HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998/02/25 - Agenda Packet CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
-pLANNING COMMISSION ,
AGENDA
WEDNESDAY FEBRUARY 25, 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 m Vice Chairman McNiel m
Commissioner Bethel ~ Commissioner Macias __ Commissioner Tolstoy __ i
II. ANNOUNCEMENTS
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
February 11, 1998
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
The following Consent Calendar items am expected to be routine and non-
controversial They will be acted on by the Commission at one time without
discussion. If anyone has concern over any item, it should be removed for
discussion.
A. DISPOSITION OF A PORTION OF CITY OWNED PROPERTY
ADJACENT TO LOT 10 OF TRACT 13063 - JOHN JANSEN - A
request to find the quit claiming of a portion of City owned property in
conformance with the General Plan - APN: 227-071-28.
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 project. Please si~Tn in after
speaking.
B. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 98-01 - CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA - A request to modify the General Bikeways Plan
. (Figure 111-7B) to designate Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard as
Class III Bike Routes.
VI. NEW BUSINESS
C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
97-29 (MODIFICATION TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 91-08) - CAP
BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY - A request to construct
a 99,750 square foot industrial building on 6.8 acres of land in the
General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific
Plan, located at the southeast corner of Arrow Highway and White
Oak Avenue - APN: 209-461-01 and 06 through 09. (Continued from
February 11, 1998) (TO BE CONTINUED TO MARCH 11, 1998)
:- D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
97-33 - PANATI'ONI-PHELAN - A request to construct a 172,998
square foot industrial building on 7.97 acres of land in the General
Industrial District (Subarea 13) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan,
located at the southwest corner of Sixth Street and Rochester Avenue
- APN: 229-263-01, 02, 03, and 06. Staff has prepared a Negative
Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration.
VII. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS ·
E. APPEAL OF INCOMPLETENESS FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
98-01 - MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENTERPRISES - An appeal
of the City Planner determination of incompleteness for an application
to use a portion of 'Southern California Edison right-of-way for a
nursery on 3.8 acres of land within Subarea 8 (General Industrial) of
the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 12051 Arrow Highway -
APN: 229-121-97.
VIII. PUBLIC COMMENTS
This is the time and place forthe generalpublic to address the Commission. Items
to be discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda.
IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS
X. ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an
11:00 p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only
with the consent of the Commission.
Page 2
/, Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the
foregoing agenda was posted on February 19, 1998, at least 72 hours prior
to the meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center
Drive, Rancho Cucamonga.
/
Page 3
VICINITY MAP
CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: February 25, 1998
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer
BY: Willie Valbuena, Assistant Engineer
SUBJECT: DISPOSITION OF A PORTION OF CITY OWNED PROPERTY ADJACENT TO LOT
I0 OF TRACT 13063 - JOHN JANSEN - A request to find the quit claiming of a portion
of City owned property in conformance with the General Plan - APN: 227-071-28
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
On November 12, 1987, Assessor Parcel Number 227-071-28 was granted to the City through a
Corporation Grant Deed for constructing flood control facilities. A record of survey was also recorded.
John Jansen, property owner of Lot I0 of Tract 13063, is requesting that a portion of the City owned
propeD' be incorporated to his property and later process a lot line adjustment. Tract 13063 was recorded
on January 30, 1989.
Staff has reviewed said portion and found it to be acceptable for disposition. Quitclaiming of the property
is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Plan.
RECOMNIENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission make the finding through minute action that the subject
proposed quit claim of a portion of City owned properly by the City, is in conformance with the General
Plan. This finding will be forwarded to the City Council for further processing and disposition of excess
property.
Respectfully submitted,
an James /~
Senior Civil Engineer
DJ:\W:dlw
Attachments Exhibit "A" - Vicinity Map
Exhibit "B" - Quitclaim of a Portion of City Property
ITEM g
CITY OF
RANCHOCUCAMONGA Trr~.~.: VI ~//VI TY Iv/~-~
--'~:NG~;~.~.G D~'~n_~:ON ~rl~. ~,~ ~' _ ~
"' ORA/,'VA~,e' FAC/LXT[. '
~
39.4
.- t
'
N 89'53'40' W 4~1.1T N 89"53'.40" W~R)
GREENSTONE DRIVE
+ ,+
CITY OF ~/rcz~/v/'~E ~' ~' z
H0 CUCAMONGA Tm,~.--~P~n2'/o,,y o,= c/7,y PB ~ ~
~t Z~//
KNG~G D_rVISION ,~ ~
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: February 25, 1998
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Dan Coleman, Principal Planner
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 98-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A
request to modify the General Bikeways Ran (Figure IllqB) to designate Haven
Avenue and Foothill Boulevard as Class Ill Bike Routes.
BACKGROUND: This amendment is an administrative "clean-up" of the City's General Bikeways
Ran, which is necessary to apply for federal or State funding for bicycle trail improvement projects.
The General Bikeways Plan was adopted in 1991 in conjunction with the Trails implementation
Ran.
ANALYSIS:
A. Haven Avenue - A Class III Bike Route' was installed on Haven Avenue in 1995 in recognition
of use by bicycle commuters. The amendment is necessary to reflect existing conditions in
the field.
B. Foothill Boulevard - The San Bernardino Regional Bicycle Plan prepared by SANBAG
designates Foothill Boulevard as a major east-west bike route. This planned route follows
Highway 66 from the Los Angeles County line to downtown San Bernardino. The amendment
will bring the City's General Bikeways Plan into consistency with this adopted countywide
bicycle plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL: The proposed amendment is a minor alteration to the City's Genera[ Plan and
is categorically exempt per Section 15305, Class 5 Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations of the
California Environmental Quality Act.
CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised with a one-eighth page advertisement as a public
hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper.
~Route is identified by "Bike Route" guide signing or pavement markings. Bicycle traffic
shares the roadway with motor vehicles.
ITEM B
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
GPA 98-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
February 25, 1998
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the PlanFfing Commission adopt the attached
Resolution's recommending approval to the City Council.
Respectfully submitted,
Brad Buller
City Planner
BB:DC:mlg
:':' ~ Attachments: Planning Commission Resolution Recommending Approval
City Council Resolution of Approval
RESOLUTION NO,
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 98-01 AMENDING THE GENERAL
BIKEWAYS PLAN (FIGURE 111-7B), TO DESIGNATE HAVEN AVENUE AND
FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AS CLASS III BIKE ROUTES, AND MAKING
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF.
A. Recitals.
1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has filed an application for the amendment as described
in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafier in this Resolution, the subject General Plan Amendment
is referred to as "the application."
2. On the 25th day of February 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing and concluded said hearing on that date.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission
of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing on February 25, 1998, including wdtten and oral staff reports, together with
public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to two major aderial roadways, which extend from City limit
to City limit.
b. The bike route along Foothill Boulevard conforms with the adopted San Bernardino
Regional Bicycle Plan.
c. The bike route along Haven Avenue is existing.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2
above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. The proposed modification is a minor alteration to the planned bicycle trail system.
b. The proposed modification conforms to the policies and guidelines of the City's trail
system.
4. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been prepared and reviewed in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended and the Guidelines
promulgated thereunder, and further specifically finds that based upon substantial evidence, it can
be seen with certainty there is no possibility the proposed amendment will have an effect on the
environment and therefore, the proposed amendment is categorically exempt pursuant to State
CEQA Guidelines, Section 15305, Class 5, Minor Alteration in Land Use Limitations.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
GPA 98-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
February 25, 1998
Page 2
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above,
this Commission hereby recommends approval of General Plan Amendment No. 98-01 to amend
the General Bikeways Plan, Figure 111-7B, as shown in the attached City Council Resolution.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall cedify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 1998.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
E. David Barker, Chairman
A~'FEST:
Brad Bullet, Secretary
I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby
certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly ihtroduced, passed, and adopted by the
Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of lhe Planning
Commission held on the 25th day of February 1998, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
RESOLUTION NO.
· -' A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA. APPROVING GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT NO. 98-01, TO MODIFY THE GENERAL BIKEWAYS PLAN.
BY DESIGNATING HAVEN AVENUE AND FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AS
CLASS III BIKE ROUTES, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF.
A. Recitals.
1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has filed an application for the amendment as
described in the title of this Resolution. Hereina~er in this Resolution, the subject General Plan
Amendment is referred to as "the application."
2. On the 25th day of February 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and recommended to the
City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 98-01.
3. On , the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly
noticed public hearing on the application.
4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Council 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 the Planning Commission during the
above-referenced public hearing on February 25, 1998, and to this Council during the above-
referenced public hearing on , including written and oral staff reports, together with public
testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The proposed modification is a minor alteration to a planned bike trail system and
is categorically exempt per Section 15305, Class 5, Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations of
the California Environmental Quality Act.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-
referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2
above, this Council hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. The proposed modification is a minor alteration to a planned bike trail system. and
is categorically exempt per Section 15305, Class 5. Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations of
the California Environmental Quality Act.
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.
GPA 98-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Page 2
4. This Council hereby finds that the project has been prepared and reviewed in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended and the Guidelines
promulgated thereunder, and further specifically finds that based upon substantial evidence, it can
be seen with certainty there is no possibility the proposed amendment will have an effect on the
environment and therefore, the proposed amendment is categorically exempt pursuant to State
CEQA Guidelines, Section 15305.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1,2, 3, and 4 above,
this Council approves General Plan Amendment No. 98-01, modifying General Bikeways Plan,
Figure 111-7B, as shown on Exhibit "1" attached hereto.
6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ' ~
STAFF REPORT
DATE: February 25, 1998
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Cecilia Gallardo, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-29
{MODIFICATION TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 91-08} - CAP BROTHERS
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY - A request to construct a 99,750 square foot
industrial building on 6.8 acres of land in the General Industrial ~D~trict (Subarea 8)
of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southeast corner of Arrow
Highway and White Oak Avenue - APN: 209-461-01 and 06 through 09.
ABSTRACT: This item was continued from the Planning Commission meeting of February 11,
1998. The proposed project was pre-scheduled for this meeting under the assumption that all
necessary information would be available to the City to support all the necessary findings for a staff
recommendation of approval. However, at the time of the writing of this report, the required Habitat
Assessment Survey that would determine if the property is viable habitat for the Delhi Sands
Flower-Loving Fly (DSF) has not been received by staff. Because of the unavailabi[ity of
environmental information relating to a Habitat Assessment Survey, staff recommends that this
item be continued. Staff anticipates that the required repbrt will be received in sufficient time to
allow this item to be heard at the next Planning Commission meeting.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue this item to the
March 11, 1998 agenda.
Respectfully submitted,
Brad BuHer
City Planner
BB:CG:gs
,/
ITEM C
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: February 25, 1998
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Bu[ler, City Planner
BY: Rebecca Van Buren, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-33
PANATI'ONI-PHELAN ~ A request to construct a 172,998 square foot industrial
building on 7.97 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 13) of the
Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Sixth Street and
Rochester Avenue - APN: 229-263-01, 02, 03, and 06.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A Surroundinq Land Use and Zoninq:
North - Vacant; General Industrial (Subarea 13)
South - Vacant, existing industrial building; General Industrial (Subarea 13)
East - Vacant, existing industrial building; General Industrial (Subarea 13)
West Existing industrial buildings (Subarea 11 )
B. General Plan Desiqnations:
Project Site - General Industrial
North General Industrial
South - General Industrial
East General Industrial
West General Industrial
C. Site Characteristics: The site is a cultivated grape vineyard with no structures or other
significant vegetation on the property. Sixth Street forms the north and west boundaries of
the site and Rochester Avenue forms the eastern boundary. To the south, the site abuts two
parcels, one has an existing industrial building and the other is vacant. Sixth Street narrows
at the site and has temporary curb and gutter. Full frontage improvements along Sixth Street
and Rochester Avenue are needed, including pavement, relocated curb and gutter, parkway,
meandering sidewalk, and street trees. The site slopes minimally from north to south.
ITEM D
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DR 97-33 - PANATTONI-PHELAN
February 25, 1998
Page 2
D. Parking Calculations:
Number of Number of
Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces
of Use Footac~e Ratio Required Provided
Office 8,589: 1 ~250 34
Warehouse 164,409 1/1000 (1st 20,000) 20
1/2000 (2nd 20,000) 10
1/4000 (40,000 plus) 31
TOTAL 172,998 95 103
ANALYSIS:
A. General: The applicant is propos!ng to develop a 172,998 square foot warehouse and
distribution facility on a spec basis. The building would accommodate either a single user or
two tenants. The building is constructed of off-white tilt-up concrete panels with reveal lines
banding the upper portions of the structure. The tilt-up panels have intermittent exposed
aggregate columns with teal-colored tile accent squares and decorative reveal lines. There
are two office areas, one at the northeast and the,' other at the southwest corner of the
building. The office areas have exposed aggregate columns, reflective blue-green glazing,
and freestanding panels to provide an entry statement. In the rear, there are 23 dock high
doors, 2 ground level truck ramps, 25 trailer parking spaces, 2 trash enclosures, and a small
(400 square foot) detached pumphouse. The rear truck loading area will be screened by a
6-foot high tilt-up concrete panel wall with sliding gates for truck access. The southern
property line is proposed to have a wrought iron fence with landscaping to obscure views of
the loading area.
B. Desiqn Review Committee: The DeSign Review Committee (Bethel, Macias, Fong) reviewed
the project on January 20, and February 3, 1998. The Committee recommended approval
of the project subject to conditions in the attached Design Review Committee Action
Comments from the meetings (Exhibit "C"). The recommended conditions include a dense
landscape palette in conjunction with the wrought iron fence along the south property line to
screen the truck loading area, and City Planner re~ziew and approval of the location and
amenities of the outdoor employee plaza areas. To enhance the outdoor plaza areas, the
City Planer may request the applicant shift or reduce surplus parking spaces and reorient
bicycle lockers to provide a more open, defensible, and welcoming plaza area. An overhead
trellis or specimen trees should be used to provide shade and an attractive ambiance.
C. Technical Review/Gradinq Committee: The Technical Review Committee reviewed the
project on January 21, 1998, and determined that, with the recommended conditions, the
project is consistent with all applicable standards and ordinances. The recommended
conditions include provisions for median island landscaping, combining the four separate
parcels into one parcel prior to building permits, and street improvements on Sixth Street and
Rochester Avenue.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DR 97-33 - PANATTONI-PHELAN
February 25, 1998
Page 3
D. Environmental Assessment: The site is identified on maps prepared by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service as potentially having the appropriate Tujunga-Delhi soil classification to
support the Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly (DSF). The applicant conducted a Habitat
Assessment Survey of the soils, vegetation, and species composition on the site. The study
noted that the site is a cultivated vineyard, with nonnative, invasive plant species interspersed
between the vine rows and around the periphery of the site. The site is in an industrial area
almost entirely encompassed by urbanization. The site does not appear to occupy a strategic
location with respect to it's potential incorporation into a regional wildlife reserve or corridor
system. The study concluded the site would not be acceptable DSF habitat or reserve area.
No other potentially significant environmental impacts are identified in the Initial Study.
Therefore, 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 the Planning Commission approve Development Review
97-33 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with conditions and issuance of a
Negative Declaration.
Respectfully submitted,
Brad Buller
City Planner
BB:RVB:mlg
Attachments: Exhibit "A" Site Plan
Exhibit "B" Building Elevations
Exhibit "C" Design Review Committee Action Comments dated January 20 and
February 3, 1998
Exhibit "D" Initial Study, Part II
Exhibit "E" Habitat Assessment Survey
Resolution of Approval with Conditions
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:40 p.m. Steve Hayes January 20, 1998
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-33 - PANA'FI'ONI-PHELAN -
A request to construct a 172,998 square foot industrial building on 7.97 acres of land in the General
Industrial District (Subarea 13) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of
Sixth Street and Rochester Avenue - APN: 229-263-01, 02, 03 and 06.
Desian Parameters:
The site has frontage on Sixth Street which is designated by the General Plan as a Special Boulevard
for special landscape treatment. The project site is currently vacant and includes remnants of a grape
vineyard. Buildings exist in close proximity in all directions around the site, but only to the south is a
building developed on a contiguous parcel. Curb and gutter exist along the property frontages. The
site slopes from north to south at approximately 2 percent.
.... ::Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Commi~ee
discussion.
Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding
this project:
1. A more dramatic architectural statement should be provided at the northeast corner of the
building. Suggested items include stepping the building back from the street and introducing a
more significant focal point, both architectural and pedestrian oriented, such as a water feature,
artwork, etc., near the orifice entrance.
2 Additional architectural embellishment and variations in the building planes should be provided,
especially for the long stretches exposed to public view along Six~h Street and Rochester
Avenue.
3, Additional architectural treatment should be provided at the southeast corner of the building.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
1. A more significant parapet wall should be designed for the building now to screen all anticipated
roof-mounted mechanical equipment from public view and to avoid a "tacked-on" screen having
to be added in the future.
A second outdoor eating/plaza area should be provided near the secondary office area entrance
because the building may be occupied by two tenants.
3. An architecturally integrated screen wall should be provided along the south property line, as
opposed to the wrought iron fence shown on the pIans. Also, the sliding gates at the entrance
to the truck loading/storage area should be of a solid. view obscuring material, painted to match
the screen walls and building,
4. Bicycle parking at the north end of the site should be located closer to the northeast office
entrance.
DRC COMMENTS
DR 97-33 - PANATTONI-PHELAN
Janua~ 20,1998
Page 2
Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion:
1. Additional herruing, low walls, shrub hedges, or any combination thereof should be provided to
screen all parking areas from public view.
2. The required screen walls, trash enclosures, and pump house enclosure should be architecturally
integrated with the buildings with a final finish such as painted tilt-up concrete or an exposed
aggregate finish.
3. An overhead shade structure, plaza furniture. and landscaping, including specimen size trees
around the plaza perimeter. should be provided in the outdoor eating/plaza areas.
" ::'Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee recommend approval of Ihe project subject to
the incorporation of the above items into th~ plans. to the satisfaction of staff.
Desiqn Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Bill Bethel, Rich Macins, Nancy Fong
Staff Planner: Steve Hayes
The Design Review Committee recommended that the project return as a Consent Calendar item at the
next available Design Review Committee meeting, addressing the following issues:
The accentuated exposed aggregate. column and panel treatment used on the o,~ce entrance
at the northeast corner of the building should wrap around the corner to the east elevation.
similar to the application of this treatment at the office area at the southwest corner of the
building;
2. Additional panels should receive the upgraded exposed aggregate and glass treatment, as
follows:
a. At the southeast corner of the building, the two southernmost panels on the east elevation
and the one easternmost panel on the south elevation; and
b. Verify that all panels adjacent to an angle in the building have this treatment. Of specific
concern were to two locations along the Sixth Street frontage where the building has two
45 degree angles.
3. A dense landscape palette, including evergreen trees and shrub hedges. should be used in
conjunction with the proposed wrought iron fence along the south property line to form an
effective screen in lieu of a solid screen wall;
4. The roof parapet should be raised to a greater extent to assure that all future roof equipment will
be screened from public view. The Committee recommended that a minimum parapet height of
4 feet be provided at the office areas and that the parapet be at least 18 inches higher than the
crown of the roof; and
DRC COMMENTS
DR 97-33 - PANA3'i'ONI-PHELAN
~January 20, 1998
Page ~..
5. The final location and amenities within the secondary office outdoor eating area, as well as the
amenities within the primary plaza area should be reviewed and approved by the City Planner.
6. All other unaddressed secondary and policy issues should be addressed to the satisfaction of
the City Planner.
CONSENT CALENDAR COMMENTS
7:40 p.m. Steve Hayes February 3.1998
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-33 - PANATTONI-PHELAN -
A request to construct a 172.998 square foot industrial building on 7.97 acres of land in the General
Industrial District (Subarea 13) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of
Sixth Street and Rochester Avenue - APN: 229-263-01, 02-, 03 and 06.
Desiqn Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Bill Bethel, Nancy Fong
Staff Planner: Steve Hayes
The Design Review Committee reviewed the revised building and Site Plan and recommended approval
of the project subject to the following conditions:
:;-
1. The final location of and the amenities within the outdoor plaza area for the north office area as
well as the amenities within the southerly plaza area should be reviewed and approved by the
City Planner, prior to the issuance of building permits.
2. A dense landscape palette, including evergreen shrubs and shrub hedges, should be used in
conjunction with the proposed wrought iron fence along the south properly line to form an
effective screen in lieu of a solid screen wall.
3. All previously mentioned design policy issues from the January 20, 1998 Design Review
Committee comments will be incorporated into the recommended Conditions of Approval for the
project.
. City of Rancho Cucamonga
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
INITIAL STUDY PART II
BACKGROUND
1. Project File: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-33
2. Related Files: PRELIMINARY REVIEW 97-11
3. Description of Project: A request to construct a 172,998 square foot industrial building
on 7.97 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 13) of the Industrial Area
Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Sixth Street and Rochester Avenue -
" :~' APN: 229-263-01, 02, 03 and 06.
4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Mr. Jeff Phelan
Panattoni-Phelan Development Company
19700 Fairchild Road, Suite 290
Irvine, CA 92612
5. General Plan Designation: General Industrial
6. Zoning: General Industrial (Subarea 13) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan
7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The site is consists of a cultivated grape vineyard
with no structures or other significant vegetation on the property. Sixth Street forms the
north and west boundaries of the site and Rochester Avenue is the eastern boundary of the
site. An existing industrial building exists along the western half of the southern boundary
while the eastern half of the southern boundary consists of vacant land.
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:
Rebecca Van Buren
(909) 477-2750
10. Other agencies whose approval is required:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
California Department of Fish and Game
Cucamonga County Water District
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 97-33 Page 2
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving
at least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless
Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impac, t" as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages.
( ) Land Use and Planning ( ) Transportation/Circulation (X) Public Services
( ) Population and Housing (X) Biological Resources ( ) Utilities and Service Systems
(X) Geological Problems ( ) Energy a,nd Mineral Resources (X) Aesthetics
( ) Water (X) Hazards ( ) Cultural Resources
( ) Air Quality ( ) Noise ( ) Recreation
( ) Mandatory Findings of SignifiCance
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
(X) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment.
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described
on an attached sheet have been:added to the project, or agreed to, by the applicant. A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based upon
the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant
Impact" or "Potentially SignifiCant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but must analyze only the effects that
remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects
1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Rebecca Van Buren
Associate Planner
January 22, 1998
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 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.
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 arran9ement of an
established community? ( ) ( ) (X)
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? ( ) ( ) (X)
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in
or expose people to potential impacts involving.'
a) Fault rupture? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 97-33 Page 4
b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) (X)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) (X)
d) Seiche hazards? ( ) (X)
e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) (X)
O 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:
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 permi~ed only after a site specific investigation
has been prepared that indicates that the soil can adequately suppo~ the weight of
the structure." A soils repo~ will be required by the Building and Safety Division
prior to the issuance of building permits. The impact is not considered significant.
4. WATER. W~II 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 prope~y 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)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 97-33 Page 5
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations, or through substantial loss of
groundwater recharge capability? ( ) ( ) (X)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) (X)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) (X)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for public water
supplies? ( ) (X)
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to
an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) ) (X)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) ) (X)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
cause any change in climate? ( ) ) (X)
d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ) (X)
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 97-33 Page 6
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyClists? (X)
0 Conflicts with adopted policies supposing
alternative trans ~o~ation (e.g.. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? (X)
g) Rail or air tra~c ~mpacts? (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 t~'ees,
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) Wfidlife dispersal or migra!ion corridors? ( ) ( ) (X)
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 (DSF). A habitat assessment was prepared (Impact
Sciences. January 8, 1998) by a biologist permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service to conduct surveys for DSF. In summary, results of the habitat-based
survey indicate that the site does not currently support high quality potential DSF
habitat, and the site is not located directly adjacent to other areas of high quality
potential or known occupied DSF habitat. Based on the reconnaissance-level
habitat evaluation of the Site's existing environmental conditions, the project site
does not provide high quality habitat for DSF due to: 1) the lack of native vegetation
communities and open sandy areas, 2) relatively dense coverage of invasive, non-
native vegetation, and 3) repetitive exposure to human-related disturbances. Based
on these assumptions, the proposed development of the 7.97 acre site will not likely
result in adverse effects to DSF.
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 97-33 Page 7
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conseNation
plans? ( ) (X)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
ine~cient manner? ( ) (X)
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that wouid 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 fiammable
brush, grass, or trees? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Comments:
a) In conjunction with the manufacturing activities within the building, materials such
as oil and other chemicals may potentially be used. Use of any such hazardous
substances will require special permits to ensure safe handling, storage, and
operation. The impact is not considered significant.
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 97-33 Page 8
10. NOISE. Will the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an
effect upon or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? ( ) ( ) (X) ( )
b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Schools? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
e) Other governmental services? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Comments:
a) Manufacturing activities may include use Of hazardous chemicals which would
require special permits forthe Fire Prevention District. The impact is not considered
significant.
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would thee
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or
substantial alterations to the fo~owing utilities:
a) Power and natural gas? ( ) (X)
b) Communication systems? ( ) (X)
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? ( ) (X)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) (X)
L
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 97-33 Page 9
Signscant
e) Storm water drainage? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
0 Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) ( ( ) (X)
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic
effect? ( ) ( ( ) (X)
c) Create light or glare? ( ) ( (X) ( )
Comments:
c) New light and glare will be created on the prope~y with development of the vacant
site. A condition of approval requires an on-site lighting plan, including a
photometric diagram of the entire prope~y, be reviewed and approved by the
Planning Division and the Rancho Cucamonga Sheri~s Depadment prior to the
issuance of building permits. The plan will be checked to ensure that it meets City
policies relative to avoiding the casting of excess light and glare onto adjacent
prope~ies.
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural
values? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within
the potential impact area? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 97-33 Page 10
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)
..... 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 history or prehistory? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Short term: Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of
long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term
impact on the environment is one which occurs
in a relatively brief, definitive period of time!
Long-term impacts will endure well into the
future.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts
that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? CCumulatively considerabler'
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects.) ) ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have
environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly? ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 97-33 Page 11
EARLIER ANALYSES
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process,
one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per
Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards,
and such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The
following earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review
in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check aft
that apply):
(X) General Plan EIR
(Certified April 6, 1981)
(X)Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update
(SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989)
(X) Industrial Area Specific Plan EIR
(Certified September 19, 1981)
APPLICANT CERTIFICATION
I certify that I am the applicant for the project described in this Initial Study. I acknowledge that I
have read this Initial Study and the proposed mitigation measures. Further, I have revised the
project plans or proposals and/or hereby agree to the proposed mitigation measures to avoid the
effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant environmental effects would
OCCUr+
Signature: Date:
Print Name and Title:
City of Rancho Cucamonga
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The following Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act Section 21091 and 21092 of the Public Resources Code.
Project File No.: Development Review 97-33 Public Review Period Closes: February 25, 1998
Project Name: Project Applicant: Panattoni-PhelarOevelopmentCompany
Project Location (also see attached map): Located at the southwest corner of Sixth Street and Rochester
Avenue -APN: 229-263-01, 02, 03, and 06.
Project Description: A request to construct a 172,998 square foot industrial building on 7.97 acres of land
in the General Industrial District (Subarea 13) 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 i~ 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 Repofl will not be required.
Reasons to support this finding are included in the atlached 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.
February 25, 1998
Date of Determination Adopted By
17:10 S188781448 ZMPACT SCIENCES PAGE
IMPACT SCIENCES ,~G~,~--~Hith
30343 Canwc~H Street, Suite ZlO iv. F'nmcLsco
][~nunry 29, 19~
Panattoni-Fhelan Development Company
19700 Fairchild Road, Suite 290
Irvine, CaLifornia 92612
Attention: ~'eff Phelan
SUBJECT: Results of DeLhi Sands Hower-Loving Fly Habitat-Based Evaluation on the
Panattoni-Fhelan 8-Acre Project Site, City of Rancho Cucomonga, San Bernazciino
" ::' CounW, California
Dear Ivlr. Phelaru
This le~er report details findings of a reconnaissance-level survey to evaluate existing
habitats potentially suitable to support the Delhi Sands flower-loving fly (Rhaphiomidas
ferminaiads abdominalis) completed for an approximately 8-acre project site located in the City
of R~ncho Cucarncrng~, San Berna.rdino County, California. A general evaluation for the
potential occurrence ~f several additional sex~sltlve wi]dUfe species was also conducted during
the one-day field survey.
Introduction
Impact .Sciences, Inc. (Impact ,Sciences) understands that a development plan is being prepared
c.a an approximStety 8-acre project site located in the City of Rartcho Cucamonga (Figure 1).
The project site is generally bordered by 6th Stzeet to the north and west, Rochester Coua to
the east, and an undeveloped lot to the south (Figure 2).
Th~ report is intended to provide the applicant general biological in{ormation regarding
potentially Suitable hnbitat to support sensitive species for use in evaluating potential
consequences of endangered sp~zies act compliance and permitting. Additionally, results of this
study are intended to Frrbvidi~ early input into the planning process so that sensitive biological
resources potential/y oc~azrLng on fine site are identified.
Regional Location
~2/i7/1998 18:81 8188791448 ZMPACT SCI{NCES PAGE 83
ROUTE ' A;~O~
oject ~
f
ST 4TH ~ ST
Project Vici nity I
82/17/1998 17:18 8!887B1448 iNPACT SCIENCES PAGE
panattoni-Fhelan Develcrpment
. . January 29, 1998
Page 4
General Delhi San& Bower-loving Fly Background
The Delhi sartds flowez-lovLng fly (DSF) was listed as an endangered spades by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (S~rvice) on ~c~pte.mber 23, 1993. Tt~is sped¢'s is only known to cxrur in
association with Delhi sand deposits crt at lust ten dis'in. net sites (USFWS 1996), chiefly
wTtth,Ln a radj. us o.~ about eight miles in the dries of Colton, Rialto, and Fcn~tana located in
southwestern San Bema.rdino and norbhwestem Riverside counties, However, recent survey
data (199~ indicates that DSF occur in low ntm~bers i~ the Ontario area. The DSF/.s restricted
to the Colton Dunes whid't covers approximately 40 s~uare miles. More th~.rt 95 percent of the
_,. :':- formerly icrtown habitat has been converted to human u.,~s or severely adfe~ed by human
activities, rendet-ktg it apparently unsuitable for occupation by the speci~ (Smith 1993,
USBq5 1996 Ln KLngsley 1996). 'An estLtnate of only 155 acres o~ habitat is documented to
co~xtain populations of DSF.
Potential habitat for ~he DSF is t.YpicaLiy de~ined as areas comprised of 'sandy soil (Delhi
serieS) in crp~, areas domi.nated by CaLLfomia buckwheat (Eriogonum fascicuIatum), CaLifornia
c~c~ort (Croton cali/ornica), and teleg-i'aph weed (Heterotheca grandifiora). Annual bur-sage
(Ambro.~a acanthicarpa), fiddleneck (Amsinkia intermedia), vinegar weed (Lessingia
glandullfera), sapphLre eriastnazn (Erias~rum sapphirinum), and Tcturbe. r's e_riogoram~
(Eriogonum thurberi) are also commonly pre~nt at occupied DSF sites.
On D~,.aw/ver ~30, 1996 the Service prepared InterLm General Survey Guldelirtes for DSF. Ln ·
order to conduct afocused survey to determine the ]~resence or absence of this species such that
the result is acceptable to the Service, these gttldel~nes must be followed. The guide.Hues
req'u.tre that surveys be con4uct~:t in a}3. areas contalrting DeLhi sands t~'ice weekly (two days
pex week) during the period from August 1 to September 20, for a two year periocL FL/es of the
genus Rhaphiomidas prefer arid habitats and are typically large (up to 1.2ZS-~ches in body
length).
82/17/'1998 17:18 8188791448 !NPACT SCIENCES PAGE
Fana~ord-PhelanDevelopmen~
)anuary29,1998
· .. Page 5
Methods
Literahtre Search
Documentation pertinent to the biological resources in the vicinity of the site was reviewed and
analyzed. Irfformation reviewed included: (1) literature pertainLng to habitat requh~,ments of
sensitive spedes potent~,~lly occuxring on the preiect site; (2) the CalUornia Natural Diversity
Data Base (CNDDB 1997) information regarding sensitive species potentially occuning c~ the
project site in a computer report format for the Ontario, San Dimas, and Guasti USGS 7.5-
:~- , minute quadrangle maps, and (3) review of a~,ailable reporbs from this and other prc~eds
located in the general x4cinity of the project site.
Reconnaissance-level Field Suxvey
Scott Caanexon and David Crawford, Impact Sdences Senior and Staff Biologists respectively,
conduc'wxl a rec0nnajssance-level I'ield survey to evaluate potential habitat for the DSF on
December 9, 1997. Both Nff. Cameron and b, ir. Crawford have ob~rved DSF in the field, and
are landLiar with the biotic characteristics cff habitat occupied by DSF, as well as o~her
sensitive wildli/e species potentially occtu:ring in the area. x, Veather conditions during the
survey were cool, cleax, and windy (5-15 mph), with air temperatures of approximately 58
degrees Fahrenheit. The site was examined on foot by walking a series of transects across the
subiect property. The prknary objective of the or.e-day field visit was to evaluate the site's
pot~'~tial to support DSF, and generally ev~uate habitat suitability for other potentially
occurring sensitive wlld3iqe spedes based m e,'-,istmg site conditions. General plant and
wildlife species present at the site were identified to assess the overall habitat value.
Existing Conditions
The site is an actrely cultivated vineyard with an understory and periphery coml:rrsed of
derc-e non-native weeds and annual gr~sses. Indications of regular pruni~ disldng, and
weeding are evident across the site. As such, soils on the site have obviously been dLstuzbed in
association with the recuxring agrlculkLral activities. Only small patches of exposed soft are
evident on the pr~ect site due to the predominantly dense vegetative covez located between the
vine rows. Surface soils that Wer~ .exposed appeared to be characteristic of silty sands
intermixed with cobbles. Both com, paceecl a_n~ lo6~e soils axe present on the site.
~2/17/L998 17:le 8188791448 IMPAC SCIENCES PAGE 87
pmattord-Phelan Development
iimuafy 29, 1998
Page 6
No native plant species were de~ed dur~g ~e r~o~c~level ~dd ~'ey of ~e site.
~e site ~ ~m~ed by ~ ac~e v~ey~d. ~t~spe~sM ~ ~e ~e rows ~d
~e p~phe~ of ~e site are non-native, ~vas~ve pl~t spedes su~ ~ mder~ (weedy) he~s
~d gra~s ~& as m~t~d (Brassica or HirSch~Idia spp.), fip~t ~s (Brom~ diandrus),
B~uda ~ass (C~odon dactyl~L fo~a~ ~ess (Br~us madri~ensls s~. rubes), ~d filaree
(Er0dium ~cuta~um). C~ ~d pn~ exist ~g the nor~, e~t, ~d wes~ site ~d~.
Si~ photo~ap~ (Flare 3) ~te ~s~g condi~s of ~e s~j~t pro~'.
Wildlife
B~d sp~ obs~ed d~g ~e r~o~n~s~ce-level field s~ ~dude ~d yeHow-rumped
wa~l~ (Dendroi~ coronata), ~d western meadowl~k (StunMl~ neglecta). ~ sped~
~rectly obeyed, ~ of wM~ si~ was d~ected, ~dude Ca~fomia ~d sq~
(Sp~m~hilus be~heyi), desert c~tonta~ (Sylvila~s audubonii), ~d Botta's p~et gopher
(Thomomys bo~tae).
Surrounding Land Uses
The subject property/is located Ln a conu'nerciaJ area of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The
proper'cy is almost entirely encomp~s~l by existing commercial development. A small vacant
lot is loca~:d south of the site. However, an existing commercial business is located south of the
vacant lot.
Discussion
DSF prefer low growing perennial shrubs with frequent pa~ches of exposect sandy soil,
characteristics which are not present at the site. HOwever, resul~ of recent m.u'veys (1997) Ln
the Ontario area suggest that DSF may occuz in &teas that do not support perenn~ shrubs (e.g.,
buckwheat). Conversely, in a s~dy conduct~ in Colton, California by Kingsley (1996), DSF
selected only those habitats that contained Califorrda buckwheat and telegraph weed.
Observations of the 1996 Kingsley study suggest that both plant spedes nmy be necessary for
iong-ferm suzvival of DSI:, and Hat arrangement and density of c~,er is important. Kingsley
(1996) also suggests tha biologLsts would likely fin4 ~ites where bolt{ of these plant spades are
82/17/1999 17:18 8188791448 IMPACT SCIENCES PAGE
panat~cani-Phelan De~,'eloPm'ent
]a'tuafy 29, 1998
Page 8
present in patcity armngement~ more suitable to support DSF than sites without these plat
apedes c~ that suppor~ very dense vege+,ation. D~ have very narrow habitat requirements
that are dotemined by appropriate plant spede~ and olden sand as defining characteristics
(Kingsley 1996). Invasive non-native vegetation severely degrades or eliminates DSP habitat
CUSFWS 1996a). Non-native plants especially notorious in rids resFa<:t include many spedes of
in~oduced grasses (Bromu~ ap.). These exotic plants may also alter the soil moisture or make
· the subsirate physicall), tinamiable for the survival of the DSt: and othex native subterranean
invertebrates CUSiY~VS 1996a).
Conclusion
Results of the habitat-based sLtrvey indicate that tb.e site does not currently suppcrrt high
qualib/potential DSF habitat due to the presence of an actively o. iltivated vineyazd, dense
non-native grasses, and ruderal vegetation that comprise neasly 1CO p~cent of the site. Based
solely enexisting conditions present at the site, the site does ncr~ likely provide potentially
suitable DSF habitat becatL,-e the site does not contain characteristic vegetation cornmu. nities
and crpen soil; consistent wi~ habitats lqno~m to supFL"rt D'SF. The site dc~-~ nvt supp~r~ any
native vegetation commmmties due to ang~Ymg disb~bances related to agric,.dtural activLties.
No shrubs, dune areas, or extensive open areas hat suppor~ friable sandy soLIs are present cn
the project s~te. Optimal vegetative cover lot DSF is probably less than 50'percent, and may be
in the range of 10-20 percent (USFW5 1996a, 199~).
Moreover, ~e site does not conceptually appear to occupy a strategic location with ~,,espect to
it's potential incorporation/onto a prospective Tegicrnal wildlife reserve or corridor system.
Highly disturbed pacels that support non-native veg-aation encompassed by paved roadways
and commercial buildings may be less important to preserve for DS'F than those areas thai
cu~,tly support more suitable soLIs and plant communit/es.
Additionally, due to ongoing agricultural practices, potentially o¢,wang sensitive small
Ewa:mm2j. species ~uch as Los Angeles pocket mouse (Perognathz~s longimernbrls brevina~us), a
federal species of cc~,cem a~d a Cal~ornia species of spedal concern; and S,tn Bernardino
kangaroo rat (Dipvder~ys merriarni parvus), a feterally-Listed endangered species (omer~e'ncy
'ride effective Ianuary 27, 1998) and CalLfomia spedes o{ spedal concern, are not expected to
82/17/1998 17:10 8!887914~0 IMPACT SCIENCES PAGE
pm~attord-Fhblan Development
.. January 29, 1998
Page 9
oco.~ m site. No diagnostic sign (burrows, fecal pelletb, ~acks) of the aforementioBed small
mammals species were recorded cn site during ~e stt~vey. Likewise, the San Diego horned
lizazd (Ptzr!fllosmTul coronafizrn blainviIIii) is also not ,expired to cccur on site. The high level
of disturbance due to c~vk',g viEcultural activities, isolation from native plant communities,
and the site's p-roximity ~o commercial developmeg, t, limit the site's LiltTent arid futtl.l~
potential to mappor~ low vagility vertebrate wildlife ~pedes.
In summary, results of the. habitat-based survey indicate that the site does not currently
" L~- support kigh quality potential 'DSF habitat due'to the absence of nat:lye vegetation
communities and opm sandy a.reas, dertse cc, ve~age of invasive non*native vegetation, and
repetitive expos'm-e to ongoing agricultural activities. Based on these assumptions, development
of the site wLlj ndt li~ely repult in adverse acts to DSE
Due to the limitations of unseasonal data, it is possibl~ that the Service may not accept any
efforts short of the intensive seasonal DSF surveys identified M ~eir abovemenHone4 interim
protoc91 because fie habitat-based evaluation was conduc't~ during December, a period
fie IDSF's tmdePo'rotmd life cycle. Moreover, ~e Service has roueinel)' cortsidered actively
cultivated ~4neyards.potential]y suitable DSF habitat. As such, the proposed project may be
more dosely scrutinized by the Service during the environmental review process. Nonetheless,
the highly disturbed condition and poor quality DSF habitat present m the subject parcel
ILkely precludes current DSF occupat:icm.
It has been a pleasure conducting th/s habitat-based evaluation for the Delhi Sands flower-
loving fly at the '8-acre pr~jec~ Site located in Rancho Cucamcmga, San Bernardtrio Ccnm,ty,
California, If you have any questiotas regardin8 the results presented in this report, please
do'n't hesitate to call.
Very, truly yours,
David G. Crawford
Senior Biologist Staff Biologist
e'2/17/1938 17:18 9188791448 iNPACT SCIENCES PAGE
REFERENCES
. · Caiifomia Natural Diversity Data Base (C2qDDB). 1997. Compt~te~ Reports for the 0nta~do,
San DLraas, and Guasti USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle maps.
Kingsley, Karmeth J, 1996. Behavior of the DeLhi Sands FLoevet-Loving Ply CDiptexa:
Mydidae), a Little Known Extdangexed Species. Ann. EntomoL Soc Am. 89(6): 883-891.
U.S. Fish and WildlL{e S~xvice. 1996. Lnte~im General Survey Guidelines ~o~ the Delhi Sands
Flower-loving B1y, December 30.
U.S. l~ish 'and WLtdli/e Senice. 1996a. Technical/Agency Dr~t Recovery Plan for the Delhi
sands Plow6r-loving Fly (RhaphioTnidas (errninabas abdominalis) U.S. Fish and
,Service, portlind, OR. 44+
U.S. Fish and WildMe Service. 1997. Delhi sands Hower-lo~dng Ply (Rhaphiomidas
terminatss abdomi~alis) Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and WildLife Service, portland, OR. 51
pp-
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW NO. 97-33, A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A 172,998 SQUARE
FOOT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING ON 7.97 ACRES OF LAND IN THE
GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (SUBAREA 13) OF THE INDUSTRIAL
AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
SIXTH STREET AND ROCHESTER AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN
SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 229-263-01, 02, 03, AND 06
A. Recitals.
1. Panattoni-Phelan Development Company has filed an application for the approval of
Development Review 97-33, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this
Resolution, the subject Development Review request is referred to as "the application."
2. On the 25th day of February 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,
Par[ A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced meeting on February 25, 1998, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission
hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to property located at the southwest corner of Sixth Street
and Rochester Avenue with a Sixth Street frontage of approximately 1,000+ feet and lot depth of
approximately 580 feet with partial street improvements.
b. The property to the north of the subject site is vacant land, the property to the south
is developed with an industrial building and has vacant land, the property to the east is developed
with industrial buildings and has vacant land, and the property to the west is developed with
industrial buildings;
c. The application contemplates the construction of a 172,998 square foot industrial
building on a 7.97 acre site.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced meeting and upon the specific findings and facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above,
this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. The proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and
b. The proposed use is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and
the purpose of the district in which the site is located; and,
DR 97-33- PANATTONI-PHELAN DEV. CO.
February 25,1998
Page 2
c. The proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the
Development Code and the Industrial Area Specific Plan:; and,
d. The proposed use, together with the co'nditions applicable thereto, will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or ma!erially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
4. Based upon the facts and information contair~ed in the proposed Negative Declaration,
together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the
application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will
have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration based upon the
findings as follows:
a. The Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated
· :=- , thereunder; that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the
independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and
considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the application.
b. Based upon the changes and alteratior~ which have been incorporated into the
proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur.
c. A Habitat Assessment Survey by a federally cedified biologist was conducted to
assess the soils, vegetation, and species composition on'the site. The study noted that the site is
a cultivated vineyard, with nonnative, invasive plant species such as m. ustard, ripgut grass, Bermuda
grass, foxtail chess, and filaree interspersed between the vine rows and around the periphery of the
site. The site is in an industrial area almost entirely encompassed by urbanization. The site does
not appear to occupy a strategic location with respect to it's potential incorporation into a regional
wildlife reserve or corridor system. The study concluded the site would not be acceptable habitat
or reserve area for Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly (DSF),
d. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of
Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: 10 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 containing 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 fodh in
Section 753.5(c-l-d).of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set fodh in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above,
this Commission hereby approves the application subject to bach and every condition set forth below
and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference:
Planninq Division
1 ) The final location of and the amenities within the outdoor plaza area for
the north office area, as well as the amenities within the southerly plaza
area, shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner, prior to the
issuance of building permits. Amenities in the outdoor plaza areas shall
include secured and durable seating, such as picnic benches and
tables, trash receptacles, and shade elements, such as an overhead
trellis structure or specimen size trees.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR 97~33 - PANATTONI-PHELAN DEV. CO.
February 25, 1998
Page 3
2) A dense landscape palette, including evergreen shrubs and shrub
hedges, shall be used in conjunction with the proposed wrought iron
fence along the south properly line to form an effective screen in lieu
of a solid screen wall. Dense landscaping shall include trees planted
at a ratio of at least 1 tree per 30 lineal feet.
3) Berming, low walls, shrub hedges, or combinations thereof shall be
provided to screen parking areas from public view and to provide visual
interest along the Sixth Street and Rochester Avenue frontages.
4) The required screen walls, trash enclosures, and pump house
enclosure shall be architecturally integrated with the buildings with a
final finish such as painted tilt-up concrete or exposed aggregate finish.
5) The sliding vehicle access gates shall be decorative and view
:~. obscuring so the truck loading and storage area will not be seen from
the public right-of-way.
6) The final Landscape Plan shall be designed in conformance with the
City's Xeriscape Ordinance.
Enqineerinq Division
1) The developer may be entitled to be reimbursed for the cost of the
median island landscaping improvements in excess of the cost for one-
half the median between Buffalo Avenue and Rochester Avenue
(Drawing No. 1269). Reimbursement monies will be from previously
collected landscape fees and/or future developments adjacent to or on
the opposite side of the street from the project.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 25TH DAY OF February 1998.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
E. David Barker, Chairman
ATTEST:
Brad Buffer, Secretary
I, Brad Buffer, 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 25th day of February 1998 by the following vote-to-wit:
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR 97-33 - PANATTONI-PHELAN DEV. CO.
February 25, 1998
Page 4
A:~'ES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
STANDARD CONDITIONS
PROJECT#: Devebpment Review 97-33
SUBJECT: 172,998 sq. ft. warehouse building
APPLICANT: Panattoni-Phelan Development Company
LOCATION: Southwest corner Sixth Street and Rochester Avenue
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
t. 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 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 subidivision 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 ptans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and
grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, Development Code
regulations, and the Industrial Area Specific Plan.
2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions __/__
of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
3. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and __/__
State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be
submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Division
to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy.
Project No. Dr 97-33
Completion DatJ
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 improver~ent 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 ofa ~ustom lot subdivision, or approved
use has commenced, whichever comes first. L
6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all ~ections of the Development Code __ __/
all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Commudity 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 shaft 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 ut I ty 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 wails. berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. For single
family residential developments. transformers shall be place~ in underground vaults.
10,All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner.
including proper illumination.
11. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be perma:nently maintained by the property
owner, homeowners' association. or other'means acceptable io the City. Proof of this landscape
maintenance shall be submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and approved prior to
the issuance of building permits.
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 off the City Planner. Details shall be
included in building plans.
2. For commercial and industrial projects, paint roll-up doors and service doors to match main
building colors.
D. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans)
1. All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet and shall /
contain a 12-inch walk adjacent to the parking stall (including curb).
2. Textured pedestrian pathways and textured pavemenu across circulation aisles shall be provided __/__
throughout the development to connect dwellings/units/buildings with open
spaces/plazas/recreational uses.
J
Project No. OR 97-33
Completion Date
3. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances,
and exits shall be striped per City standards.
4. Plans for any security gates shall be submitted for the City Planner, City Engineer, and Rancho
Cucamonga Fire Protection District review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. For
residential development, private gated entrances shall provide adequate turn-areund space in
front of the gate and a separate visitor lane with call box to avoid cars stacking into public
right-of-way.
5. Handicap accessible stalls shall be provided for commercial and office facilities with 25 or more
parking stalls. Designate two percent or one stall, whichever is greater, of the total number of
stalls for use by the handicapped.
6. Motorcycle parking area shall be provided for commercial and office facilities with 25 or more
parking staJIs. Developments with over 100 parking stalls shall provide motorcycle parking at the
rate of one percent. The area for motorcycle parking shall be a minimum of 56 square feet.
- · :-.:- 7: Bicycle storage spaces shall be provided in all commercial, office, industrial, and multifamily
residential projects or more than 10 units. Minimum spaces equal to five percent of the required
automobile parking spaces or three bicycle storage spaces, whichever is greater. After the first
50 bicycle storage spaces are provided, additional storage spaces required are 25 percent of the
required automobile parking spaces. Warehouse distribution uses shall provide bicycle storage
spaces at a rate of 2.5 percent on the required automobile parking spaces with a minimum of a
3-bike rack. In no case shall the total number of bicycle parking spaces required exceed 100,
Where this results in a fraction of 0.5 or greater. the number shall be rounded off to the higher
whole number.
8. Carpool and vanpool designated off-street parking close to the building shall be provided for
commercial, office, and industrial facilities at the rate of 10 percent of the total parking area. If
covered, the vertical clearance shall be no less than 9 feet.
E. 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. Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent to and along structures at a rate of one
tree per 30 linear feet of building.
5. 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 shaft 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.
sc. ;,:,, 3 t2
Project NO. DR 97-33
il
Completion Dat_,~e
6. 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.
7. Special landscape features such as mounding, alluvial rock~,. specimen size trees, meandering /
sidewalks (with horizontal change), and .intensified landsca,p~ng, is required along Sixth Street.
8. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed ~within the public right-of-way on the /
perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer.
9. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the /
design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division.
10, Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of /__
Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cuca~onga Municipal Code.
F. ~igns
1. The signs indicated on the submitted plans are conceptual 0nly and not a part of this approval.
Any signs proposed for this development shall comply with the Sign Ordinance and shall require
separate application and approval by the Planning Division prior to installation of any signs.
G. 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 lightjng. The final location of th~ 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: ~
H. 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: Transportation Development Fee, Drainage Fee,
School Fees, Permit and Plan Checking Fees.
3. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation and
prior to issuance of building permits.
Project No. OR 97-33
Completion Date
Grading
1. "Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City
Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial
conformance with the approved grading plan.
2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to
perform such work.
3. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
J. Dedication and Vehicular Access
. :~. 1. Easements for public sidewalks and/or street trees placed outside the public right-of-way shall
be dedicated to the City.
K. 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 ligh[s, and street trees.
2. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to:
Curb & A.C. Side- Drive Street Street Comm Median Bike Other
Street Name Gutter Pvmt walk Appr. Lights Trees Trail Island Trail
Sixth Street X X C X X X A B
RochesterAve. X
Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement
reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan check. (c) If so marked, sidewalk shall
be curvilinear per STD. 114. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu of construction fee shall be provided for
this item.
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 performed in public right-of-way. fees shall be paid and a
construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any
other permits required.
Project No. DR 97-33
c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street nam~ 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 an~, new construction or reconstruction /
project abng major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals end
interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shaft be p~aced 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 shaft be installed on ali corners of intersections per City
Standards or as directed by the City Engineer.
f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at aEI times with
adequate detours during construction. Street or ~ane closure permits are required. A cash
deposit shai~ 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 bythe 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.
L. Public Maintenance Areas
1. A separate set of landscape and irrigation plans per Engineering Public Works Standards shall
be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to final map approval or issuance
of building permits, whichever occurs first. The following landscaped parkways, medians,
paseos, easements, trails or other areas shall be annexed into the Landscape Maintenance
District: Sixth Street median between Rochester and Buffalo Avenues.
2. 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.
3.All required public landscaping and irrigation systems shall be continuously maintained by the
developer until accepted by the City. ,
Project NO. DR 97-33
Completion Date
Drainage and Flood Control
1. "Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe measured
from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk.
N. Utilities
1. Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas,
electric power, telephone, and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility
Standards. Easements shall be provided as required.
2. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary.
3. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the
Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD). Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the
Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from
the CCWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first.
O. 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, prior to final map approval or prior to building
permit issuance if no map is involved.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730,
FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
P. General Fire Protection Conditions
1. Mello Roos Community Facilities District requirements shall apply to this project.
2. Fire flow requirement shall be 3,000 gallons per minute.
a. A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department
personnel prior to water plan approval.
b. For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional fire flow test of the on-site hydrants shall
be conducted by the buildeddeveloper and witnessed by the fire department personnel
after construction and prior to occupancy.
3. Fire hydrants am required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed
and operahie prior to delivery of any combustible building materials on site (i.e., lumber, roofing
o materials, etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire department personnel.
4. Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided prior to water plan approval. Required hydrants,
if any, will be determined by the Fire District. Fire District standards require a 6" 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.
P~oject NO. DR 97-33
~ Completion Date
5. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for all~ hydrants and installed prior to final
inspection.
6. An automatic fire extinguishing system(s) will be required as: noted below:
X Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15.
X Other: 1994 Uniform Building Code.
Note: Special sprinkler densities are required for such hazardous operations as
woodworking, plastics manufacturing, spray painting, ~ammable liquids storage, high piled
stock, etc. Contact the Fire Safety Division to determine if sprinkler system is adequate
for proposed operations.
7. Sprinkler system monitoring shall be installed and operation'al immediately upon completion of
sprinkler system.
..... 8. A fire alarm system(s) shall be required as noted below:
X California Code Regulations Title 24.
9. Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District's'~re lane standards, as noted:
X All roadways per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection !District Ordinance 22.
X Other: per Ordinance No. 22.
10. 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.
11. Gated/restricted entry(s) require installation of a Knox rapid entry key system. Contact the Fire
Safety Division for specific details and ordering information.
12. Plan check fees in the amount of $677.00 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 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.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
Q. Security Lighting
1. All parking, common, and storage areas shall have minimum maintained 1-foot candle power.
These areas should be lighted from sunset to sunrise and on, photo sensored cell.
Proiect No. DR 97-33
Completion Date
2, All buildings shall have minimal security lighting to eliminate dark areas around the buildings, with __/__
direct lighting to be provided by all entryways. Lighting shall be consistent around the entire
development.
3, Lighting in exterior areas shall be in vandal-resistant fixtures. /
R. Security Hardware
1. One-inch single cylinder dead bolts shall be installed on all entrance doors. If windows are within /
40 inches of any locking device, tempered glass or a double cylinder dead bolt shall be used.
2. All garage or rolling doors shall have slide bolts or some type of secondary locking devices. /
3. All roof openings giving access to the building shall be secured with either iron bars, metal gates, /
or alarmed.
S. Security Fencing
When utilizing security gates, a Knox box sub-master system security device shall be used since
fire and law enforcement can access these devices,
T. Building Numbering
1.Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime
visibility.
2, Developer shall paint roof top numbers on one or more roofs of this development. They shall be
a minimum of three feet in length and two feet in width and of contrasting color to background.
The stencils for this purpose are on lean at the Rancho Cucamonga Police Depadment.
U. Alarm Systems
1. Install a burglar alarm system and a panic alarm if needed. Instructing management and
employees on the operation of the alarm system will reduce the amount of false alarms and in
turn save dollars and lives.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAIVIONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: February 25, 1998
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buffer, City Planner
BY: Brent Le Count, AICP, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF INCOMPLETENESS FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-01 -
MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENTERPRISES - An appeal of the City Planner
determination of incompleteness for an application to use a portion of Southern
California Edison right-of-way for a nursery located on 3.8 acres of land within
Subarea 8 (General Industrial) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 12051
Arrow Highway - APN: 229-121-97
ABSTRACT: This application was deemed incomplete on January 20, 1998. The purpose of this
report is a request to the Planning Commission to make an interpretation regarding whether or not
the subject application should be filed as a Non-Construction Conditional Use Permit or as a full
Construction Conditional Use Permit. If the application can be considered a Non-Construction
Conditional Use Permit, the application fee will be $3,657.82 less than the fee for a full Construction
Conditional Use Permit. The payment of the additional fees was referenced as a completeness
item in the correspondence to the applicant dated January 20, 1998 (Exhibit "B").
Per the Development Code, an applicant has the ability to appeal the City Planner's determination
of incompleteness within 10 days from the date of the incompleteness letter.
ANALYSIS:
A. Code Provisions: The Development Code Section 17.04.035 states that a Non-Construction
Conditional Use Permit is "where there is no exterior construction involved," in other words,
a fully developed site. This Code section was intended to recognize those instances where
the applicant desires to occupy space within an existing building, such as a shopping center
or industrial park.
B. Proposed Project: The applicant proposes a whoiesale nursery on property owned by
Southern California Edison and presently used for electrical power transmission lines. The
property is undeveloped with the exception of one transmission line tower. A vast majority
of the site would be occupied by stored plant materials; however, the following improvements
are proposed: a 600 square foot modular office structure, five storage containers ranging in
size from 160 square feet to 320 square feet, and parking and driveways paved with asphalt
grindings.
ITEM E
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 98~01 - MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENTERPRISES
February 25, 1998
Page 2
C. Analysis: The applicant feels that this not a constructi'on Conditional Use Permit because he
is not building any permanent structures and has a 5-year lease. Staff believes this sidesteps
the critical issue which is one of process. The Non-Construction Conditional Use Permit
process was intended to relieve the Planning Commis,~ion of lengthy agendas and streamline
the entitlement process by not requiring review by the~Design Review Committee, Technical
Review Committee, and Grading Committee and allowing the City Planner to conduct the
public hearing. The application fee for a Non-ConstrQction Conditional Use Permit adopted
by City Council is much lower to reflect the simpler process because it is not necessary to
review development plans. The various improvements proposed by the applicant to convert
raw land into a wholesale nursery operation intensify :utilization of the site thereby requiring
street dedication and other applicable street improvements per Ordinance No. 58, which
relates to City public street improvement policies and requirements. The Planning
Commission recently considered and denied a similar appeal for a church (MECCA) for which
.... : ':' only parking lot and building addition improvements were being proposed. In staffs opinion,
the proposed modular office and storage containers, site improvements, and related public
street improvements constitute construction; thereby requiring a full construction Conditional
Use Permit and payment of all applicable fees. Staff believes that the term of the applicant's
lease is not relevant because it could be extended be, yond 5 years.
The application also 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 in the City's Development Review process, staff feel~ that payment of the processing fees
for a full Construction Conditional Use Permit should be required. All application fees are
established by City Council Resolution 95-170.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the appeal by
minute action and interpret the application to be a full Construction Conditional Use Permit requiring
an Environmental Assessment and payment of all associated fees.
Respectfully submitted,
City Planner
BB:BLC:mlg
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Applicant's Letter
Exhibit "B" Incompleteness Letter dated January 20, 1998
Exhibit "C" - Vicinity Map
Exhibit "D" Site Plan
' N A R l P O S A
H O R T t C U k T U R A L E N T E R P R I S E S I N C
January 28, 1998
Dan Coleman
Principal Planner JAN 2 9 1998
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 10500 City of Rancno Cucamonga
Planning Division
Re: Conditional Use Permit 98-01-12051
Dear Mr. Coleman:
I am appealing the following completeness issue in section A. Item 1. of your letter dated
Janua~' 20, I998 and received in my office on January 23, 1998. This issue states the
requirement of a "construction" Conditional Use Pen-nit for our project. I ask that you
reconsider your decision requiring a "construction" Conditional Use Permit. I base my
request on the fact that there will be no actual construction on this site, but only mobile office
space and modular storage facilities. Other critical information contributing to this appeal, is
the fact that our (enclosed) lease agreement is for temporary usage (5 year lease term) only,
with a 30 day right to terminate by lessor or lessee, which in essence, means tinat we have a
30 da.v lease agreement. I also have technical issues(1.4.S&Q that if not waived '.','ill make
an>' attempt to pursue this project prohibitive.
Taking this into consideration and knowing that Southern California Edison offered this lease
agreement only after unsuccessful attempts to find a higher usage for this propert3,. I ask that
you waive the additional fees you requested ofS3,657.82. Thank you very much for your
consideration in this matter.
SincereIx,.
Terry Noriega
President
.~ ~.k, CA LANDSCAPE CONTRACT,OR'S UCENSE NO ~225i
T H E C T Y O F
E2 AN CPI O C U C;\b'i O N G A
January 20,.1.998
Terry Noriega
Mariposa Honticultural Enterprises, inc
15529 Arrow Route
Invindate. CA 91706
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-01 - 12051 ARROW ROUTE
Dear Mr. Noriega':
Your application for the above-referenced project has been reviewed for como~eteness and accuracy of
filing. As a result of the review, the project application has been found to be incomplete for processing.
A~ached please find a lis~ outlining additional information needed prior to finding the application complete,
non-canformities v;ith development standards, and major design iissues.
Fur, her processing of your project cannot begin until, al a minimum,, the Completeness Items are submitted
and the application accepted as complete. However, to expedite processing of your project, it is
recommended that all issues on the attached list be addressed n6w. Submit seven copies of the revised
application to the Planning Division. The applicant must submit the information and/or plans necessary
to make the application complete within 60 days of the date o~ this letter. FaiZure to submi~ within this
time limi~ may result in denial of your application.
This decision regarding the incomplete status o~ your apalica ion :shall be final following a ten-day appeal
period beginning with the dale of this letter. Only Completeness:Items may be appealed at this time. A
.... :'=- statemere of reasons for the aDoea[ must be s' 'b-:"-~'~ ' ;~ P:annin"' Commission Secretany and
be accompanied by a S62 appeal fee,
Shoul5 you have any questions regarding the rev ew process, or if we can be of further assistance. please
feel free to contact the project p anner. Brent Le Count, at (909) 477-2750, Monday through Thursday from
7:00 am. to 6:00 p.m.
Sincerely.
CStWMU~ DEVEL PMENT DEPARTMENT
P,L NN1NG IVISIQ
Principal Planner
Attachment
cc: Dan James. Senior Civil Engineer EJj
Koran Mosley, Office Specialist II ~
h!c,lo: Wii',icm j. F,~e:<cnde: :: .~:Z~ 7,(<.( ~ CouPs -eracar ~cj ~;cne
.", . '; ' Sod-: -eTz, e,' ,~a.< 3zr:errez
FILE NO.: CUP 98-01
(COMPLETENESS COMMENTS)
: El)is 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. Completeness Items - Additional information that must be submitted prior to finding the
application complete:
/~fj __~ The application was incorrec~:ly filed as a "non-construction Conditional Use Permit."
Development of this site requires a "construction" Conditional Use Permit; therefore, the
application fees are as follows:
Conditional Use Permit 54,089.00
Initial Study 1,168.00
.... :'~' 54,402.00
Fees Paid -744.t8
Balance Due 53,657.82
2. The nature of your proposed improvements necessitate provision of a Conceptual
Landscape P!an in accordance v`'ith ~he attached checklis~ applicable ~o development
related Conditional Use Permits. These plans should clarify intent to provide "formal
landscaping" along northern frontage and around the office s~ructure. Also. clarify what
landscaping is proposed around perimeter of site.
Soecif',, saecies of existing trees near center of site and '.'.'h='h~r ~h~" '.','ill remain or be
removed. Note thai removal of non-fruit bearing trees requires a Tree Removal Permit
4. Clarify ',','hat is proposed just north the power line structure.
5. Clarify ',','hat office and storage structures will look like. Manufacturers pamphlets have
been provided without a clear identification of which product is proposed.
6. Provide a copy of your lease agreement. and any restrictions, with Southern California
Edison.
7. Revise business description letter to clari~ length of time you wish to operate the business
and whether it will involve on-site retail sales (i.e.. open to the general public) of nursery
products.
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. Modular structures are only allowed on a temporan/basis until permanent structures can
-_- be constructed. If the proposed ooera ion will be [emporary, a condition of approvaI will
require removal of all modular buildings within 5 years. If the operation is proposed to exist
longer than 5 years, permanent structures will be required. Your letter states that the only
reason a temporary modular structure is proposed is because of a Southern California
COMPLETENESS COMMENTS
CUP 98-01
January 20, 1998 I
Page 2
.... Edison lease restriction; however, Sourher6 California Edison representatives, Ric
Greenwood and Dwayne Whirfield, told staff cJn June 12, 1997 that Southern California
Edison policy has changed and they are now ~llowing permanent structures within their
property.
2. Minimum parking space dimensions are 9 feel~by t8 feet and minimum aisle width is 24
feet (26 feet for fire lane).
3. The Industrial Area Specific Plan requires a 4,5-foot average landscape and minimum
building setback from ultimate face of curb on Arrow Route.
~L '~,:) Use of chain link fencing is not permi~ed unless ihe project is proposed as an "interim use"
.,' of less than 5 years. Perimeter walls shall be d~corative masonry or metal.
~ a..; The Industrial Area Specific Plan requires all prc~jects within 600 feet of the 1-15 Freeway
'- ' to completely screen any outdoor storage areas from view of the freeway.
~[ ~.~ Planning Commission Resolution No. 87~185 rec~uires all new development along the 1-15
Freeway to pay in-lieu fees for future landscapind and irrigation your project frontage along
the freeway (i.e.. 630 feet). Please contacl the Engineering Division for calculation of the
fee amount. This will become a condition of approval.
C. Desi~an Issues - The following are; pretiminan/design issues that are recommended to be
addressed in the revised plans:
I. Screening of storage comainer~ and asphai{ area, s from i-15 Freeway should be provided
with dense, evergreen trees along easterly pro ect perimeter.
2. At a minimum, modular buildings should have a look of permanence. This includes
screening of temporan/foundat on, screening utility equipment, landscaping around the
foundation, and using overhangs, walkways, and s~epped roofs.
3. Provide decorative masonry wall or me~al fence "along Arrow at setback line.
4. Driveway at entry should be re.oriented to be more perpendicu ar to the street frontage.
tl. Enaineerinc] Division:
A. ComPleteness:
1. Indicate existing driveways on the noah and south side of Arrow Route within the project
frontage and 300 feet beyond.
B. Issues:
i. Righi-of-way shall be dedicated on Arrow Route 9s measured from center line a total of
50 feet.
COMPLETENESS COMMENTS
CUP 98-01
January 20, 1998
age 3
2. Install street trees to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and in accordance with the
attached Street Tree Requirements form.
3. Arrow Route frontage shall be fully improved to current City standards, including street
lights, traffic signing and striping.
4. Install R 26 (s) "No Stopping Any Time" signs along Arrow Route.
[11. Building and Safety Division's Fire Prevention/New Construction Unit:
Please contact John Thomas, Plan Check Coordinator, at (909) 477-2710 to discuss these items.
1. Plan check fees in the amount of 562.50 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.
2. Plans shall be submi~ed and plans approved prior to construction in accordance with 1994 UBC.
UFC, UPC, UMC. NEC and RCFD Standards 22, 15.
3 Special permits may be required. depending on intended use. as noted belov.,:
a. General Use Permit shall be required for any activity or operation not specifically described
below, which in the judgemerit of the Fire Chief is likely to produce conditions hazardous to
life or property.
NOTE: SEPARATE PLAN CHECK FEES FOR FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS
(SPRINKLERS, HOOD SYSTEMS. ALARMS, ETC.) AND/OR ANY CONSULTANT
REVIEWS WiLL BE ASSESSED UPON SUBMITi'AL OF PLANS.
NOTE: A SEPARATE GRADING PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL tS REQUIRED FOR ALL NEW
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS AND FOR EXISTING BUILDINGS WHERE
IMPROVEMENTS BEING PROPOSED WILL GENERATE 50 CUBIC YARDS OR
MORE OF COMBINED CUT AND FILL. THE GRADING PLAN SHALL BE
PREPARED. STAMPED, AND SIGNED BY A CALIFORNIA REGISTERED CIVIL
ENGINEER.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAIV'IONGA
ENGINEERING DIVISION
STREET TREE REQUIREMENTS
DATE: IAN I~.
COFiMENTS PREPARED BY: PIARiA E. PEREZ. ASSISTANT ENGhNEER
PROJECT: CUP 98-01 i
. LOCATION: S/S ARRO',,V AT DAY CREEK :
DESIGN NOTES:
I. STREET TREES ARE TO BE SHOI,VN ON STREET OR OTHER PUBLIC t/IPROVEHENT PLANS SIGNED B'r'
THE C[T't' EN.3~NEER. AND CONSTRUCTED PER THE S,RPIE.'
2 STREET TREE3 SHO~.'VN ON PL-',NNING :DIVISION SUBi"dlTT.RLS ARE CONCEPTUAL ONLY
3. INTERIOR STREETS WILL'BE REQUIRED TO SELECT DECIDU,OUS TREES FOR .EA. ST-',VEST STREETS
.RIND D/ERGREEN TREES FOR NORTH-SOUTH STRZETS FROPI THE CITY'S APPROVED STREET TR~_E
' "" '::-' LIST. WIND-FRONE AREAS PiAY BE REQUIRED TO UTILIZE A P'iORE DECIDUOUS P,=LEiTE.
4. INDICATED SP.-'.CINGS AND SIZES ARE REQUIREPIENTS FOR CtTY,-i"!AB\ITAINED TREES ONLY.
· ..man,= i ,m: TREE CONGE?T GOES BD'OND ~ H: ~',.O.'vV. AND,.'OR AN'r' Ci7;' I":Aif',;TENA,"jCE
E'kSEI"~ENT. SPACINGS AND SIZES WILL BE PER THE ON-SITE] PLANS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING
DIVISION. ON-SITE AND OFF-SITE PLANS SHALL BE COORDINATED.
; ?U-'NS SHALL PEF_ECT THE LEGEND AND NOTE5 INDICt. TED BELO',~V.
STREET I BOTANICAL NA. NE CO"M'i'~ON NAf~iE t SPACING I SIZE'
,.:R. ROv./ROUTE LIqUID,=~"iBAR S~'YP.-'.CIFLUA
',°ALO ALTO'
CONSTRUCTION NOTES FOR STREET TREES
ALL STREET TREES ARE TO BE PLANTED IN ACCOR.DANCE WITH CtT'( STANDARD
PU-'.N3.
2. PRIOR TO THe_ COi'~ENCEMENT OF ANY PLANTdNG, AN AGRONO~iC SOILS
REPORT SHALL BE FURNISHED TO THE CtT'r' INSPECTOR. AN'( UNUSUAL
TOXICITIES OR NUTRIENT DEFICIENCIES ~AY REQUIRE BACKFiLL SOIL
,",HENDi'IENTS. AS DETER~INED BY THE CITY INSpECTOR.
3 ALL STREET TREE ARE SUBJECT TOINSP~CTION AND ACCEPTA~NCE BY THE
ENGINEERING DIVISION.
'-' STREET TREES ARE TO BE PLANTED PER PUBLIC IHeP, O',/EI~'iENT PLANS ONLY.
'~ "!"-RADIUS
300' RADt-US
:, xc .-. 105 ]'
., P-'~
_ .~c.cZ i' ~ ~6.~..7,~
PROJ~ SITS- ~
.... :':.- ~ ,~ ~,t
; ,,~ ,~ ~
.55 ~C. Z tl ~C.
ARROW HWY.
OFFICE
~ ., ~'-,,. <, :.. ,.,,%..-:,. ,..- ~.. , .--.. ,:.'. ,% ,. ~
. ~..- . ~ .., -, .-, .:, '.:, '.~ '-,., .., :,:....'. ... __., ~ ~
~ .. ",., '. :~;'-K~ ~." :-., :., ~ ''..' ~..,~
· -:-:-~7_-.~:.'. ~.',.~.K.'-.~:...,-..: ;
--: K," -~ ~['.""-~ ',""" '~K':''
--"." '. ~2~" '1' "'. ' "- ~'. "'. ~
..',,,- ~-,.- .....'..'. <..~
~',~: ;- ~<.: .:-.... ,.--,, '..: .-'~
---'" · - ~.. ' ~' "'., .'~ ~ . L~L:'.c~L~
--~"'-" ,""--'' ,.~~ ' - "... ':' ·-' · ". >.::~t~'c~,~,~s
_,--.:>.-'..,- i~[ ':. . ,. ,· . ..... ,~ ~
. ~,.:,~>: ~ ~ ~ '--"'-K ' ' · """:'~;~
, . 50' ~ ~ '': "' ;:" ' " ";'~ "~
· ,.-~ ',. , ~..',. ? .-'~uT
. ::,:. - ~ ~ .,~/ .- f ~ ~'.~//
.. . .- ~-[~ -.
.,