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