER AND METAL RECYCLING - JAMES LIN - A request to operate a 4.42-acre
recycling facility including the use of a temporary office module within the Heavy Industrial District
of Subarea 15 on the south side of Whittram Avenue between Pecan Avenue and Hickory
Avenue at 13195, 13207, 13231, 13243, and 13253 Whittram Avenue-APN: 0229-192-09, 06,
04, 03&02. Related File: Development Review DRC2011-00255 Staff has prepared a Mitigated
Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration
C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DESIGN REVIEW DRC2011-00255-
ALL STATE PAPER AND METAL RECYCLING - JAMES LIN - A request to make site
improvements including installing a temporary office module, constructing new screen walls,
installing all street improvements and landscaping, complete on-site paving and add employee
eating area and parking for a 4.42-acre project site located within the Heavy Industrial District of
Subarea 15 on the south side of Whittram Avenue between Pecan Avenue and Hickory Avenue
at 13195, 13207, 13231, 13243, and 13253 Whittram Avenue-APN: 0229-192-09, 06, 04, 03&
02. Related Project: DRC2011-00254. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
environmental impacts for consideration.
Chairman Munoz recommended that the items be pulled and brought back to the DRC for review.
He said the applicant wants to change things that were agreed to at the DRC and that although the
applicant submitted a letter to staff; he had not had the opportunity to review it. He said their request
is specific to the wall material and the in-lieu fee calculation. He felt that a discussion at this time
would be premature, that it should be returned to the DRC for proper review.
Steven Flower, Assistant City Attorney explained that new information was brought forward today
and the Chair would like to bring it back to the DRC for further review. •
Commissioner Fletcher stated that since it was agendized and previously reviewed by the DRC, he
would like to proceed and discuss the item tonight. He said it is not out of the ordinary to proceed
although he thought they had agreed to a block wall at the DRC, but undergrounding fees are often
discussed at the Planning Commission level. He said he did not want to delay the applicants.
Chairman Munoz said it was ready to go and approved as presented to the DRC, but now the
conditions have changed and he would like to review it again at the DRC. He moved that the items
be sent to the DRC for another review.
Commissioner Oaxaca asked if it has been reviewed before.
Chairman Munoz stated, yes, twice.
Commissioner Fletcher clarified that the applicant agreed, but now they want to review and discuss
it. He asked if they needed to appeal the DRC decision.
Mr. Flower stated that this does not require a separate appeal as the DRC is a recommending body.
He said the item goes to DRC with a recommendation and then it is forwarded to the Planning
Commission for a decision.
Commissioner Oaxaca clarified that there is one item in question for the DRC to review-a block wall
vs. a metal fence. He said the other is in-lieu or phased payments of underground fees based on
the acquisitions of currently leased parcels.
Mr. Flower confirmed that in lieu fees are not for DRC review. •
Planning Commission Minutes -2- February 8, 2011
:0
Commissioner Oaxaca stated the block wall was discussed in October and the project was
recommended to the Commission with a block wall proposed. He confirmed that it did not reappear
• for the meeting in January where the temporary trailer was discussed.
Chairman Munoz said this issue has not gone back and forth; the applicant agreed, the DRC
approved it to move forward and now the applicant does not want that condition.
Commissioner Fletcher said he read about the tan corrugated metal fence request. He said he did
not think it appropriate to delay the item. He said the Commission could approve the application
with the block wall as recommended and let them appeal the decision if they are not in agreement.
Chairman Munoz asked for the staff report.
Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner gave the staff report and history of the business. He
summarized the required improvements including curb, sidewalks, landscaping, a wall, and
additional fencing. He said they upgraded the windows in the adjacent single-family dwelling per a
noise study. He said the application was continued last time because the owner wished to add a
scale to weigh vehicles and to use a temporary building. He said now the applicants do not want to
do the walls and do not want to pay the full undergrounding fees. He said the applicant feels that
because they lease two parcels on the property they should not have to pay for those. He said if the
decision is to defer payment until they own the entire site; there would be no guarantee for payment
in future. He said staff believes the improvements will help beautify the area particularly along
Whittram Avenue.
Commissioner Fletcher confirmed that the scale building is located on the southern portion of the
property and if it straddles the property line.
• Mr. van der Zwaag confirmed it was not wide enough, and therefore is straddling the property line.
He said the owners processed a lot line adjustment to allow room for trucks to pass via the southern
portion of the property which in effect lessens the truck traffic on Whittram Avenue. He said the
applicants are willing to do all street improvements but not the undergrounding. He explained that
the property with the single-family home is leased to them and there is an auto repair next door. He
said it had become a wrecking yard and Code Enforcement has been working with the owner.
Commissioner Fletcher suggested that if there is a 5-year lease, if the applicants have not acquired
those properties in 5 years, then they could pay the fees at that time. He said that in the past we
have not required the undergrounding fees for improvements taking place off-site. He said we are
collecting fees on leased property and the applicants may not be there in 5 years.
Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer said the lease issue is not involved with the City. He said we
would have to impose a condition for the paying of the fees in 5 years or shut them down. He said it
is similar to when street improvements are required. They must guarantee completion of the street
improvements with a bond and there is a timeline. He said they could do a timeline on the
undergrounding.
Mr. Flower said that the point about the property being only leased to the applicants is not relevant.
He said development often occurs on leased land. He said this issue should be worked out with the
property owner and the lessee.
Commissioner Fletcher noted that to him the Heavy Industrial zone area is akin to the adage of the
silk purse/sows ear. He said Whittram Avenue is an industrial street and it is not a pretty site, so to
require a lot of expense that will not affect their business nor the City did not seem appropriate. He
• said it is a hodge-podge area. He granted that we may have to start someplace and improvements
on this property may encourage other owners to improve as well.
Planning Commission Minutes -3- February 8, 2011
Commissioner Oaxaca asked about the railroad right of way and what is on the parcel to south
across the tracks.
Mr. van der Zwaag said it is currently vacant land. •
Mr. Henderson added that the property is used for overflow parking for the racetrack and it was at
one time a proposed soccer complex.
Commissioner Oaxaca asked what the requirement for a block wall was based on.
Mr. van der Zwaag said it is a standard condition to require either a solid block wall or a metal fence
with a metal backing. He said the DRC did not feel metal fencing was not appropriate and would not
look nice.
Chairman Munoz clarified that the applicant's proposal was not actual metal fencing, but just old
metal sheets that have been recycled for fencing.
Mr. van der Zwaag said they used non approved metal fencing. He said the Edison Company no
longer wanted them on their easement, so now they want to use the old fencing that was being used
there. He said it is solid metal sheets with a V protrusion. He said it is not an actual fencing
product, but something that was custom built. (He displayed a photo of the material on the
overhead).
Commissioner Oaxaca commented from his experience with the railroads. He said there concern is
how to prevent access from a property owner's side and how to discourage access from rail
easement onto private property. He said a block wall may be the option of choice, but sometimes it
is as effective to use wrought iron fencing. He said the footings for a block wall along the rail line
could be a challenge. He said there would be no reason anyone would want to cross there, and he •
would be willing to look at alternatives to a block wall that would meet our standards.
Mr. van der Zwaag says the City has no history of metal fencing along railroad easements.
Commissioner Fletcher asked if we are attempting to screen the view from passing trains or
something else.
Commissioner Oaxaca noted that passengers sitting in the upper level of a train are about 16-feet
high and therefore the wall/fence would need to be 20 feet tall to really screen the property.
Chairman Munoz opened the public hearing.
George Chu, 718 West 16th Street in Upland, representing All State Recycling clarified that the letter
was first distributed on December 14 and then again yesterday. He said the metal steel panels
would be painted to match the block wall that will be constructed along Whittram Avenue. He said it
would be supported by steel columns every 20 feet. He said the owners have been in business
since 1987 and currently employ 40 people. He said the panels are 8 feet tall and they have been to
DRC twice. He thanked staff for their assistance.
Commissioner Fletcher asked if there are efforts to purchase middle property.
Mr. Chu responded, yes; they are not ready to sell and the elderly lady does not want to move. He
said her son works next door and they have been living there for about 30 years. He said the parcel
to the east is a different owner. He said he tried to purchase it but they are not ready to sell either; it
is owned by an irrevocable trust. •
Planning Commission Minutes -4- February 8, 2011
Commissioner Fletcher said the letter indicates the objection to the block wall was because of cost.
He said he got the impression tonight that the metal fence material-not a commercial fence-was
• something custom from the other facility. He said he visited the facility on one occasion and thought
it was filthy and dangerous and would not go back there again. He said he is sympathetic to not
spending too much on the railway right of way, but he would have reservations about approving a
makeshift fence.
Chairman Munoz closed the public hearing and asked for Commission comments.
Commissioner Fletcher said his initial concern was about the expense in this particular area. He
said he would think it to be more appropriate to require this with new construction applications. He
said this is a large area and he did not want to apply standards that are not applied to others on
Whittram. He said he did not think the underground fees are unreasonable for properties that are
owned by the applicant. He said he is ok with delaying the fees for the properties that are leased (5
years). He said he has not seen the fencing the applicants want to put up so he is not sure that he
could decide any differently than the DRC did.
Commissioner Oaxaca said we could have an opening to consider a condition to pay the in-lieu fees
in entirety but within a reasonable timeframe. He agreed that he is not comfortable with the fencing
material and he has not seen an option proposed that fits in with our current standards. He said
there are other barriers that could accomplish the screening that would also consider the
surrounding properties. He said he would look at a condition to pay the initial fees and require the
balance over a maximum of 5 years that would compel them to pay remainder.
Chairman Munoz said phasing has been considered before. He asked staff if there is a way to
collect an initial portion and phase a part. He asked if it is enforceable.
• Mr. James said it is not customary.
Mr. Flower said it would have to tie to some time period. He said the City has not seen a lease and
we have no way to monitor it. He said if it was not paid in 5 years, we would have to revoke their
CUP; that is how it would be enforced, either they pay or shut them down. He said the process
could be done.
Mr. James said it is just like public improvements; they have a time line and if they are not
completed, the applicant is also faced with that process.
Chairman Munoz said he concurred about the wall. He said we rely on City standards and the
concern has nothing to do with the wall being observed or being seen by the trains. He said there
are safety issues and normally we require walls all the way around for safety. He said in-lieu fees
are problematic and coming up with a condition is difficult because we do not know what will happen
in future with this business or those leased properties. He said he cannot ask future projects to
underground if we let this one go. He said we have negotiated with the applicant several times and
he was surprised this came up. He said we prefer to operate this way and we would hold others to
the same standard. He said they can be non-conforming until they develop and then they will face
the same requirement.
Commissioner Fletcher said he forgot to ask the applicant the level of difficulty of constructing block
wall along the train right of way.
Mr. Chu noted that the challenge was mentioned by Commissioner Oaxaca but they would face big
footings and a trench the full length of the wall, several feet deep along with workers and related
• equipment.
Planning Commission Minutes -5- February 8, 2011
Chairman Munoz said that is an engineering issue and they would have to allow room along their
property line for the construction of the wall.
Commissioner Fletcher said he does not believe 'one size fits all'. He said the City is getting •
improvements along Whittram Avenue plus more. He said he does not like their alternative scrap
fencing but he has a problem with taking fees for portions of property they don't own. He said he
would like to condition them to pay the fees within 5 years and if that is approved then accept the
application with the approved block wall.
Mr. Flower said that if the applicant does not agree, they could appeal to City Council or request a
continuance and go back to DRC to hash it out.
Chairman Munoz said it seems the Commissioners are not in favor of the fence.
Commissioner Oaxaca clarified that there are other opportunities for other materials other than
block. He said he would lean towards flexibility about the undergrounding, but not for what was
proposed instead of the block wall because the metal panels are very removed from our standards.
He referred to Page B & C -14 and the DRC Action comments specifying the required walls and
fencing for the entire site.
Commissioner Fletcher asked if chain link with slats is an option in the Code. He said we have to
look at alternatives and if there are other approved materials, why can they not be used.
Mr. Henderson said the Development Code has several options listed but per policy of the
Commission, we really don't want to see that; solid block walls are preferred and that is what the
Commission has requested that staff seek from the applicants. He added that staff is here to serve
and if the Commission desires to change that policy, staff could do so with their direction.
Commissioner Fletcher said he did not object to alternative screening material but if we could get •
the whole right of way in block wall then yes, he would support that. He asked if staff is requiring all
the other property owners to install a block wall. He said if the applicant wants to go back to DRC to
review an alternative material then he can with choices, but he did not feel we should enforce the
most expensive one. He said the area is the problem. He said he would go along with the block
wall if they can work with the applicant on the undergrounding fee.
Chairman Munoz said the DRC has to have a standard and it is hard to set standards for various
parts of town. He said it is problematic to go on an economic basis and this has been the standard
for 25-35 years. He said if we change it, it should be a procedural change and not on a project
basis. He said typically we ask staff to prepare a study,we consider it at DRC, then we share it with
the Commission. We may even go out and look at examples and then bring everyone back for a
decision. He said tonight, they agreed to the condition and then they came back and want to make
changes and decide here at commission. He said we are making design and engineering decisions.
Commissioner Fletcher said it is not unusual to do this and if it happens then it is the applicant's
decision to either delay their project and work with the DRC or appeal the decision.
Chairman Munoz said we depend upon recommendations from staff to guide us and there was no
previous knowledge of a disagreement. He recommended the project be sent back to DRC for
review.
Commissioner Oaxaca seconded the motion to continue the applications and to be sent back to the
DRC with the new information. He said the Commission should allow DRC to do its job-they make
recommendations to the Commission and then the Commission can make an informed decision. He •
said he did not feel he had all the options before him to decide tonight.
Planning Commission Minutes -6- February 8, 2011
Chairman Munoz asked the applicant if he accepts the motion to accept the project as proposed
with exception to the in-lieu fees.
• Mr. Chu said he would like the opportunity to present an acceptable metal fence design to the DRC.
Mr. Henderson said the project will have to be re-advertised when it is ready to come back to the
Commission. He asked the Commission if they desired the staff to propose phasing options with
respect to the in-lieu fees.
Chairman Munoz responded affirmatively.
Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by Oaxaca, to continue the applications for Conditional
Use Permit DRC2011-00254 and Design Review DRC2011-00255 to a date non-specific for the
purpose of reviewing the materials proposed for fencing at the DRC and to discuss phasing options.
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: FLETCHER, MUNOZ, OAXACA
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: HOWDYSHELL, WIMBERLY - carried
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None
• COMMISSION BUSINESS AND COMMENTS
None
ADJOURNMENT
Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by Oaxaca, carried 3-0-2 (Howdyshell, Wimberly), to
adjourn. The Planning Commission adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
James R. Troyer, AICP
Secretary
Approved:
•
Planning Commission Minutes -7- February 8, 2011
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
• PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
February 22, 2012
Chairman Munoz called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning
Commission to order at 7:23 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chambers at Rancho
Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Richard Fletcher, Frances Howdyshell, Lou Munoz,
Ray Wimberly
ABSENT: Francisco Oaxaca
STAFF PRESENT: Steven Flower, Assistant City Attorney; Steve Fowler, Assistant Planner;
Larry Henderson, Principal Planner; Lois Schrader, Planning Commission
Secretary; James Troyer, Planning Director; Donald Granger, Senior
Planner; Candyce Burnett, Senior Planner; Mayuko Nakajima, Assistant
Planner; Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner
• ANNOUNCEMENTS
None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
No action was taken on the minutes of February 8, 2012.
NEW BUSINESS
A. REVIEW OF THE TRAILS PRIORITIES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012-2013
Larry Henderson, Principal Planner, presented the staff report. He said the Haven Avenue project
was moved to first priority and Archibald Avenue to second priority both for safety reasons. He said
DG trails have far less maintenance than landscaping and there is a great savings to the City when
landscaping can be removed for trails. He also noted that the recommendations are dependent
upon funding; no funds are allocated this year.
Commissioner Fletcher asked what the annual funding has been in prior years.
• Mr. Henderson said about$100,000.00. He said the loss of our Redevelopment Agency has had a
serious effect on our ability to work on the trails. He said recently we have had success and good
1
bids because the contractors want to keep working, so more got done than anticipated, so this is a •
good time to get work done. He said we completed almost everything on the prior list.
Commissioner Fletcher asked exactly where the Norbrook portion of the trail is.
Mr. Henderson said generally north of Hillside Road and 2 blocks south of Hidden Farm. He said no
cost estimates for these projects have been developed yet by Engineering Services.
Commissioner Fletcher said he should abstain from the vote since he lives on Hidden Farm Road.
Chairman Munoz said that with respect to trails, the last 10 years have been very successful. He
said we get a lot of input from bike riders and equestrian groups. He said Mr. Henderson has done
a great job. He said this will be a challenging year; it is problematic with no money. He said this is
the first time our City can do nothing towards finishing the trails.
Motion: Moved by Howdyshell, seconded by Wimberly, to adopt the recommendations of the
Trails Priorities for 2012-2013 as presented. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: HOWDYSHELL, MUNOZ, WIMBERLY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: OAXACA
ABSTAIN: FLETCHER - carried
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None •
COMMISSION BUSINESS AND COMMENTS
Commissioner Fletcher said the trails system in Rancho Cucamonga is a real gem. He said that if
we could get a little more money it would be money well spent; a worthwhile value.
James Troyer, Planning Director thanked Larry Henderson, Principal Planner for his outstanding
leadership in the development of the trails system.
Chairman Munoz noted that his father recently passed away. He said he was a great American and
he had a great sense of public service. He was thankful to have him and he said he would be
missed. He said, "Thanks Dad for everything."
ADJOURNMENT
Motion: Moved by Howdyshell, seconded by Wimberly, carried 4-0-1 (Oaxaca absent),to adjourn.
The Planning Commission adjourned at 7:35 p.m.to a workshop held in the Rains Room regarding
the review of environmental documents. The workshop adjourned at 9:30 p.m. and those minutes
appear separately.
•
Planning Commission Minutes -2- February 22, 2011
• Respectfully submitted,
James R. Troyer, AICP
Secretary
Approved:
•
•
Planning Commission Minutes -3- February 22, 2011
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• Adjourned Meeting
February 22, 2011
Chairman Munoz called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission
to order at 7:45 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: Richard Fletcher, Frances Howdyshell, Lou Munoz, Ray Wimberly
ABSENT: Francisco Oaxaca
STAFF PRESENT: Candyce Burnett, Senior Planner; Steven Flower, Assistant City Attorney; Steve
Fowler, Assistant Planner; Donald Granger, Senior Planner; Lois Schrader,
Planning Commission Secretary; Dominic Perez, Contract Planner; Tabe van der
Zwaag, Associate Planner
NEW BUSINESS
A. WORKSHOP ON THE REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS
• Steven Flower, Assistant City Attorney, led the workshop and gave a PowerPoint presentation entitled
"How to Read an EIR" (copy on file).
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None
COMMISSION BUSINESS AND COMMENTS
The Commissioners thanked Mr. Flower for a beneficial and informative workshop.
ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Commission adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
James R. Troyer, AICP
• Secretary
Approved:
T H E C I T Y O F
EMERAffliffiRl love
R A N C H O C U C A M O N C A
Staff Report
DATE: March 14, 2012
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer
BY: Betty Miller, Associate Engineer
SUBJECT: DISPOSITION OF CITY OWNED PROPERTY ON THE EAST SIDE OF
DOLCETTO PLACE, NORTH OF GARCIA DRIVE AND SOUTH OF VIA
VENETO DRIVE, ADJACENT TO TENTATIVE TRACT 18096 —A request to find
the quit claiming of Lots D and E of Tract 15711-1 in conformance with the
General Plan —APN: 1100-181-37 AND 1100-181-38.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS:
• On December 13, 2006, the Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract 18096, a
residential subdivision of 32 single-family lots, with a condition of approval requiring the
developer to process a quitclaim for Lots D and E of Tract Map 15711-1, which were dedicated
to the City of Rancho Cucamonga in fee for that purpose on said map. The developer is now
preparing to record the final map for Tract 18096 and will utilize Lots D and E as part of
Lots 15, 16 and 20, per the December 2006 approval. The proposed quitclaim is consistent with
the goals and objectives of the General Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Planning Commission make the finding, through minute action, that the
proposed quitclaim is in conformance with the General Plan. This finding will be forwarded to
the City Council for further processing and disposition of the excess property.
Respectfully Submitted,
Senior Civil Engineer
DFJ:BAM/rlf
Attachments: Exhibit A - Legal Description
• Exhibit B - Plat for Quitclaim Deed
Exhibit C - Vicinity Map
Exhibit D - Tentative Tract 18096
ITEM A
r
•
CORPORATION QUITCLAIM DEED
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Lot "D" of Tract 15711-1 (APN 1100-181-37) and Lot "E" of Tract 15711-1
(APN 1100-181-38) as recorded in Book 278 of Maps, Pages 96 through 103,
Records of the County of San Bernardino, State of California
xONW LAND
k AARON 9`
• ,/ O
THOMAS F<
a SKEERS y
1 $ No.5804
cr9 EW.12-31-l3 2e
Q
OF CA
Aaron T. Sk ers, P.L.S. Date
L.S. 8604 Expires 12/31/13
tr
• CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
EXHIBIT A
ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
A-2
VIA VENETO DRIVE
Ex.
QUITCLAIM DEED CIL__-------
• APN 1100-181-37 & 1100-181-38 L4 EX R/W
LOT "E" OF TRACT
MAP NO. 15711- 1
PER M.B. 2781101
� x 1
GRAPHIC SCALE I
0 25 50 30' `I
( IN r\I \
1 INCH = 50 FT. L11 OGr
a
w
of
° I
1
J
1
I
p� � I
* ExP: 12-31-13
�9 0 CALt ¢ � I LOT "D" OF TRACT
PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF: i MAP N0, 15711- 1
PER M.B. 2781101
I ENCOMPASS ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS
5699 COUSINS PLACE
AARON T. SK RS, P.L.S. DATE RANCHO`q 9 68 NGA, A 91137
LS 8604 EXP. 12/31./13 EXHIBIT B
A-3
LLI MILLER-AVE -"-
- -, F
it
ETr
A
'
GARC�IA;DR )
i
FOOTHILLBLVD_
F7�il i F I I�
VICINITY MAP
1"=500'
ENCOMPASS ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS
5699 COUSINS PLACE
• RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CA 91737
EXHIBIT C (909) 684-0093
J:\103-206\Grading\Tr18096 Rough Grading.dwg,10113120112:09:04 PM,1:1
A-4
• TRACT i i 15]11-1 _' M.B. 278196-103 O•�
nn VENM D {�
• N � fIi uY__ __� ___ _JO ___ - _�., �.
�I t tt
n mJ-u I 16. rr i 1 . :,9 1 t .,oz k .03 .n..i
9 W. 6 mb
—. .. X15 14 11 10� 9µ 8L:
SAN, GIOVFSE
nxlve
e §9
n m I, ,-34--yy .�"...� 26. ate: b
pi 20
Pry
• ! t I
o �
- °--- ------ ------------------" -I / �J
�^ r 00
O F /
m °
6 Z z
j• ..iiit is.i6iiia'tio ss�?��ii, °3 @�
im3°€ SATO TTIIi1OQ1
aelaice 6EicNilic iici61515i?!66665 6a 3�! P 8
U � 9C J8
_ 6�3 '� �•s i�2o ��a
�Ig�g$ ypilaa�e �tal � �' g 4
��ay9 ��3E SAa6 ��Rlg � t i
°' EXHIBIT D I�
F Z
A5
• STAFF REPORT
PUNNING DEPARTMENT
RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
DATE: March 14, 2012
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: James R. Troyer, AICP, Planning Director
BY: Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2011-00873 - AT&T MOBILITY - A request to modify
the existing wireless communication facility housed in a 57-foot, 6-inch high cross tower
(MDR 00-14) in order to replace the 3 existing antennas with 6 new antennas and related
equipment for a site on the north side of Highland Avenue and west of Cambridge Avenue
in the Low (L) Residential Development District, located at 9944 Highland Avenue -
APN: 0201-055-49. Staff has determined that this project is categorically exempt from the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1 Exemption - Existing Facilities).
BACKGROUND: The project was scheduled to be reviewed by the Planning Commission on
February 8, 2012, but no action was taken because of the lack of a quorum.
SITE DESCRIPTION:
• A. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
Site - Highland Avenue Community Church — Low (L) Residential District
North - Single-Family Residences — Low (L) Residential District
South - SR-210 Freeway
East - Single-Family Residences — Low (L) Residential District
West - Multi-Family Residences — Medium (M) Residential District
B. General Plan Designations:
Project Site— Low Residential
North - Low Residential
South - SR-210 Freeway
East - Low Residential
West - Medium Residential
C. Site Characteristics: The existing wireless facility is located adjacent to the Highland Avenue
right-of-way on the site of the 9.53-acre Highland Avenue Community Church located at
9944 Highland Avenue.
ANALYSIS:
Project Description: The applicant proposes replacing the 3 existing antennas with 6 new antennas in
order to upgrade the facility to the latest wireless transmission technology (4G —LTE). The existing
57-foot, 6-inch high wireless communication facility is in the form of a cross tower. The changes will
• also include adding 6 remote radio units (RRU), 12 tower mounted amplifiers (TMA), and a GPS
antenna. The related equipment will be housed inside the existing, fully enclosed equipment shelter,
except for a small GPS antenna that will be attached to the outside of the equipment shelter. There
ITEM B
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DRC2011-00873 —AT&T MOBILITY
March 14, 2012
Page 2
•
will be no visual changes to the facility as the new antennas will be mounted inside of the existing
cross tower.
A. Entitlement Requirement: Section 17.26.010 of the Development Code classifies all wireless
communication facilities that are over the height limit of the district in which they are located as
Major Wireless Communication Facilities. Development Code Section 17.26.070 states that
Major Wireless facilities shall be approved by a Conditional Use Permit. The existing facility was
.approved by a Minor Development Review on November 11, 2002, (MDR 00-14) and is
non-conforming under current regulations. The approval of this Conditional Use Permit will bring
the site into conformance with the current regulations.
B. Environmental Assessment: The Planning Department staff has determined that the project is
categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
and the City's CEQA Guidelines. The project qualifies as a Class 1 exemption under State
CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, which covers the repair, maintenance, permitting and minor
alterations of existing facilities. Because the project only involves adding new antennas to an
existing wireless communications facility with no changes to the size or location of the existing
equipment enclosure, staff concludes that there is no substantial evidence that the project will
have a significant effect on the environment. The Planning Director has reviewed the Planning
Department's determination of exemption, and based on his own independent judgment,
concurs in the staff's determination of exemption. .
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
660-foot radius of the project site. Staff has not received any letters or phone calls expressing
concern over the Conditional Use Permit application.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit DRC2011-00873
through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with conditions.
Respectfully submi ed,
James R. Troyer, AICP
Planning Director
JRT:TV/ge
Attachments: Exhibit A - Complete Set of Development Plans
Exhibit B - Photo Simulations
Exhibit C - Propagation Maps
Draft Resolution of Approval for Conditional Use Permit DRC2011-00873
•
B-2
` ` \ \/ \ } � . . §
- � { 2ƒ ; _ . _ : s§§ ,
0
>»
0
0
Z
a -R
co
LO in
L)
L) Z / . .
Lu
aAV �H +1
od
tz
4-J
>
CL
3AV YSOM3H
25
UJ a
3Av is8nHIN13
z
W 0 » «018SNYO
Z
LLJ
z
ui
F-
0
z
..A.-
EXHIBIT A
anN AV 3'J(LkJlMO m oa 3
z ®W •
In ex�
I
I •
g8
ww
111111 III Illllllllllllllllhlellllllllllllllllllllllllllll T
o R asa .
v3xr awna(3) nm]wrana(31
cat
I I �I 11 IIIIIIII = Lllljs• _G =� 11_III__ �� 1 _�.I ,.: .
+n nur].3xtlre l31 I 6
� \ ( =I A
cm—
q L 11 4
Y � GGI A
_ I
n II 1
1
i pp
W 1 g$
i
I I a O a i l
o®
I 0 �
Di
® o
T-- 3g
zo ¢
z
I I
I
I I
4
� �
IL
3 •
W-
A A "ga
B31Y39 W u09NM1 lAly f0 x0155iNtl3a N3 Itl 3x1 xLW 3Jx3 ObOf W N 0350CM13_]MO tl3b 38 xm
I 1 ]
SIILL�Lne OX '4N90N IAIY XIW 1N31133tlT'1X tl30XN NpIYUWbOJ 13ll1]3B tl01 031n1ll SVM N]N!I.]N sl SiW
hf3nNS u3tnau3 Ill k "�,'
• k• c '�o� ® u -
v3� J'Z
r—
� I �
Jtltlkd
I I w 95Y �
I I g�k
o I I d e
Lill------
CL ---
Y
W
$`^ Agee
W i
�
° �
G
00
2N �5\DOS Q
�/ 0
0 'b�0 ee
~)< V
(J
"e. � ag ti - vgoig
c o �s
¢ ✓ _ w$ dgo�m a
IL
Qdd�fpo�e
Ob
�o e
-o eg a W', W•o g Vie@
B lCI]R tlG NIIiBOM1 143V]0 XM1ISSM1tlb N311WM 3N1 XllN 3J3]X3 M1bOf MV Ni 03S1I tl0 P1YCOtltl3C 39 lm 3X]IIRNM
—J 51X1 f0 3tlYe ON 'NM1BOM1 IRIY HWA LY]M1j3p]Y XV h30XM1 NWYCpYp]133X]]8 tl0]C33V3VJ SYM 3N3nf1]Ip SXI
ILI
W. a
y
Ua_I ._ ..
Y $
=o iffc
' Q Its
g Nil
RM
30
8 W s d
.j
W
t`
W
LU
J! j
�a
reap ':m
0
i a
N[:
� �mmo3
' SU ii
V O iu
Z
- W — _ W C 5 w-c-+
W = a 4s
imixn am.393r.(al.o-.rt = i mw3J ore a9lr.(al o-.rc ` _ u a_'Y
swmury(dl'oi a-5c j' 2 d
sxxwa lel'o-1.o-.tt Ell O
mu3o ora.lar.let.o-rr y uuxn on lur.lal.o-.rr Z — �_
sem3un Ial 0'3.o-» J.° srer3un(el 0'3.o-.ar
3�5 ' W i 9 g
CL(al n3.e-e. 0S cc
W� E
•
W'
non'al.errs e N�. C
B,&N u-oM1 39IV A xVSgntl W 6]x3 M1 0] M1 M 0 p P NW3tl 3a 3T N nxD
SW JO.'We p '.UI.BCn IAIV xI3V.3H3n3 M'M..Xp3vtl 1 VINJ?8 tlOJ GllVJ In SYM.3XM11%p 5'x:
c -= 'a °o' Aga a.ou°Di _ -
m N
ICJ ¢Ua m N N U 61
R
d
a
0 0 _y a -
• � M
• 4
r 1
=o r
a
H S _
_ , gym • � E .�; ' � _
EXHIBIT B
B 7
Q c c a = U •
m
D N m O
C6
�U
2t
c
m
a�
t
m
• a
c
0
E
m
U_
U
o
L
U
N
L
C
0
2
b
S�
a
s off •
E
EOp
\all U
a
y S
a
• 9
E
• 8
n
a
F
y
� U
i v
� 5
y ti0 )
B-8
c m U
c a N
- --Q o1Omcfi ncQ
0 0 H g a E
d anE v{5 m `
= g.
F- m � •t
a
w
W na -
n
8 a
Y
a < s
� o _
4 .
-V
�C V
V
1
3 c
= rom mU •
C6 o
y NN ` OIL QO
C Q 7 m j m
1 a nE axiu tV
U
j
p
o
t
c
¢¢a
° � 8y •
�a
ap ca
a
r
LL gg
b0
v
ai 01 c � �1i�� •
B-10
+j
rn
LU
IBM 12
J
1
•
•
N
7
C _
•
N
d rn
• N O
L C
LM
RF
o
Y-•
� Q
EXHIBIT C
B=}T -
H •
3 _ O. . U 41 L ++
N
o° a `° 3 v � °
O 3 of 4J C C > � W (O
u t O •—
M CA co
c w v C L ` M O U `� G t LO p O O W > +
+ o
Q
F- c c 3 a; a- p
� w
4J "O _ .� _ � ,
tw N >. H Q tw � . >, d0 L C Q
(U m
O O p oa0 C " � = m ` ` a a0+
LL
O p t O 0
++ G O W co p
O
a w `J vi �! O U O m
a! t�0 .0
O C L y
c W � c v
rL — • .
o o d 0 an C N a w O c c
O L W > L O L Y N q0 C +' b0 4J
W c C o +' O t W ro 3 p
4A o -0 a m 0 3 4 L A ar .°c
W vi C L c Q a, oD
•.rU-+ N `, D O BCD - L �'. . y W. to > Q M a
yi "� � pOp a J O H w O " y iri a
�_. •O Ll L. U LJ. :� .v Q OQ C C 4J 'O
tw E •_ f6 - M 4) y tko
O d m c H E 0 m +L+ I o j "O 7 y L WW
fA
tw 0 a)O O. m O w O ti C 0 a Ln � p U L y 4J
m aL+ O 7 GJ +' X O H O 0. 3 'i
Ln
�' O LU -C
M W) CL Ln CL 4J aj
OL O O >
H
a
B-12
s
N
d
® y C
NJ
N �
d m
y�D
O
m3
c o
— c
Q Y
O N
W F-
J Q
� O
N N
p�F
ma
� C D
Y v
H v
tj N
Q v
ro �
O
O N
� N F
O yS
H
. C
s
06
fz
tug
�,���,u '1 r � t4A It�fl• - 1�
i C MIII�Y
9
elj J
I
ff
Ica
�
61 AI ill
iWl
or
3 11
;RPEi'a kiGWI:FIC YLLC
00,NO
1i Loan,
MIAMI r
ca
•1�6 .
• ' +�rrc Mt _', 013
lIWPA• -
•4t
k �s
•� _ ��� `� a - T -o aEi
• .� • a Y `w
F
Yr
AI 1 ' f„ ;
ru
r
• • -.t �. 7 +put
• ?� ! ' . ! '
4w. Sol 1.
Y
Y
01 ! w y 10
bb
ca
OWN
JIM
C y
a y
v
i -
•'e I� �N�i�i67lif� r _
'� ¢ v
Mos
� • , N� - fez- � (T'
Y
ICS
Jbook
appWam
Ll
Umam
L'�.S:M Y
F-
ME
_ � n
r ■ � � '' i� * mi1�A�r,
FBI .
Y �
RESOLUTION NO. 12-10
• A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA,APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT DRC2011-00873 - A REQUEST TO MODIFY THE EXISTING
WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY HOUSED IN A 57-FOOT,6-INCH
HIGH CROSS TOWER (MDR 00-14) IN ORDER TO REPLACE THE
3EXISTING ANTENNAS WITH 6 NEW ANTENNAS AND RELATED
EQUIPMENT FOR A SITE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHLAND AVENUE
AND WEST OF CAMBRIDGE AVENUE IN THE LOW (L) RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, LOCATED AT 9944 HIGHLAND AVENUE;
AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -APN: 0201-055-49.
A. Recitals.
1. AT&T Mobility filed an application for Conditional Use Permit DRC2011-00873, 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 February 8, 2012, the item was brought to the Planning Commission of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga. However, because of a lack of quorum, no action was taken. The item was
readvertised for the following meeting on March 14, 2012.
3. On March 14, 2012, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date.
4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
• B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. The Planning 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 the Planning Commission during the
above-referenced public hearing on March 14,2012, including written and oral staff reports,together
with public testimony, the Planning Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to an existing wireless facility that is located adjacent to the
Highland Avenue right-of-way on the site of the 9.53-acre Highland Avenue Community Church
located at 9944 Highland Avenue; and
b. The subject property is within the Low (L) Residential Development District; and
C. The property to the north and east are within the Low(L)residential development
district and developed with single-family residences; the property to the west is within the Medium
(M)development district and developed with a multi-family development;and,the SR-210 Freeway
is to the south; and
d. The applicant proposes replacing the 3 existing antennas with 6 new antennas in
order to upgrade the facility to the latest wireless transmission technology(4G—LTE). The existing
• 57-foot, 6-inch high wireless communication facility is in the form of a cross tower. The changes will
also include adding 6 remote radio units (RRU), 12 tower mounted amplifiers (TMA) and a GPS
antenna. The related equipment will be housed inside the existing fully enclosed equipment shelter,
except for a small GPS antenna that will be attached to the outside of the equipment shelter. There
B-18
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 12-10
DRC2011-00873 —AT&T MOBILITY
March 14, 2012
Page 2
will be no visual changes to the facility as the new antennas will be mounted inside of the existing •
cross tower; and
e. Section 17.26.010 of the Development Code classifies all wireless communication
facilities that are over the height limit of the district in which they are located as Major Wireless
Communication Facilities. Development Code Section 17.26.070 states that Major Wireless
facilities shall be approved by a Conditional Use Permit. The existing facility was approved by a
Minor Development Review on November 11, 2002 (MDR 00-14) and is non-conforming under
current regulations. The approval of this Conditional Use Permit will bring the site into conformance
with the current regulations.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the
above-referenced public hearing, and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1
and 2 above, the Planning 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; and
b. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare, or materially injurious to the properties or the
improvements in the vicinity; and
C. The application, which contemplates operation of the proposed use, complies with
each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code.
4. The Planning Department staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt •
from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA
Guidelines. The project qualifies as a Class 1 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15301, which covers the repair, maintenance, permitting, and minor alterations of existing
facilities. Because the project only involves adding new antennas to an existing wireless
communications facility with no changes to the size or location of the existing equipment enclosure,
staff concludes that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on
the environment. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Planning Department's determination
of exemption, and based on his independent judgment, concurs in the staffs determination of
exemption.
5. Based upon the findings and the conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4
above, the Planning 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.
Planning Department:
1) Approval is granted to replace 3 antennas with 6 antennas along with
minor related equipment for an existing wireless communication facility
located at 9944 Highland Avenue -APN: 0201-055-49.
2) The equipment for the wireless communication facility shall be
completely housed inside the existing equipment enclosure, with the
exception of one GPS antenna mounted to the fascia of the building.
3) Paint the GPS antenna to match the fascia of the equipment shelter to •
which it is mounted.
B-19
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 12-10
DRC2011-00873—AT&T MOBILITY
March 14, 2012
Page 3
• 4) The RF transparent cladding shall match the color and texture of the
existing cross tower.
5) The cross tower and the equipment shelter shall be painted the same
color. Paint all equipment (including A/C units) and conduits mounted
to the exterior of the equipment shelter to match the equipment shelter.
6) Print a copy of this Resolution of Approval on the plans when they are
submitted for Plan Check.
7) The facility shall be maintained at all times, including making necessary
repairs as needed, and keeping the site free from trash and debris.
8) Graffiti and trash shall be removed within 72 hours following notification
to the property owner.
9) All appurtenant equipment shall be maintained in good condition at all
times.
10) No wireless telecommunications facility shall interfere with any public
safety radio communications system including, but not limited to, the
800 MHz trunking system. The applicant shall comply with all Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) rules and regulations regarding
• the avoidance, mitigation, and abatement of any such interference.
11) The applicant shall obtain all the necessary permits from the Building
and Safety Department.
12) Signs or advertising are not permitted on the wireless communication
facility, with exception of signage required by the FCC.
13) Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with any sections
of the Development Code, State Fire Marshal's regulations, Conditions,
Health Departments, Uniform Building Code, or any other City
Ordinances.
6. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2012.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Luis Munoz, Jr., Chairman
• ATTEST:
James R. Troyer, AICP, Secretary
B-20
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 12-10
DRC2011-00873 —AT&T MOBILITY
March 14, 2012
Page 4
•
I, James R.Troyer,AICP, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and
adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission held on the 14th day of March 2012, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
•
•
B-21
x" b COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
A DEPARTMENT
STANDARD CONDITIONS
PROJECT #: DRC2011-00873
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
APPLICANT: AT&T MOBILITY
LOCATION: 9944 HIGHLAND AVENUE - APN: 0201-055-49
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2750, FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
46 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. Copies of,the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval No. 12-10, Standard
Conditions, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The
sheet(s) are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and
are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect.
3. The applicant shall be required to pay any applicable Fish and Game fees as shown below. The
project planner will confirm which fees apply to this project. All checks are to be made payable to
the Clerk of the Board Supervisors and submitted to the Planning Commission Secretary prior to
the Planning Commission or Planning Director hearing:
a) Notice of Exemption - $50 X
B. Time Limits
1. Conditional Use Permit approval shall expire if building permits are not issued or approved use
has not commenced within 5 years from the date of approval. No extensions are allowed.
•
1
B-22
Project No. DRC2011-00873
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 Department, the conditions contained herein, and the
Development Code regulations.
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 Planning Director.
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
Department 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 Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits.
5. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for
consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment,
building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved
use has commenced, whichever comes first.
6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all
other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the
time of building permit issuance.
7. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be
located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete
or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. For •
single-family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT, (909)477-2710,
FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
NOTE: ANY REVISIONS MAY VOID THESE REQUIREMENTS AND NECESSITATE ADDITIONAL REVIEW(S)
D. General Requirements
1. Submit five complete sets of plans including the following:
a. Floor Plan;
b. Electrical Plans (2 sets, detached) including the size of the main switch, number and size
of service entrance conductors, panel schedules, and single line diagrams;
C. Planning Department Project Number (i.e., DRC2011-00873) clearly identified on the
outside of all plans.
2. Submit two sets of structural calculations, energy conservation calculations, and a soils report.
Architect's/Engineer's stamp and "wet" signature are required prior to plan check submittal.
3. Contractors must show proof of State and City licenses and Workers'Compensation coverage to
the City prior to permit issuance.
•
2
BQ3
Project No.DRC2011-00873
Completion Date
E. Existing Structures
• 1. Upon tenant improvement plan check submittal, additional requirements may be required. _/_/_
•
•
3
B-24
r
STAFF REPORT
• PL-1NNING DEPARTMENT
Jr
RANCHO
DATE: March 14, 2012 CUCAMONGA
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: James R. Troyer, AICP, Planning Director
BY: Larry J. Henderson, AICP, Principal Planner
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2010-00188 AND ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT
DRC2010-00189 - A request to initiate the review of a business known as Mc Alan's
Pub & Grill located at 6321 Haven Avenue - APN: 0201-272-06.
Background:
On February 10, 2012, staff received a memorandum from Mike Newcombe, Chief of Police,
requesting a re-evaluation of the Entertainment and Conditional Use Permit for McAlan's Pub & Grill
because of calls-for-service that indicate there are problems involving assaults, attempted assaults,
sexual assaults, and DUls. A copy of the Police Memorandum is attached for reference (Exhibit A).
McAlan's Pub and Grill has an extensive history of Planning Commission Applications.
Recommendation: By minute action, direct staff to set a public hearing for the review of the
Conditional Use Permit (DRC2010-00189) and Entertainment Permit (DRC2010-00189) for
• McAlan's Pub and Grill, which may result in the modification or revocation of said Permits.
Respectfully submitted,
Jam R. Troyer, AICP '
Pla ing Director
JRT:LH/ge
Attachment: Exhibit A - Memorandum from Mike Newcombe, Chief of Police
•
Item C
r
MEMORANDUM
RANCHO CUCA\TONGA POLICE DEPARTMENT
J
RkNCHO
Date: February 10, 2012 CUCAMONGA
To: James Troyer, Planning Director J.
From: Mike Newcombe, Chief of Police �� 1
By: Sam Lucia, Police Lieutenant
Subject: Public Nuisance — McAlan's Pub & Grill
The Rancho Cucamonga Police Department requests the Planning Department re-evaluate the
Conditional Use Permit and Entertainment Permit for the following local establishment:
McAlan's Pub&Grill
6321 Haven Avenue
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91737
Calls for service include multiple fights. DUI's, sexual assaults, assaults, and attempted
assaults. We believe they are in violation of their Conditional use Permit and Entertainment
Permit.
• As part of this request we ask that the Planning Department re-evaluate these permits and submit
this memo to the Planning Commission for further assessment.
•
EXHIBIT A C-2
SIGN-IN SHEET
��•�� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
RANCHO
CUCAMONGA March 14, 2012
NAME COMPANY ADDRESS/EMAIL '
Ed w ✓ k/In
Cef 7—