Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998/04/08 - Agenda PacketCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA WEDNESDAY APRIL 8, 1998 7:00 PM Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center Council Chamber 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California I. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call Chairman Barker __ Vice Chairman McNiel __ Commissioner Bethel __ Commissioner Macias __ Commissioner Tolstoy __ II. ANNOUNCEMENTS III, APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 25, 1998 IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS The following items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice their opinion of the related project. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address the Commission by stating your name and address. Aft such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each projecL Please sign in after speaking. A. INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 98-01 - MASI COMMERCE CENTER PARTNERS - A request to amend the definition of Auto Service Court within the Industrial Area Specific Plan. (Continued from March 11, 1998) B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USF PERMIT 97-47 - JTC ARCHITECTS, INC. - A request to expand an existing 13,631 square foot unmanned digital telephone switching facility by 9,773 square feet on a 44,368 square foot parcel in the General Commercial District, located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard west of Haven Avenue - APN: 1077-661-11. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. V. NEW BUSINESS C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-43 - SCHLOSSER FORGE: A request to review a master plan of development for an existing industrial forging operation to allow additions to existing buildings and construction of a new building for a total of 96,800 square feet of new floor area on a 17.12 acre site within the Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial District (Subarea 9) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southwest comer of Arrow Route and Rochester Avenue - APN: 229-111-17 and 18. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. VI. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS D. A REQUEST TO REMOVE A TREE CONDITIONED FOR PRESERVATION AS A PART OF TRACT 1553`1 - HARWOOD HOMES - Located at the northeast corner of Nineteenth Street and Mayberry Avenue - APN: 1076-141-01. Related files: Tract 1553'1 and Design Review 97-20. VII. PUBLIC COMMENTS This is the time and p/ace forthe genera/public to address the Commission. Items to be discussed here are those which do not a/ready appear on this agenda. VIII. COMMISSION BUSINESS E. SIGNS/MULTI-FAMILy TASK FORCE UPDATF - Oral report IX. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an I l:O0 p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shaft be heard only with the consent of the Commission. Page 2 /, Gai/ 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 April 2, 1998, at/east 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at ~ 0500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucarnonga. Page 3 VICINITY MAP ~I · k CITY HALL CITY OF l RANCHO CUCAMONGA 0a/08/1888 15:19 9BS4815025 PAGE MEMO T.; Nancy Fong D.to, April 8, 1998 Planning Division F~tm~ Jack Masi Masi Commerce Center Partners a,: Auto Court Zone Change Amendment Dear Nancy: We respectfully request that the Planning Commission postpone action on the above referenced matter for two weeks. As you -know, the seven stainless steel plaques (specifically five history of winemaldng, one LaFoureade and one Masi Brothers), have not been completed by thc artist as yet. This has been very frustrating for us in that we desire to demonstrate to the Planning Commission that we have met all the conditions of approval. However, this outstanding one remah~s. I request that we have the artist appear before the Planning Conmlission to give the Corrm~ission an update on the stainless steel plaques. We would also like to discuss certain additions to the Vinmers' Walk, not requi~ed of us in the conditions of approval, that we intend to present to staff in the next few days. We appreciate all your help in this matter, Sincerely, Jack Masi 11871Fo~hill Boulevard. Ren*jeo Cucarno~ga91730 ~ Telephone: 909~81-5020 · Fax: 90GJ,81-5025 ~ CITY OF RANCH0 CUCAMONGA STAFF lIEPOnT DATE: April 8, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad BulleL City Planner BY: Nancy Fong, AICP, Senior Planner SUBJECT: INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 98-01 - MASI COMMERCE CENTER PARTNERS - A request to amend the definition of Auto Service Court within the Industrial Area Specific Plan. (Continued from March 11, 1998) BACKGROUND: At the March 11, 1998, meeting, the Planning Commission continued the item for the second time at the request of the applicant. In his letter of March 11, 1998. Mr. Masi stated the reason for the continuation was to allow time to complete those items. The applicant has progressed in completing some of the outstanding items. To date, the wood trellises above the trash enclosures for Buildings 4 and 7 are done and the Vintner's Statue is installed. According to the applicant, the artist is still working on the seven historic plaques and anticipates completion and installation by the end of April. Staff will give an oral update at tonight's Commission meeting. There is no new information regarding the proposed Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment. Attached is the February 11, 1998, staff report for review Respectfully submitted, City Planner BB:NF:taa Attachments: Exhibit "A" Letter from Applicant dated March 11, 1998 Exhibit "B" Planning Commission Staff Report dated February 11, 1998 Resolution Recommending Approval to City Council Proposed City Council Ordinance ITEM A e MEMO T,~ Nancy Fen~ mmmm 3/11/98 ~te~on of R~ oa AU~ C~fi ~ Cb~p Amead~t Tha~.k you for your cooperadon ;.', tl~s 13na~t~r. Since|y, $=~ Masi CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ' STAFF REPORT DATE: February 11, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Nancy Fong, AICP, Senior Planner SUBJECT: INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 98-01 MASI COMMERCE CENTER PARTNERS - A request to amend the definition of Auto Service Court within the Industrial Area Specific Plan. BACKGROUND: On January 14, 1998, the Planning Commission considered the applicant's request to amend the definition of the Auto Service Court. After discussing the merits of the proposed changes, the Commission, on a 3-1-1 vote, directed the applicant to proceed with the submittal of an amendment application for further study and review. The applicant has submitted such an application and paid the appropriate fees. Attached for the Commission's reference is Exhibit "B", a copy of the January 14, 1998, Planning Commission staff report and draft minutes. ANALYSIS: A. ~osal: At the January 14, 1998, Planning Commission meeting, Mike Scandiffio of Masi Commerce Center Partners, proposed to expand the acreage for the Auto Service Court and expand the definition to include more auto-related types of services such as auto detailing, auto sales, lease or rental, and auto body work and painting. VV~th the formal Specific Plan Amendment application, he has modified his proposal to expand the acreage from 4 to 6 acres only and not to expand the definition of adding more auto-related types of services. Attached is Exhibit "A" that shows his current proposed changes. B. Evolution of the Desiqn of Masi Plaza and the Current Development Status: A review of the history and evolution of Masi Plaza may assist the Commission in understanding and considering the proposed Specific Plan Amendment. The following summarizes the evolution of Masi Plaza: 1. Evolution of the Master Plan for Masi Plaza: in July of 1992, the Commission conditionally approved a Master Plan (CUP 91-24) for Masi Plaza, a mixed use '-' "z¢" s /.c._ ,/,,_ ./:~ . PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ISPA 98-01 - MASI COMMERCE CENTER PARTNERS February 11, 1998 Page 2 development comprised of 32 buildings totaling 268,900 square feet. The approval also included an amendment to the Industrial Area Specific Plan that established the Auto Service Court as a land use category within Subarea 7 of the Specific Plan. There were three main components in the Master Plan; the Auto Service Court at the west end of the site, the 18-acres plus of a mixed use center at the southwest quadrant of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue (consisting of restaurants, including a drive through, and multi-tenant retail and office users), and the industrial center at the southern portion of the site, as shown in Exhibit "C ." In December of 1993, the City Planner reviewed and approved minor changes to Buildings 1 through 4, and 6 through 13, which involved refinements to improve and enhance the parking area. the elevations, and the floor plans. The design of the Master Plan remained intact as originally approved. In January of 1994, the Commission approved a specific Design Review (DR 93-19) on Buildings 5, 14, 15, and 16. Building 5 was originally designed as the Old Spaghetti Factory, which eventually found another site in the City. This version of the Master Plan consolidated the smaller industrial buildings along the north side of Sebastian Way. In April of 1994, the City Council amended the General Plan and the Industrial Area Specific Plan to establish a Recreational Commercial Land Use category (Exhibit "F") which encourages development of recreation facilities and allows region-serving specialty retail uses such as sporting goods, apparel, electronics, furniture, and appliances. Sizes range from 3,500 to 55,000 square feet of floor area for the 27-acre Masi Plaza. The City Council also expanded the definition of the Auto Service Court. At that time, the applicant requested a modification to the southern portion of the Master Plan for development of a multi-screen theater, a roller rink, and two ice rinks. The Commission conditionally approved the Master Plan modification (CUP 94-26) in January of 1995, as shown in Exhibit "D." Both versions of the Master Plan, the Industrially oriented (CUP 91-24) and the Commercial Recreational oriented (CUP 94-26) are valid. The applicant has the opportunity to exercise either one or a combination of them. 2. Status of Current Development in Masi Plaza: The construction of Masi Plaza began in 1996. Jack-in-the-Box was the first building completed in 1996. The Auto Service Court with Mobil Gas station, Texaco Express Lube, Goodyear Tire, and two other auto repair buildings were completed and occupied in 1997. Also completed in 1997. were Denny's and two multi-tenant buildings (4 and 7). Popeye's Chicken and the Frame Gallery occupy portions of Building 4 with two other restaurants presently doing interior improvements. Several tenants have begun interior improvements in Building 7, namely, a dental office, a cafe, a florist shop, and a liquor/dell. Under construction at this time are Buildings 13 and 14. The bardscape and the metal trellis within the Vintner's walk are PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT IASPA 98-01 - MASI COMMERCE CENTER PARTNERS February 11, 1998 Page 3 completed. However, the historic art works have not been installed. Exhibit 'T' lists the outstanding items within Masi Plaza and their status. C. Evolution of and the Proposed Chanqes to the Definition of Auto Service Court: The Auto Service Court land use category was added to Subarea 7 in the Industrial Area Specific Plan in 1992 and the definition was expanded in 1994 to include maximum acreage and several development and design criteria and as shown in Exhibit "F." Both amendments were requested by the applicant at that time. In August of 1994, at the direction of the City Council to streamline the planning process, the Auto Service Court land use category was added to eight other subareas in the Specific Plan, Subareas 1 through 4, 8, 11, 12, and 13. Staff believes that the proposed increase in size from 4 to 6 acres is acceptable. Because this land use category can occur in eight other Subareas within the Specific Plan boundary, staff recommends adding criteria to strengthen the design of an auto service court. Such criteria includes the requirement of a master plan, increasing the percentage of landscaping from a typical General Industrial category (12 percent) to an Industrial Park category (15 percent), requiring usable and sizable plazas and pedestrian amenities within the site. and significant architectural treatment to the buildings. D. Proposed Auto Service Court Expansion and its Relationship to Masi Plaza Master Plan: The applicant requested the expansion because of the success of the auto service court. Exhibit "E" shows the proposed master planning of the auto service court. He has submitted a Conditional Use Permit (CUP 97-45) application for the auto service court expansion. With regards to the undeveloped part of Masi Plaza, he stated it is impossible to attract another theater user because of the two existing megaplexes, Edwards and AMC, in Ontario Mills and he has no users for the pads south of Sebastian Way. He stated that if specific users are lined up for the undeveloped part of Masi Plaza, he will submit a modification to the Master Plan. E. Conclusion: Staff believes that the proposed change to increase the acreage for the auto service court is acceptable. Through master planning, the compatibility of the auto service court with adjacent uses could be addressed. The design criteria together with the clustering of auto related uses fosters efficiency in land use, maximizes public safety, and increases the opportunities for creating landscaping areas and pedestrian amenities which would create a more aesthetically pleasing auto service court. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Staff has determined that the proposed text amendment to modify the definition of auto service court does not involve physical development and is not defined as a project per Section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act. Therefore. the proposed application is exempt from environmental review. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT IASPA 98-01 - MASI COMMERCE CENTER PARTNERS February 11, 1998 Page 4 CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in a one-eighth page advertisement in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment to the City Council. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buffer City Planner BB:NF:taa Attachments: Exhibit "A" Applicant's proposal Exhibit "B" Planning Commission Staff Report and Draft Minutes dated January 14, 1998 Exhibit "C" Masi Plaza Master Plan (CUP 91-24 and DR 93-19) Exhibit "D" Masi Plaza Master Plan (CUP 94-26) Exhibit "E" Proposed Expansion of Auto Service Court (CUP 97-45) Exhibit "F" Description of Recreation Commercial Land Use Category Exhibit "G" - Existing and Proposed Auto Service Court Definition Exhibit "H" - Industrial Specific Plan Map showing Subareas that allow Auto Service Court Exhibit "1" Status of Compliance of Conditions of Approval/Mitigation for Masi Plaza Resolution Recommending Approval to City Council Proposed City Council Ordinance MEMO · ,,: Nmtcy Fong, Plammtg Division Dmt~ l:cbrtl~y 4, L998 City of Rancho Cucaml}nga F~om: ~ack M~i Masi C, ommerce Center Parthe5 n~ Zornrig Amendment to Auto Court Use. Sub-area ~ 1 )car Nancy: As per your requ~it to us. ! am claril~ing ottr application in regard to the Iblh>wing: (i) Scope of the desired zone amendment; (2) Rationale forthe cbange; /~l/:Or~-f-:,~:l [i~rlh~' t--~t'lnpmc'ntnf'tht'ba.,J!ccoftt~c[otstot. hhcsoutj!ofScbastianWaY;and, (4) Con~cnB on CU~ 91-24, CUP 94-26 ~ General Plan ~eadmeat 93-02B. Propond Amendment to Auto C,u~ Use Designation We request to ch~gc ~e dciitioa of ~e auto coon use desi~mtion iu Sub-area 7 to allow a ~lC~iIUlIi atlio cou~ si~e of six autos; th= lll~ ' ._ ,, , , ,, r; Rationale fnr the Change ~c current aulo court at Masi Pl~a is approximutely 3.25 acres (including the g~s styion); it is composed of four buildings turnling approximately 20.000 sq. ft. occupied by seven users. The auto cnun is 100% leased ~d we have much demand lbr additional le~e space, particularly for more specialty users such ~ German auto and Japanese ~to s~cialisB. and specialty services (such ~s a!ann in:;m!latitm m3d windshic!d~). By incr~ing the pem~issible area of ~e auto court to six acres, we can build ~ additional 20,0~ sq- ~. in three buildings so as to meet ~e additionM demand. We believe ~c larger auto cuurt will allow it to become a recogniTed su~regi¢mal auto se~' ce center, providing a full line olaf'ices in a single, inte~ated auto center environmetal. As envisioned, ~e l~ee addition~ auto cou~ buildings would replace the four single user indus~ial box buildings at the southwest com~ of'the Masi project site thai is adjacent to the City ~minten~ce yard m the Spo~ Center. ~ese li~ur ind~qtfial buildings were previously approv~ ~q part of CLIP 91-24. Feb-04-g8 09:56P P,O3 Nancy ]:onB I;¢bft;ary 4, i We ~lieve this is a high~ and bc~cr use tbr t~s rc~ comer oFthe Masi Pl~a site and is murc consistent wi~ ~ comm~rci~ d~velopmem now underway on lhc Forecast for the D~'elopment of the Balan~ of the Lots Lying to the South of Sebastian Way As p~ of CUP 91-24 (appmved July 22, 1992)~ we have approval for ten industrial buildings ~he south side o1' Seb~uti~ Way. 'HIe l~d development ousts, in addition to the indebtedness associat~ with the City assessment district bond I~n~cing, m~es the development of ten indu~al box~ cconomicall~ infeasiblL Multi-tenant offic~'iudus~ial ~d auto se~i~ buildings are a hiker m~d ~er use. Consequently. the land to the e~st uf the three propos~ auto, ~ourt buildings, to~ing appn~ximatcly 3-1/2 acres. is probably best utilized ~br smalL, multi-I~t offic~"indust~al users. 'l~c industrja~ users would h~v~ a higher office bui}d~mt and a higher parkbig ratio. Commen/~ on CUP 91-2a~ CUP 94-26 and Genen[ Plan Amendment 93~2B ~e CUP lbr the Masi Pla ~oject, specifically C[~ 91-24 (apFoved July 22. 1992). ~unL~ approval for t~n indus~ia] buildings sou~ of Sebastian Way ~d six industrial buildings north Seb~lian Way. DR 93-19 (J~t~y 12, 1994) allowed lbr ~ consoli~fion of~e six industrial buildings on the no~ sid~ of S~b~tiau Way in~ ~'o mul~-ten~1 industrial buildings (us well as granled design Shahgas to building ~14 and d~ign appn~val fi~r building CLJP93-a? (appeared J~um'y 26, 1995), w~ iraended ~o be a p~allel CLW to CUP 91-24 allnwed ~r a seven screen ~eatrc on ~c north side oF Sehus[i~ W~y ~nd an ice skating ri~ on fl~c sou~h side of ~¢b~ian Way. Due to Lhe 52 screens bui]l in Onr~io, lhe movie thea~e a~ Masj Pl~a ~came inl~aslhle. Star Time Cinemas, the ~en prospective ~en~t tha~ 1~ us to pursue ~e ¢mi~emenl tbr ~hc muvie fi~atre, dropp~ out of the d~l nnce the 52 .~r~ns in Ontario w~ ~ounced. Additionally. ~c pros~ct of an ice skat~g r~. ¢id~cr a( ~o O~rio Milh or ~ u CiW ~ff Ontario sponsored Pacili~y, has greatly ~minished imer~L in ~e M~si Plea location. Addi[~o~lIy, lh~ elongar~ shape of~e fscili~', ~ong wi~ a co~cmial (m~ 1~ industrial) q~lity ofbuilditlg construction. made [he pm~sed Faci lib, le~s competitive in terms of build~g coal It should ~ noted that Masi Commer~ Center Pa~neB h~ adve~sed in national i~ skating and roller skating mag~in~s and adwrfis~d at m~fional mini] convemions in an s~¢mpt ~o a~acl skating rink developer or u~r. Additionally, major ice skating developers ~d upcrmo~ were cnnmc~ed and sbwn ~hc pmj~ slit: ~wo me[ wi[h Cily Ollici~s (ke-D-plex ~d Canlm~). should also be noted that we spent nearly $75,000 in pla~ming. desi~ and marketing costs ~yin~ to promote the movie thea~c/icc skating concept, but to no avail. Feb-04-98 09:56P P.04 Nancy Fl~ng Febr~, arv 4, I {~gg Page Three It should also be noted that the commercial recreatiott zoning overlay (General Plan Amen,d,mcnt . / 93-02.B) was approved April 7, 1994, approximately 10 months prior to CUP 95-07'(ice ~"'-" rink/movie theatre). It should bc emphasized Lhat the movie theatre/ice rink application was never ofl~red as par~ of, or in conjunction with, or as mt accompanying example to~ the commercial recreation zoning overlay applicatic~n. 1 think the timing of the submittals and approvals ol'these two district applications makes this obvious. One last imporlant point- if there is interest eventually in the skating rink facility, the develt~pment or thc three additional amo service buildings does not c'ncrtmch upon land needed for the skating rink. Please see attached exhibits. Ir you have any questions. please call me at 909-.481-5020. Sincerely, Jack Masi ~xtachments CITY OF RANCHO CUCANIONGA -- STAFF REPORT DATE: January 14, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Nancy Fong, AICP, Senior Planner SUBJECT: DIRECTOR'S REPORT 97-03 ~ MASI COMMERCE CENTER PARTNERR - A request to consider amending the definition of Auto Service Court in Subarea 7 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. BACKGROUND: The applicant, Mike Scandiffio of Masi Commerce Center, stated that he would like to expand the size (acreage) for the Auto Service Court within Masi Plaza by developing an additional 3.5 acres south of the existing site, see Exhibit "C." He would like to expand the definition by adding more a0to related types of services including auto body work and painting. Attached is Exhibit "A," which shows the applicant's proposed changes to the definition of the Auto Service Court. The proposal necessitates an amendment to the Industrial Area Specific Plan. According to the Development Code, only City Council or the Planning Commission may initiate amendments to the Industrial Area Specific Plan, which is the reason for this report. ANALYSIS: A. The Intent of Auto Service Court: The land use category of Auto Service Court was added to the Industrial Area Specific Plan in 1992 and the definition was expanded in April 1994. The purpose of the Auto Service Court is to encourage an integrated development similar to master planning where design criteria was established to address unique operational characteristics such as roll-up doors and open bays. The design criteria together with the clustering of auto related uses fosters efficiency of land use, maximizes public safety, and increases opportunities for creating landscaping areas which would be more aesthetically pleasing. These are the reasons the Planning Commission supported the Auto Service Court at that time. The applicant recently completed his Auto Service Court in Masi Plaza and stated that it has been a success, which is the reason for his request to expand it. B. Proposed Chanqes to Auto Service Court: The applicant proposes to establish a minimum of 5 acres and a maximum of 9 acres for the Auto Service Court and expand the auto related services to include auto cleaning and detailing, auto sales, lease and rental, and auto painting and body work. Staff believes that the increase in size (acreage). when properly master planned together with the proper mix of auto related uses, could strengthen the success of an auto service court. However, the proposal to include auto painting and body work could create a compatibility issue since these types of uses can be intensive. ,, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DIR. RPT. 97-03 - MASI COMMERCE CENTER PARTNERS January 14, 1998 Page 2 Body work is considered as major automotive repair because of the extent of work involved and potential noise and vibration concerns. Perhaps additional criteria could be established to limit the type of auto painting business where body repair is not required except for the repair of minor dents and replacement pads. Staff believes that the applicant's proposals warrant further study and recommends initiating an amendment. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission, through minute action, direct the applicant to submit an Industrial Area Specific Plan amendment with the accompanying fee. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:NF:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Applicant's request Exhibit "B" - Current Definition of Auto Service Court Exhibit "C" - Site Plan T~ Brad BuJJcr, City Planncr City ofl~nc/2o Cucam0nga ~ i lr24/97 F~,~ Michael Scandifiio M~i Cormnercc Centtr: Partners (MCCP) ~cnamrnt t0 Su~,ur~ 7 of ~b. Indurtm] gp~i~ P~- Auto S~niee Court De~n.ifiou De~ Brad: Masi Commerce Center Pmlners ~opose~ to amend the Auto Service Court defmkioa in the Attached is the proposed amendment (changes m'e shown in i',.Mic). We look forward to meeinB with you and Nan~), t:~n~ gO ~LscU,~ it We will fiIl om the plan amendment atTplic, mions and pay the a&sodated fees by Tuesday of this week. lfy0u have any quesio~, please call me at 9094814020. Sincerob., ~i N~ F0nK TABLE I]/-2 L,~NI) USE TYPE DEFh'NTlqONS AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE COURT: .~m integrated cluster of related aummotivc seN'ice activities, which ty'Ficali~,' include:/5~ ~i~i~llBi ~lX~e Yffllfi011$, ~ktl 0[ ~"i1118~ fifthlily:y, ~ Kl.leh ~ O,~ I,t,~ and Bocl marts; general automotive s,,-'rv ce and l;~paiI including Illtiff'lets, shocks, aliameats, brakes, oil changes, lubrica~oms, rune-ups, smog chec'ks, fire repair and replacement,tr~smi~ion~; ingallaXion of air conditioning, car h es sterns, win shie ' and a(~2olste...~__~; win ~hield tintin,,; auto~bile c an~o parts; omobile rentaL/leasing a utomobiIe paintmg atu] boay wo · 'i ' e ' H v~ ' "' '. 3,:rinimum Size: 5 acres. Ma.~llffi Size: 9 acres. Maximum IS:onCe along a major or secon-d~,' arterlal street: 300 feet. No access to ~e site ~t[i be ix~tC, d ~irC~l!)' 0ff ally major arterial. s~ '~5.'~ v. nil pump i~lnnd~ $h~ll be ,~n~ ~%m all major and ~onc~,' artcrials throu~ a combination of betins, landscaping, low walls, a.ud building orientation. An appropriate combination of herins, landscaping, and architectural elernen~ shall be provided around the entire perimeter of the site to minimize the impact of the auto court uses form the existing and future surrounding 'uses. Outdoor ~or,~e of inoper~ve vehicles, part.s, or equipm~t ks prohibited. All work shall be conducted indoors. All signage shall be limited to si_m~s appmved und= a Uniform S}~:n t DRAFT I. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS 97-03 - MASI COMMERCE PARTNERg - A request to consider amending the definition of Auto Service Court in Subarea 7 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Barker asked the location of the Commercial Recreation zoning. Ms. Fong replied that it covers the area north and east of Sebastian Way and Masi Drive. Chairman Barker commented there are no commercial recreational uses in the area. Commissioner Macias asked what is located between the applicant's property and the stadium. Brad Bullet, City Planner, stated a maintenance building and some landscaping. He observed that the purpose of tonight's meeting was to determine if the Commission wished to allow the applicant to submit an application to amend the Industrial Area Specific Plan, not necessarily lending support nor stating opposition to the project. Chairman Barker invited public comment. Mike Scandif'~o, Masi Commerce Partners, 1510 Riverside Ddve, Burbank, thanked Ms. Fong for her assistance in processing the application. Chairman Barker remarked he had asked staff to prepare a report on outstanding issues with regard to Masi Plaza and some of those items were quite far behind schedule. He said he expected those items to be completed and said he was reluctant to give anything when the applicant had not completed what was proposed. Commissioner Tolstoy observed that a long time ago the Commission had been asked to consider reclassifying the site to Recreation Commercial and so far lhe City had not seen any of it. He said he had supported the concept of Recreation Commercial because of the close proximity to the stadium. He was very disappointed that nothing has been developed. Commissioner Macias did not object to allowing the applicant to submit an application but said he did not want that action to be construed as potential approval of the request. He said he was concerned regarding some of the proposed uses. Commissioner Bethel felt allowing the applicant to proceed with an application would constitute further erosion of the original plan. He felt the City is losing the flavor of what it was trying to do in the area. He did not think the applicant should be able to submit an application until past issues have been completely resolved. Commissioner Tolstoy said he liked the concept of a sports related commercial area. He did not want to enterlain other uses at this time. Commissioner Macias said he liked what Commissioner Bethel said about not having demonstrated an ability to successfully meet conditions. He stated he did not conceptually object to the request. He suggested waiting three weeks to allow the applicant to complete the other requirements. Commissioner Tolstoy stated a plan had been submitted with a clear idea of what the City would get. He thought the development is now being dictated by piecemeal planning and he preferred to have Planning Commission Minutes ,j~i-7- January 14, 1998 DRAFT the original concept carried out. He felt auto related uses are needed in this pad of town but he thought the previous plan was being diluted inch by inch. Chairman Barker said he heard Commissioner Tolstoy say he was not interested in considering an amendment because of dilution of the previous plan and Commissioner Bethel say he did not feel the amendment should be considered. Mr. Buller observed that there has been a long history on the site. He stated the applicant wanted straight Commercial but staff and the Commission had moved the applicant to Recreational Commercial with the south side of Sebastian Way being more industrial. He commented the applicant had shown a plan with elements which the Commission supported, such as theaters and a proposed ice rink on the south side. He explained that the applicant had been unsuccessful in secudng such users and has found that auto related uses are successful and now wants to process an amendment to allow for expansion of those uses. Commissioner Bethel did not think it would be fair to the applicant to support initiation of an application if he did not feel he could support the amendment. Chairman Barker observed that several of the Commissioners wanted to see a good faith effort so far as meeting existing conditions. He recommended staff not process an amendment until the old issues are resolved. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the applicant should be given an opportunity to submit an amendment but asked that staff indicate what auto related uses are already allowed in the industrial area. It was the consensus of the Commission (3-1-1, Bethel no, McNiel absent) that the applicant be permitted to submit an Industrial Area Specific Plan amendment with the accompanying fee. FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AU[O : '¢..._. RUAiL 5110P5 ~o~.~ OFt+Ft+FI+I-t+t~+H~I-t+Ft+~I+FI+H+H+FI+I-t+jI+FtO ~t+HO ~solffci~n No. 94-052 Page 4 PLAN AMaNIIME~T 93-02B, PAR~ A Recreational C~iercial: Develcg'lent of recreation facilities and retail uses shall be encouraged along FooZhill [kxllevard surrourd/ng the Rancho Cucamonga Adult SFort Park near r_he · intersection of P~chester Avenue. ~he ~3~all stad/um and year-r~und spcrts a~ivities in the Sports Park create a unique opportunity to provide secorr~ry region-serving speciality retail uses that are not ~ajor general marchand4~e d~F~ L~ent stores or food or drug stores. ~hey generally use approximately 3,500 - 55,000 square feet of grcss l~able area and requ/re sites with high visibility ard high traffic counts. ~hese centers typically have convenient free~ay access and draw their custcme/s fr~n witbj_n a five to ten mile raddus. Uses in this catsgory are regional in nature and not normally fcurd in neighborhood cui~ercial centers. ~hese types of cccapancies could include d{~cunt retailers, such as .sporting gocds, a..uparel, electronics, furniture, and a.~pliances. TABLE III-2 LAND USE TYPE DEFINITIONS AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE COURT: An integrated cluster of related automotive service activities, which typically include: gas stations; service stations, with or without ancillary uses such as car washes and food marts; general automotive changes, lubrications, tune-ups, smog checks, tire repair and replacement, and transmissions; installation of air conditioning, car phones, stereos, windshields, and upholstery; windshield tinting; sale of auto parts; and other related services. Auto Courts shall comply with the following design criteria: Maximum Size:--4- 6 acres. Maximum frontage along a major or secondary arterial street: 300 feet. No access to the site will be permitted directly off any major arterial. ,7 An appropriate combination of berms, landscaping, and architectural elements shall be provided around the entire perimeter of the site to minimize the impact of the auto court uses from the existing and future surrounding uses. Outdoor storage of inoperative vehicles, parts, or equipment is prohibited. All work shall be conducted indoors. All signage shall be limited to signs approved under a Uniform Sign Program. Master planning shall be required. A minimum of 15 percent of net lot area shall be landscaped. Pedestrian facilities such as plazas or courtyards with appropriate street furniture shall be provided. Service bays and pump islands shall be oriented away from street frontages. Service bays and pump islands subject to public view and view from adjoining properties shah be screened through a combination of berms, landscaping, low decorative walls, building orientation, and architectural elements. Building design shall have 360 degree architectural treatment. Building entrances shah be well articulated and project an entrance statement. / Figure II1~ 1 SUBAREAS ~ HAVEN OVERLAy DISTRICT ~ INDUSTRIAL PARK ~I GENERAL INDUSTRIAL I~MINIMUM IMPACT ~ HEAVy INDUSTRIAL 4~" ST. '7 ~ OPEN SPACE HOLT BLVD. ~:' """ "" ~ :":;~-~"' ~,:---J ...... ' ' CITY OF ~' ~ ' RANCHO CUC~N~ 2/17/88 T 10/17/90 6/17/97 CUP 91-24 - MASI PLAZA February 4, 1998 The following summarizes the outstanding issues that need to be addressed: 1. Install 35 granite plaques for displaying of vintners' families and their wine labels along the Vintner's Walk prior to occupancy of Denny's. GR.~NITE PLAQUES HA. VIi; BEEN INSTALLED AS OF JANUARY 29, 1998. 2. Install the La Fourcade displays and the history of wine making displays, a total of seven plaques, within the Vintner's Walk and the overhead trellis between Denny's and Building 7, prior to occupancy of Denny's. Comment: The above is a mitigation, except for the overhead metal trellis, and was tied to release of occupancy for Building 5 or 6 (Denny's), whichever came first. In order not to delay the opening of Denny's, staff worked with the applicant and allowed him to delay the installation until occupancy for Building 7 as requested. He agreed that the items would be installed before asking for occupancy of Building 7. At,ached is the May 14, 1997, Facsimile to the applicant listing the items that needed to be completed or installed. Staff has repeatedly reminded him that he needs to complete the listed items, as well as submitting a sample of the aluminum plaques for "the history of wine making" displays. APPLICANT SUBYlITTED TEXT AND GRAPHICS MOUNTED ON FOAxM BOARD AND TO TH2E ACTUAL SIZE OF THE PLAQUES FOR STAFF REVIEW. STAFF IzEa. S PROOFREAD THE DRAFT .AdND WILL RETURN THEM TO THE APPLICANT. HE HAS NOT SUBNHTTED A SAM2PLE OF TH]i; ALUMINUNI PLAQUE TO SHOW THAT TItE TEXT AND GRAPHICS WILL SHOx, V WELL FOR READING. THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT HE WILL INST.A.LL THE OVERHEAD METAL TRELLIS BETWEEN BUILDING 7 AND DEN~'Y'S OR PROVIDE ALTERNATIVES TO ADDRESS THE ITENI. 3. Install wood trellis according to the approved plans for the trash enclosures for Buildings 4 and 7. Comment: On October 28, 1997, the applicant signed an agreement stating that he would finish installing the wood trellises above the trash enclosures for Buildings 4 and 7 by November 3, 1997. 4. Install and complete the La Fourcade entry arch on Building 5, the descriptive plaque for the La Fourcade building, the Vinmer's families display, and the Masi plaque and the Statue. Comment: The above is a mitigation and was tied to the release of occupancy for Building 5 or 6 (Denny's), whichever comes first. In order not to delay the opening of Denny's, staff worked with the applicant and allowed him to delay the installation until occupancy of Building 5. Design Review for Building 5 has not been completed. attachments RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 98-01, A REQUEST TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF "AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE COURT" WITHIN THE INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. 1. Masi Commerce Center Padnets has filed an application for industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment No. 98-01, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Code Amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. On Februany 11, and continued to March 11, and April 8, 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on Februan/11, March 11, and April 8. 1998, including written and oral staff repods, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application proposes to amend the definition of Auto Service Court. b. The application proposes to increase the maximum acreage for Auto Service Court from 4 to 6 acres. c. The Auto Service Court is permitted in Subareas 1 through 4, 8, 11, 12, and 13 and conditionally permitted in subarea 7. d. Additional design cdteria such as the requirement for master planning, increase of percentage of landscaping, and additional architectural treatment are proposed to address land use and design compatibility. 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. This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and related development; and b. This amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the Industrial Area Specific Plan; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO, ISPA 98-01 - MASI COMMERCE CENTER PARTNERS April 8, 1998 Page 2 c. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and d. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the objectives of the General Plan or the Industrial Area Specific Plan; and e. The proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan. 4. The Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that the amendment identified in this Resolution is not defined as a project and is therefore exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Sections 15061b.3 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3. and 4 above, this Commission hereby resolves as follows: a. That the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends approval of Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment No. 98-01 amending Table 111-2, as shown in the attached ordinance. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF APRIL 1998. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buffer, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 8th day of April 1998, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING INDUSTRIALAREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 98-01. A REQUEST TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF AUTO SERVICE COURT WITHIN THE INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. 1. Masi Commerce Center Partners, has filed an application for Industrial Area Specific Ran Amendment No. 97-01 as described in the title of this Ordinance. Hereinafter in this Ordinance, the subject Industrial Area Specific Ran Amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. On February 11, and continued to March 11, and April 8, 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. On , the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. B. Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and ordained by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Council hereby specifically finds that a~l of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented 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 application proposes to amend the definition of Auto Service Court. b. The application proposes to increase the maximum acreage for Auto Service Court from 4 to 6 acres. c. The Auto Service Court is permitted in Subareas 1 through 4, 8, 11, 12, and 13 and conditionally permitted in subarea 7. d. Additional design criteria such as'the requirement for master planning, increase of percentage of landscaping, and additional architectural treatment are proposed to address land use and design compatibility. 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 I and 2 above, this Council hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The application does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the industrial Area Specific Plan or the General Plan and will provide development in a manner consistent with the Industrial Area Specific Plan and the General Plan and with related development; and CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. IASPA 98-01 - MASI COMMERCE CENTER PARTNERS Page 2 b. The application promotes the goals and objectives of the Industrial Area Specific Plan; and c. The application will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and d. The application is consistent with the objectives of the Industrial Area Specific Plan; and e. The application is in conformance with the General Plan: 4. The City Council hereby finds and determines that the amendment identified in this Ordinance is not defined as a project and is therefore exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Sections 15061b.3 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Council hereby approves Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment No. 98-01, amending Table 111-2, as attached. 6. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this ordinance and shall cause the same to be published within 15 days after its passage at least once in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. CITY OF RANCH0 CUCAIVIONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: April 8, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Cecilia Gallardo, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-47 - JTC ARCHITECTS, INC. o A request to expand an existing 13,631 square foot unmanned digital telephone switching facility by 9,773 square feet on a 44,368 square foot parcel in the General Commercial District, located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard west of Haven Avenue - APN: 1077-661-11. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Approval of Site Plan, Elevations, Grading Plan, Landscape Plan, and Conditional Use Permit and issuance of a Negative Declaration for the expansion and use of the building. The business activity, classified as a Public Utility, requires a Conditional Use Permit. B. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoninq: North - Vacant & movie theater; General Commercial South - Vacant; Industrial Park (Subarea 7, Industrial Area Specific Plan) East - Two-story office building & restaurant; General Commercial West Restaurant; General Commercial C. General Plan Desiqnations: Project Site - Commercial North Commercial South - Industrial Park East Commercial West Commercial D. Site Characteristics: The 44,368 square foot site is currently developed with an existing building for telephone switching equipment. The paved site is relatively flat, with perimeter landscaping and parking on the north side of the structure. The parcel is located within a commercial center that houses a variety of general commercial uses such as restaurants, offices, and a movie theater. The adjacent parcel to the north is currently undeveloped. ItFM B PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 97-47 - JTC ARCHITECTS, INC. April 8, 1998 Page 2 E. Parkinq: The switching facility is serviced on a daily basis by three to four employees. This number of employees is expected to increase by one with the expansion of the facility. There are 14 parking spaces provided on the north side of the building to accommodate parking by employees. ANALYSIS: A. General: The Public Utility is a pre-existing conditional use that has been operating on the site since 1957. Upon expansion, the operator is required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit for the Public Utility at this location. The telephone switching station is situated within the Virginia Dare Winery Center. The applicant is proposing to expand the existing structure by approximately 70 percent. The expansion will occur at the rear (north side) of the building, and would result in a building totaling 23,404 square feet. The proposed expansion will match the existing architecture. The building addition will have concrete walls of smooth stucco finish painted to match the existing building walls. New landscaping is proposed along the northern perimeter, and additional landscaping will be provided to the southern elevation along Foothill Boulevard. There is reciprocal parking and access for the building within the Virginia Dare Winery Center. B. Desiqn Review Committee: The project was reviewed by the Design Review Committee (Bethel, Macias, Fong) on March 17, 1998. The Committee recommended approval of the plans with the conditions listed in the attached Resolution of ApprovaL C. Technical Review Committee/Gradinq Committee: The project was reviewed by both Committees and determined, with recommended conditions of approval, to be in conformance with applicable standards and ordinances. D. Environmental Assessment: Staff has completed the Initial Study Part II and determined that the project would not have a significant adverse impact upon the environment. Issuance of a Negative Declaration is recommended. FACTS FOR FINDING: A. The proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located in that the use is a public utility that will service the community. B. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity in that no unavoidable environmental impacts are associated with the use. C. The application complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code in that sufficient parking, landscaping, and setbacks are provided and no Variances or Minor Exceptions are necessary to accommodate the use or building addition. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 97-47 - JTC ARCHITECTS, INC. April 8, 1998 Page 3 CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily .Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 300 foot radius of the project site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 97-47 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval and issuance of a Negative Declaration. Respectfully submitted, City Planner BB:CG:mlg Attachments: Exhibit 'A" Site Utilization Map Exhibit "B" Site Plan Exhibit"C" - Elevations Exhibit "D" - Grading and Landscape Plans Exhibit "E" - Design Review Committee Action Comments dated March 17, 1998 Exhibit "F" Initial Study Resolution of Approval with Conditions ~,,,_.~,~,.-~,~. Project: ,,/TL)P c/7' Z-.-/L7 CITY OF RZ'"~rt-iP(3'2:-'~f,j~AMONGA Title: .~/T'E PFIC)POSF:D SITE PLAN ~. ~*~o'-o* SOUTH ELEVATION .c~,~ ~.'-r-o' " j l ~ --~~:~Z ' NORTH ELEVATION ~, ~..-~. EAST ELEVATION ~c~.r~ WEST ELEVATION t PR] IV WAY FOOTRILL BOULEVARD ~ $,~ ~,v FOOTtrILL BOULEVARD DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Cecilia Gallardo March 17, 1998 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-47 - JTC ARCHITECTS, INC. - This is a request to expand an existing 13,631 square foot unmanned digital telephone switchins facility by 9,773 square feet on a 44,368 square foot parcel in the General Commercial District located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard west of Haven Avenue - APN: 1077-661-11. Desjan Parametem: The switching facility station is located in the Virginia Dare Winery Center. The applicant is proposing to expand the existing structure by approximately 70 percent. The expansion, which is pdmadly located at the rear (north) side of the building, would result in a building totaling 23,404 square feet. The building addition will have concrete walls of smooth stucco finish painted to match existing building walls. A new concrete block wall proposed along the west property line will have a decorative stucco finish to match Virginia Dare walls. There is reciprocal parking and access for the switching facility station within the Virginia Dare Winery Center. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: None - the proposed expansion matches the existing architecture. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. Provide a decorative metal to the electrical panel cover on the southern portion of the building to match existing building. 2. New view obscuring swing gate at the northwest comer of the building to be decorative metal. Decorative 'metal could match roof screen metal. 3. Replace existing gates with decorative metal, not "chain link with view obscuring panel." Decorative metal could match roof screen metal. 4. Provide additional landscaping to the southern elevation along Foothill Boulevard. 5. Provide vertical evergreen trees, with tight spacing, to soften northern building wall. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval subject to the above revisions prior to Planning Commission. Desiqn Review Committee Action: Members Present: Bill Bethel, Rich Macias, Nancy Fong aft Planner: Cecilia Gallardo The applicant agreed staffs recommendations and the Design Review Committee recommended a,,,,rova,. 6 "_F" City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM gNITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: Conditional Use Permit 97-47 2. Related Files: 3. Description of Project: A request by GTE California, Incorporated to expand an existing communications switching station by 9,773 square feet in the General Commercial district located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard and west of Haven Avenue. APN: 1077-661 - 11 4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: JTC Architects, Inc. 109 N Ivy Avenue Monrovia, CA 91016 5. General Plan Designation: General Commercial 6. Zoning: General Commercial 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Restaurant to the west, two-story office building and restaurant to the east, vacant lot, movie theater and single story office building to the north, vacant land to the south. 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: Cecilia Gallardo (909) 477-2750 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: None )b fl'? a / 7'- " F T ' Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 97-47 Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is "Potentially Significant impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages, ( ) Land Use and Planning ( ) Transportation/Circulation ~ Public Services ( ) Population and Housing ( ) Biological Resources ( ) Utilities and Service Systems (~) Geological Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources (v') Aesthetics (~ Water (~) Hazards ( ) Cultural Resources ( ) Air Quality ( ) Noise ( ) Recreation ( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: (V') The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Signed: Cecilia Gallardo Assistant Planner December 31, 1997 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. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant Mitigation Silgrnn~a~nt Im~ 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 97-47 Page 3 c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~/) d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal.' a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ( ) ( ) ( ) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( ) ( ) ( ) 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ( ) ( ) ) (v') b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) ( ) ) (v') c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) ( ) ) (v') d) Seiche hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) ( ) (V') 0 Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( ) (v') ( ) g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) ( ) (~/) h) Expansive soils? ( ) ( ) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 97-47 GTE California, Incorporated Page 4 i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') .Comments: f) The topography of the site will be altered to accommodate the building. The grading will be supervised by a licensed soils engineer or registered geologist to ensure compliance with Building Code requirements. Potentially Impac~ Less Potentially Unless Than 4. WATER. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? ( ) ( ) (v') ( ) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? ( ) ( ) ( ) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ( ) ( ) (V') 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? ( ) ( ) (v') g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) ( ) (v') h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) ( ) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 9747 GTE California, Incorporated Page R Comments: a) The absorption rate may be altered because of the paving and hardscape proposed. The area in question is existing asphalt paving; therefore, any change in runoff and absorption rate will be minimal. All waters will be conveyed to approved drainage facilities which have been designed to handle the flows. 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposah a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ) ( ) ( ) (v') b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ) ( ) ( ) (t,,") c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ) ( ) ( ) (v') d) Create objectionable odors? ) ( ) ( ) (v') Potentially Unless Than 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) ( ) (v') b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ) ( ) (V') c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ) ( ) (v') d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ) ( ) (v') e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) ) ( ) (v') f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 97-47 Page 6 Potentially Sign~canI Impac~ Less PotentiaEly Unless Than d ct 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v~) b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees, Eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? ( ) ) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., Eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? ) d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? ) (v') e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ) (~/) 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? ( ) ( ) (v') ( ) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 97-47 Page 7 b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? ( ) ( ) ( ) (V) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) e) Increased fire hazard in areas with fiammable brush, grass, or trees? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Comments: a) The project involves the replacement of an existing underground diesel fuel tank with a larger 8,000 to 10,000 gallon unit. Special permits will be required by the Fire District to minimize the potential for accidental explosion or release. The impact is not considered significant. 10. NOISE. Will the proposal result in.' a) Increases n ex sting noise levels9 ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Potenliarly Unless Than 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the prop~sal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered government se~ices in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? ( ) ( ) (V) ( ) b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( c) Schools? ( ) ( ) ( d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) ( ) ( ) (f) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 9747 GTE California, Incorporated Page 8 e) Other governmental services? ( ) ( ) ( (v') Comments: a) The on-site storage of an 8,000 to 10,000 gallon diesel fuel tank will require special permits from the Fire District. The impact is not considered significant. Impa~l Less Potentlally Unless Than 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? ) (¢) b) Communication systems? ) (¢) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ( ) (~) d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ( ) (~) e) Storm wate~ drainage? ( ) ( ) ( ) (¢) O Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) ( ) g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~) Signfficant Impact Less PotentiallyUnless Than 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( ) ( ) (~) ( ) c) Create light or glare? ( ) ( ) ( ) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 97-47 GTE California, Incorporated Page ~ Comments: b) Roof top mechanical equipment will be screened on all sides from public view. The building addition will have concrete walls of a smooth finish and painted to match the existing building walls. Additional landscaping on the north, south and east sides will soften the mass and bulk of the building addition, 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposak a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) ( ) ( (v') b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) ( ) ( (v') c) Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) ( ) ( (v') d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~/) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~/) 15. RECREATION. Would the proposah a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreat onal facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) ( ) ( ) 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 97-47 Page 10 Potentially a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ( ) ( ) b) Short term: Does the project have the potential to achieve shorFterm, 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.) ( ) ( ) ) (v') c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EiR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The following earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply): ( ) General Plan EIR Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 97--47 Page 11 (Certified April 6, 1981), ( ) Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989) APPLICANT CERTIFICATION ~ certify that I am the applicant for the proiect described in this Initial Study, I acknowledge that have read this Initial Study and the proposed mitigation measures, Further, I have revised the project plans or proposals and/or hereby agree to the proposed mitigation measures to avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant environmental effects would OCCUr, Print Name and Title: City of Rancho Cucamonga NEGATIVE DECLARATION The following Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act Section 21091 and 21092 of the Public Resources Code. Project File No.: Conditional Use Permit 97-47 Public Review Period Closes: April 8, 1998 Project Name: Project Applicant: JTC Architects, Inc. Project Location (also see attached map): Located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard west of Haven Avenue - APN: 1077-661-11. Project Description: A request to expand an existing 13,631 square foot unmanned digital telephone switching facility by 9,773 square feet on a 44,368 square foot parcel in the General Commercial District. FINDING This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has conducted an Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment and is proposing this Negative Declaration based upon the following finding: [] The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. [] The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects but: (1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this proposed Negatjve Declaratjon was released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and (2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment. If adopted, the Negative Declaration means that an Environmental impact Report will not be required. Reasons to support this finding are included in the attached Initial Study. The project file and all related documents are available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division at 10500 Civic Center Drive (909) 477-2750 or Fax (909) 477-2847. NOTICE The public is invited to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration during the review period. April 8, 1998 Date of Determination Adopted By RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97-47 FOR THE EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING 13,631 SQUARE FOOT UNMANNED DIGITAL TELEPHONE SWITCHING FACILITY BY 9,773 SQUARE FEET ON A 44,368 SQUARE FOOT PARCEL LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD WEST OF HAVEN AVENUE WITHIN THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF APN: 1077-661-11. A. Recitals. 1. JTC Architects, Inc. has filed an application for the issuance of Conditional Use Permit No. 97-47, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 8th day of April 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamon9a 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 April 8, 1998, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard west of Haven Avenue with a street frontage of 150 feet and lot depth of 300 feet and is presently occupied with an existing concrete building, asphalt parking lot, and full street improvements; and b. The subject property is surrounded by the Virginia Dare V~nery Business Center. The property to the north of the subject site consists of a vacant lot and a movie theater, the property to the south is a vacant lot, the property to the east is developed with 'restaurants and offices, and the property to the west is developed with a restaurant; and c. The application contemplates the construction of a building addition to an existing facility in an architectural style, materials, and colors to match the existing; and d. The use serves the telecommunications need of the community; and e. No unavoidable environmental impacts are associated with the use and the use will not negatively impact other properties or the public right-of-way; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 97-47 - JTC ARCHITECTS, INC. April 8, 1998 Page 2 f. Sufficient parking, landscaping, and setbacks are provided and no Variances or Minor Exceptions are necessary to accommodate the use or associated structure. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. b. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. c. The proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, ' together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows: a. The Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder; said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the application. b. Based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission during the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-1-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Planninq Division 1 ) Provide decorative metal on the electrical panel cover on the southern portion of the building to match existing building. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 9747 - JTC ARCHITECTS, INC. April 8, 1998 Page 3 2) New view obscuring swing gate at the northwest corner of the building to be decorative metal. Decorative metal could match roof screen material. 3) Replace existing gates with decorative metal, not "chain link with view obscuring panel." Decorative metal could match roof screen material. 4) Provide additional landscaping to the southern elevation along Foothill Boulevard. 5) Provide vertical evergreen trees, with tight spacing, to soften northern building wall. 6) No overnight parking of service vehicles on-site. Engineerinq Division 1 ) Provide a contribution in-lieu of construction for the future median on Foothill Boulevard. Said contribution shall be one-half the cost of the median (estimated at $60 per linear foot) times the length of the Foothill Boulevard frontage. Building & Safety Division I Provide draft stops in attics in line with common walls. 2) Exterior walls shall be constructed of the required fire rating in accordance with U.B.C. Table 5-A. 3) Openings in exterior walls shall be protected ~n accordance with U.B.C. Table 5-A. .4) Provide smoke and heat venting in accordance with U.B.C. Section 906. 5) Submit three complete sets of plans including the following: a) Site/Plot Plan. b) Foundation Plan. c) Floor Plan. d) Ceiling and Roof Framing Plan. e) Electrical Plans (two sets detached) including size of main switch, number and size of service entrance conductors, panel schedules, and single line diagrams. O Plumbing and Sewer Plans including isometrics, underground diagram, water and waste diagram, sewer or septic system location, fixture units, gas piping, and heating and air ,~ conditioning. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 97-47 - JTC ARCHITECTS, INC. April 8, 1998 Page 4 7) Submit two sets of structural calculations, energy conservation calculations, and soils report. Architect's/Engineer's stamp and "wet" signature is required prior to plan check submittal. 8) School District fees shall be paid prior to permit issuance. Applicant shall provide copy of receipt to the Building and Safety Division. 9) Separate permits are required for fencing and/or walls. 10) Contractors must show proof of State and City licenses, and Workers' Compensation to City prior to permit issuance. 11 ) Openings are noted, permitted on east wall. Fire District 1 ) A fire sprinkler system will be required. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF APRIL 1998. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chairman A'FI'EST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby 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 8th day of April 1998, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT#: Conditional Use Permit 97-47 SUBJECT: 9,773 square foot expansion of existin9 telephone switchin,q station APPLICANT: JTC Architects, Inc. LOCATION: 10428 Foothill Boulevard ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: General Requiremellts Completion Date 1. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its / /__ agents. officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. B. Time Limits 1.Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, if building permits are not / / __ issued or approved use has not commenced within 24 months from the date of approval. C. Site Development 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include / /__ site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, and the Development Code regulations 2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions __/ / of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Project NO CUP 97-47 Completion Date 3. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and / / State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Division to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. 4. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be / / submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for / / consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or appreved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, / / all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 7. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be / / located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. For single family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults. 8. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, / / including proper illumination. D. Shopping Centers 1. Graffiti shall be removed within 72 hours. E. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans) 1. Plans for any security gates shall be submitted for the City Planner, City Engineer, and Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. For residential development, private gated entrances shall provide adequate turn-around space in front of the gate and a separate visitor lane with call box to avoid cars stacking into public right-of-way. F. Landscaping 1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan. including slope planting and model home landscaping in the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. 2. Existing trees required to be preserved in place shall be protected with a construction barrier in accordance with the Municipal Code Section 19.08.110, and so noted on the grading plans. The location of those trees to be preserved in place and new locations for transplanted trees shall be shown on the detailed landscape plans. The applicant shall follow all of the arborist's recommendations regarding preservation, transplanting, and trimming methods. Project NO CUP 97-47 Comoletion Date >LICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR ~ICE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: G, 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. H. 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. SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: I. General Fire Protection Conditions 1. Fire flow requirement shall be 2,000 gallons per minute. 2. Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided prior to water plan approval. Required hydrants. if any, will be determined by the Fire District. Fire District standards require a 6" riser with a 4" and a 2-1/2" outlet. Substandard hydrants shall be upgraded to meet this standard. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specifications on approved brands and model numbers. 3. An automatic fire extinguishing system(s) will be required as noted below: X Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15. Note: Special sprinkler densities are required for such hazardous operations as woodworking, plastics manufacturing, spray painting, fiammable liquids storage, high piled stock, etc. Contact the Fire Safety Division to determine if sprinkler system is adequate for proposed operations. 4. Sprinkler system monitoring shall be installed and operational immediately upon completion of sprinkler system. 3 Project NO. CUP 97-47 Comp et on Date 5. A fire alarm system(s) shall be required as noted below: X Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15. X California Code Regulations Title 24. 6. 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, 7. Gated/restricted entry(s) require installation of a Knox rapid entry key system. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specific details and ordering information. 8, Plan check fees in the amount of $465.00 shall be paid: X 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. 9. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1994 UBC, UFC UPC, UMC, NEC, and RCFD Standards 22 and 15. Note:A fire sprinkler system will be required if applicant would like to use alternate means please contact John Thomas (909) 477-2710, ext 2202. sc- ~ 4 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: April 8, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Rebecca Van Buren, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-43 - SCHLOSSER FORGE: A request to review a master plan of development for an existing industrial forging operation to allow additions to existing buildings and construction of a new building for a total of 96,800 square feet of new floor area on a 17.12 acre site within the Minimum Impact Heavy industrial District (Subarea 9) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Arrow Route and Rochester Avenue - APN 229-111-17 and 18. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Surrounding Land Use and Zoninq: North Adult sports park, Quakes stadium, General Industrial (Subarea 8) South - Vacant land, Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial (Subarea 9) East Industrial buildings and vacant land, General Industrial (Subarea 8) West Vacant land, Heavy Industrial (Subarea 9) B. General Plan Desiqnations: Project Site - Heavy Industrial North - General Industrial, Park South - Heavy Industrial East General Industrial West Heavy Industrial C. Site Characteristics: The Schlosser Forge site presently contains 7 buildings totaling 236,550 square feet on 14 acres, including administration, machine shop, manufacturing, heat treatment, warehouse, and forging operations. in the southwest corner of the site, there is an additional 3 acres which is undeveloped. The undeveloped acreage was used as a fill site for prior grading activities and does not contain any significant vegetation. The site slopes approximately 2 percent from north to south. The parcel to the south is vacant, and is also owned by Schlosser Forge. Y ITEM C PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 97-43 - SCHLOSSER FORGE April 8, 1998 Page 2 D. Parkinq Calculations: Phase I Construction: Number of Number of Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces of Use Footaqe Ratio Required Provided Building I - Manufacturing 38,810 1/500 74 Building 2 - Manufacturing 71,440 1/500 143 Building 3 - Warehouse 48,000 1/1000 (first 20,000 sq.ft.) 32 1/2000 (second 20,000 sq.ft.) 1/4000 (thereafter) Building 4 - Manufacturing 52,200 1/500 104 Building 5 - Manufacturing 24,000 1/500 48 Building 6 - Manufacturing 18,200 1/500 36 Building 7 - Warehouse 25,200 1/4000 (see Bldg. 3) 6 Administration 16,500 1/250 66 Total 509 Reduction allowed by prior variances (326) Required parking for Phase I 183 304 NOTE: An explanation of parking is included in the Analysis section. ANALYSIS: A. Backqround: Schlosser Forge entered into a Development Agreement with the City in 1987 which essentially "locks in" the development standards which were in effect at the time (August 1981 Industrial Area Specific Plan). The master plan will be evaluated for consistency with the recorded development agreement, which differs somewhat from current standards and policies. Most notably, the forge is allowed consideration of metal buildings. B. General: The present Schlosser Forge facility contains 7 buildings totaling 236,550 square feet on 14 acres. The master plan involves a request to add to 4 of the existing buildings and construct a new building for shipping and receiving in the undeveloped 3+ acres in the southeast corner of the .site. Phase I includes: · Construction of the new 25,200 square foot shipping and receiving building (Building No. 7) · 26,400 Square foot addition to the warehouse (Building No. 3) · 4,200 Square foot addition to the manufacturing building (Building No. 6) Phases II and I11 include a total of 41,000 square foot additions to the existing manufacturing buildings (Buildings No. 4 and 5). The proposed buildings are to be coordinated with the existing facility using the same material (prefabricated metal) and colors (gold and brown). PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 97--43 - SCHLOSSER FORGE April 8, 1998 Page 3 The proposed additions are interior to the site and replicate the existing metal buildings. The new shipping and receiving building, also a metal building, completes this architectural pattern in the remaining undeveloped "pocket" of the forge site (Exhibits "A" and "B"). C. Parkinq: Parking for this project is based upon variances granted in 1987, 1991, and most recently in 1993 (Variance 93-02). In sum, the variances allow for a reduction of 326 parking spaces based upon their largest employee shift. The variance also waives landscape improvements within the interior parking lot. For Phase I, the applicant is providing ample parking for the use. In Phases II and III, an additional 41,000 square feet of manufacturing area will be added to Buildings 4, 5, and 6, some of which displaces parking striped in the first phase. The Phase II and III additions require 82 spaces, which will bring the required site total to 265. In order to comply with the Industrial Area Specific Plan and prior variances, the forge will have to add 35 more spaces than what is shown on the site plan. The site has various opportunities to provide more parking, particularly in the southeast corner and between buildings. Material presently stored outdoors will be moved inside building additions, which opens up potential parking areas. The site plan has the capacity to accommodate parking for the project build-out, yet the forge needs to coordinate its operational needs and construction efforts to ensure the proper number of parking stalls are provided during each phase. The conditions of approval include a requirement for a detailed site plan indicating parking compliance prior to issuance of permits for each phase of construction. D. Traffic and Circulation: The master plan includes diverting the forge's truck traffic from Arrow Route to Rochester Avenue. This involves constructing a drive approach on the Rochester frontage, south of the proposed shipping and receiving building. Unfortunately, there is an Edison substation in the area which is most logical for the drive approach. In order to provide a safe distance from the intersection and to avoid conflicting with approaches on the opposite site of Rochester Avenue, Schlosser Forge is proposing to locate the drive approach on its vacant parcel south of the forge site. The conditions of approval reflect the required easements and street improvements to implement this "offsite" drive approach. E Design Review Committee: The Design Review Committee reviewed the project on March 17, 1998. The Committee (Bethel, Macias, Fong) recommended approval of the project subject to a condition regarding fencing along the southern project boundary, which is contained in their attached action comments (Exhibit D). F. Technical Review Committee: On March 18, 1998, the Technical Review Committee reviewed the project and determined that, with the recommended conditions of Approval, the project is consistent with all applicable standards and ordinances. The Committee noted that Building No. 3 may be "oversized" based upon its particular construction status unless sprinklered. The forge may elect to reduce the square footage of the proposed addition to this building to address construction issues. G. Environmental Assessment: Upon review of Part I of the Initial Study and completion of Part II of the Environmental Checklist, staff has found no significant environmental impacts related to the development of this project. CS PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 97-43 - SCHLOSSER FORGE April 8, 1998 Page 4 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve Development Review 9743 through adoption of the attached: Resolution of Approval with conditions and issuance of a Negative Declaration. Brad Buffer City Planner BB:RV:gs Attachments: Exhibit "A" Location Map Exhibit "B" Site Plan Exhibit "C" Building Elevations Exhibit "D" Design Review Committee Action Comments dated March 17, 1998 Exhibit "E" Initial Study Part II Resolution of Approval with Conditions GUY .... ARROW ROUTE " \ SATE I (9ATE 2 , OFFICE BLDG #6 BLDG #5 I EX I ST [ NG BLDG -..J DEVELOPMENT BLDG I PROPOSED (J~ BLDG DEVELOPMENT ~1 SITE q BLDG #3 ~ ED ] SON SUB-STAT ION SUPPORT [ NO POLE + SCI}H]ILOSSlI:~ R I OHT-OF-WAY u._ess OTHERWISE SPECIFIED DI~ENSI(~'~S ARE IN INCHES PROPERTY LINE ....... 1171[ ARROW ROUTE PH. 714-98'7-4760 65KV, ELECTRICAL (~OKV ~/),U. CH. SURF. ROUek'~ESS RANCHO CUCAMONSA, CA. c) 1730 OWN. M c,,<. ~ LOCAT I ON OF EX I ST I NG EN0 o A- 11711 -061A 0 OPEC. ~ Existing Building No. 5 -- Rochester frontage Proposed Building No. 7 Rochester frontage Elevations of Proposec Building No. 7 e I 7 I 6 I 5 I 4 I 3 2 .__._-'X"".'.TZ./"r.':"..r',":":-::: I DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:40 p.m. Rebecca Van Buren March 17, 1998 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT,REVIEW 97-43 - SCHLOSSER FORGF' A request to review a master plan of development for an existing industrial forging operation to allow additions to existing buildings and construction of a new building for a total of 326,840 square feet of floor area on a 17.12 acre site within the Minimum Impact Heavy industrial District (Subarea 9) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Arrow Route and Rochester Avenue - APN: 229-111-17 & 18. Backqround: Schlosser Forge entered into a Development Agreement with the City in 1987, which essentially "locks in" the development standards which were in effect at the time (August 1981 Industrial Area Specific Plan). This application was evaluated for consistency with the recorded development agreement, which differs somewhat from current standards and policies. Most notably, the forge is allowed consideration of metal buildings. Desiqn Parameters: The present Schlosser Forge facility contains seven buildings totaling 195,840 square feet on 14 acres, including administration, machine shop, manufacturing, heat treatment, warehouse and forging operations. The master plan involves a request to add to four of the existing buildings and construct a new building for shipping and receiving in the undeveloped 3+ acres in the southeast corner of the site. Phase l includes: 1. Construction of the new 25,200 square foot shipping and receiving building (Building No.7). 2. 26,400 square foot addition to the warehouse (Building No.3). 3. 4,200 square foot addition to the manufacturing building (Building No.6). Phases II and Ill include a total of 41,000 square foot additions to the existing manufacturing buildings (Buildings Nos.4 and 5). The parcel to the south is vacant, also owned by Schlosser Forge. Parcels north and east are zoned Industrial Alea Specific Plan Subarea 8 (General Industrial) and are developed accordingly. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: 1. The proposed buildings are to be coordinated with the existing facility using the same material (prefabricated metal) and colors (gold and brown). The proposed additions are interior to the site and should match, as close as possible, exterior colors and materials of the existing buildings. 2. The new shipping and receiving building, also a metal building, should have enhanced architectural treatment facing Rochester Avenue. The building includes 6-foot high concrete tilt- up panels on its lower portion; however, some vertical elements may be beneficial to "break up" the monotony. DRC COMMENTS DR 97-43 - SCHLOSSER FORGE March 17, 1998 Page 2 3. Provide a minimum of 1 tree per 30 linear feet of building wall exposed to public view and per 30 linear feet of property line per the Industrial Area Specific Plan for the undeveloped portion along Rochester Avenue within the boundaries of this master plan. Secondan/issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. Chain link fencing is existing on the south property line. Review the appropriateness and adequacy of fencing, particularly where visible from Rochester Avenue. 2. Provide landscaped, meandering berms along Rochester Avenue. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval subject to the above revisions prior to Planning Commission. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Bill Bethel, Rich Macias, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Rebecca Van Buren The Design Review Committee recommended approval with the following approval condition: The fence material along the southern boundary of the site shall be wrought iron from the Rochester Avenue right-of-way westerly to the existing retaining wall (near Building No. 3). From this point westward, the existing chain link fence shall be replaced with wrought iron or screened with landscape. Fencing and/or landscaping shall be reviewed by the City Planner and installed prior to final of permits for Phase One construction. City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONNIEN'FAL CHECKLIST FORM iNITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: Development Review 97-43 2. Related Files: Development Review 90-21, Development Review 87-09, and Variance 87-4 3. Description of Project: A request to review a master plan of development for an existing industrial forging operation to allow additions to existing buildings and construction of a new building for a total of 96,800 square feet of new floor area on a 17.12 acre site within the Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial District (Subarea 9) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Arrow Route and Rochester Avenue - APN 229-111-17 and 18 4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Schlosser Forge, Attention Mike Jager 11711 Arrow Route Cucamonga, CA 91730-4998 5. General Plan Designation: Heavy Industrial 6. Zoning: Heavy Industrial Minimum Impact (Subarea 9 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan) 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The Schlosser Forge site' presently contains 7 buildings totaling 236,550 square feet on 14 acres. including administration, machine shop, manufacturing, heat treatment, warehouse and forging operations. In the southwest corner of the site, there is an additional 3 acres which is undeveloped. The undeveloped acreage was used as a fill site for prior grading activities and does not contain any significant vegetation. The site slopes approximately 2 percent from north to south. To the north is the adult spor~s park, to the east and west are existing industrial developments, and to the south is vacant properties (also Owned by the applicant). 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, Associate Planner (909) 477-2750 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: Cucamonga County Water District Rancho Cucamonga Fire EXHIBIT "E" Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 97-43 - Schlosser Forge Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentiafiy affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages, (X) Land Use and Harming (X) Transportation/Circulation (X) Public Services ( ) Population and Housing ( ) Biological Resources ( ) Utilities and Service Systems (×) Geological Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources ( ) 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. Signed: , Rebecca Van Buren Associate Planner March 16, 1998 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 97-43 - Schlosser Forge Page 3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an explanation is required for all "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact" answers, including a discussion of ways to mitigate the significant effects identified. 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ( ( ) ( ) (X) d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community?. ( ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: a) The project will be evaluated in terms of its compliance with a development agreement for the subject property reviewed and approved by the City, and recorded in the San Bernardino County Official Records as Instrument No. 87-044263 on February 10, 1987. The provisions of the development agreement differ somewfiat from present zoning standards in the Industrial Area Specific Plan (e.g., the Development Agreement allows metal buildings). These impacts are not considered to be significant. 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. 2Would 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 housingjespecially affordable housing? ! ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 97-43 - Schlosser Forge Page 4 Potentially 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ( ) ( ) ) (X) b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) ( ) ) (X) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) ( ) ) (X) d) Seiche hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) ~ 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) pomments: h) The General Plan indicated the Tujunga-Delhi soil association for the site which may have soil bearing capacities that could limit some development. The General Ran states "Structures proposed on this soil type should be permitted only after a site specific investigation has been performed that indicated 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 to be significant. 4. WATER. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) ( ) ( (X) c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? ( ) ( ( (X) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 9743 - Schlosser Forge Page 5 e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) g) Altered direction or rate Of flow of groundwater? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposah a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATiON. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or tra~c congestion? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp cu~es or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?' ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 97-43 - Schlosser Forge Page 6 d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: b) The master plan includes diverting the forge's truck traffic from Arrow Route to Rochester Avenue. This involves constructing a drive approach on the Rochester frontage. However, there is an Edison substation in the area which is most logical for the drive approach location. In order to provide a safe distance from the intersection and to avoid conflicting with approaches on the opposite site of Rochester Avenue, the applicant is proposing to locate the drive approach on its vacant parcel south of the forge site. The impact is not considered to be significant. The conditions of approval reflect the required easements and street improvements to implement this "offsite" drive approach. Impacl Less Potent~arly Unless Than 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees, eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 9743 - Schlosser Forge Page 7 Comments: a) The subject site is outside of the projec! areas identified on the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service Maps as potential soil classifications which may support the endangered Delhi Sands flower-loving fiy~ Impac~ Less Potentially Unless Than 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards?: ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Increased fire hazard in areas with fiammable brush, grass, or trees? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: a) The subject site is a heavy: industrial facility where oil and other chemicals may be used. Use of hazardous substances requires special permits from the Fire Prevention District to ensure safe handling, storage, and operation. The impact is not considered to be significant. initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 97-43 - Schlosser Forge 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) q Potentialb/ q SignScant Impact Less PotentiarlyUnless Than ,.......d ,.,o...,,o. s°.,=.., 4: d ct 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) The subject site is a heavy industrial facility where oil and other chemicals may be used. Use of hazardous substances requires special permits from the Fire Prevention District to ensure safe handling, storage, and operation. The impact is not considered to be significant. 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? ( ( ) ( ) (X) b) Communication systems? ( ( ) ( ) (X) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Storm water drainage? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 97-43 - Schlosser Forge Page Signr~cant Impact Less PotentiallyUnless Than f') Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) I ~ I Potentially Signr~cant Impact Less Potentially Unless Than 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposah a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? (X) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? (X) c) Create light or glare? (X) 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposah a) Disturb paleontological resources? ) ) ( ) (X) b) Disturb archaeological resources? ) ) ( ) (X) c) Affect historical or cultural resources? ) ) ( ) (X) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( ) ) ( ) (X) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 15. RECREATION. Would the propesah a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other reoreational facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 97-43 - Schlosser Forge Page 10 18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Short term: Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time. Long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 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 15083(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 jn the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Planning Division offices 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply): (X) General Plan EIR (Certified April 6, 1981) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 97-43 - Schlosser Forge Page 11 f ~ (X) Master Environmental Assessment or the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989) (X) Industrial Area Specific Plan EIR (Certified September 19. 1981) (X) DR 93-04 and Variance 93-02 Negative Declaration (Adopted April 14, 1993) (X)DR 87-09 and Variance :87-4 Negative Declaration (Adopted May 27, 1987) (X) Development Agreement (Recorded in Official Re~ords February 10, 1987, instrument no. 87-044263) 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 2f091 and 2~092 of the Public Resources Code. Project File No.: Development Review 97-43 Public Review Period Closes: April 8, 1998 Project Name: Project Applicant: Schlosser Forge, Attn: Mike Jager Project Location (also see attached map): Located at the southwest corner of Arrow Route and Rochester Avenue - APN: 229-111-17 and 18. Project Description: A request to review a master plan of development for an existing industrial forging operation to allow additions to existing buildings and construction of a new building for a total of 96,800 square feet of new floor area on a 17.12 acre site within the Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial District (Subarea 9) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. FINDING This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has conducted an Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment and is proposing this Negative Declaration based upon the following finding: [] The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. [] The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects but: (1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this proposed Negative Declaration was released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and (2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment. If adopted, the Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. Reasons to support this finding are included in the attached Initial Study. The project file and all related documents are available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division at 10500 Civic Center Drive (909) 477-2750 or Fax {909) 477-2847. NOTICE The public is invited to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration during the review period. April 8, 1998 Date of Determination Adopted By RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 97-43, A REQUEST TO REVIEW A MASTER PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT FOR AN EXISTING INDUSTRIAL FORGING OPERATION TO ALLOW ADDITIONS TO EXISTING BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW BUILDING FOR A TOTAL OF 96,800 SQUARE FEET OF NEW FLOOR AREA ON A 17.12 ACRE SITE WITHIN THE MINIMUM IMPACT HEAVY INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (SUBAREA 9) OF THE INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF ARROW ROUTE AND ROCHESTER AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 229-111-17 AND 18. A. Recitals. 1. Schlosser Forge Company has filed an application for the approval of Development Review 97-43, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafier in this Resolution, the subject Development Review request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 8th day of Apdl 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, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced meeting on Apdl 8, 1998, including wdtten and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located at the southwest corner of Arrow Route and Rochester Avenue with an Arrow Route frontage of approximately 1,216+ feet and lot depth of approximately 600 feet, with full street improvements on Arrow Route. The site is partially developed with a steel forge manufacturing operation consisting of various metal buildings, a two-story office building, and associated parking. b. The property to the north of the subject site is developed with industrial buildings and an adult sporLs park, the property to the south is vacant land, the properly to the east is developed with industrial buildings and vacant land, and the property to the west is developed with industrial buildings; c. The application contemplates the construction of 96,800 square feet of new industrial floor area on a 17.12 acre site. The proposed structure is identical in architectural style, materials, and color to recently constructed phases within the site. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 97-43 - SCHLOSSER FORGE April 8, 1998 Page 2 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, c. The proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code, the Industrial Area Specific Plan, and the Development Agreement for the subject property recorded in the San Bernardino County Official Records as Instrument No. 87°044263; and, d. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4. Based upon the facts and ihformation contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows: a. The Negative Declar;~tion 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 re reviewed and considered the information containe,d in said Negative Declaration with regard to the application. b. Based upon the cha0ges and alteration which have been incorporated into the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5c of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows:' In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon substantial evidence 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 forth in Section 753.5(c-1-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 5. Based upon the findings an'd conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject tO each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Planninc~ Division 1 ) Prior to issuance of building permits for each phase of construction, the developer shall submit .a detailed site plan indicating on-site parking for the review and approval of the City Planner. Parking shall be in compliance with parking standards in the industrial Area Specific Plan and the previously approved Variance 93-02. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO, DR 97-43 - SCHLOSSER FORGE April 8, 1998 Page 3 2) The fence material along the southern boundary of the site shall be wrought iron from the Rochester right of way to the existing retaining wall (near Building No. 3). From this point westward, the existing chain link shall be replaced with wrought iron or screened with landscape. Fencing shall be shown on construction drawings submitted for permits and shall be installed prior to final of permits for Phase I construction. Engineerina Division 1 ) Provide a right turn lane, per Standard Drawing 119, for the proposed ddve approach located south of the existing south proper~y line, on the adjacent vacant parcel also owned by Schlosser Forge. To accommodate the new approach, the applicant shall: a) Record a reciprocal access easement on the property to the south. b) Relocate the existing street light and provide an 8-foot mast arm+ c) Provide a pavement transition for southbound traffic south of the proposed ddve approach to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. d) The intedm ddve approach may be required to be relocated to an ultimate location in conformance with City policies upon development of the property to the south. 2) Revise Drawing 1170 to add the new drive approach and right turn lane, document existing street trees as well as any new ones, and dash in the existing driveways on the east side of Rochester Avenue (see Drawing 1234). 3) Dedicate an additional 4 feet of right-of-way along Rochester Avenue north of the existing drive approach, for a future bus bay with curb adjacent sidewalk south of Arrow Route, and along the right turn lane for the proposed drive approach. 4) Rochester Avenue shall be restriped for four through lanes and the existing dual left turn lanes at the Arrow Route intersection shall be extended to a total length of 400 feet. Revise or replace sheet 44 of Drawing 1431-S. 5) Post R26(S) "no stopping any time" signs along both project frontages. 6) Street improvement plans, prepared by a registered Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to, and approved by, the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public improvements, prior to the issuance of building permits. Prior to any work being performed in public rights-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's office. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 97-43 - SCHLOSSER FORGE April 8, 1998 Page 4 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF ~,PRIL 1998. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CiTY OF RANCHO, CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 8th day of April 1998, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT #: Development Review 97-43 SUBJECT: Master Plan for 96,800 Square Foot New Industrial Floor Area APPLICANT: Schlosser Forge LOCATION: 11711 Arrow Route, Rancho Cucamonga ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. General Requirements completion Date 1. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. 2. Prior to recordation of the final map or prior to the issuance of building permits when no map is involved, wdtten certification from the affected water district that adequate sewer and water facilities are or will be available to serve the proposed project shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development. Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. B. Time Limits 1. Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, if building permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 24 months from the date of approval. C, Site Development 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, Development Code regulations, the Industrial Area Specific Plan, and the Development Agreement recorded for the site. Project NO. DR 97-43 Completion Date 2. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, ;and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a: custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 3. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with ali sections of the Development Code, alp other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable CommUnity or Specific Plans in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 4. 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 Pladner review and approval pror to the issuance of building permits. 5. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. For single , family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults. 6. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall be submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and approved prior to the issuance of building permits. D. Building Design 1. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Details shall be included in building plans. 2. For commercial and industrial projects, paint roll-up doors and service doors to match main building colors. E. 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. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances, and exits shall be striped per City standards. 3. Plans for any security gates shall be submitted for the City Planner, City Engineer, and Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. For residential development, private gated entrances shall provide adequate turn-around space in front of the gate and a separate vis tor ane with call box to avoid cars stacking into public right-of-way. 4. 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. Project No, DR 97-43 Compietion Date 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. 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. 3. All private slopes of 5 feet or less in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope, but less than 2:1 __/__ __ slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for erosion control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. 4. For multi-family residential and non-residential development, property owners are responsible for __/__ __ the continual maintenance of all landscaped areas on-site, as well as contiguous planted areas within the public right-of-way. All landscaped areas shall be kept free from weeds and debris and maintained in healthy and thriving condition, and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing, and trimming. Any damaged, dead, diseased, or decaying plant material shall be replaced within 30 days from the date of damage. 5. 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. 6. All wails shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division. 7. Landscaping and irrigation shah be designed to conserve water through the principles of __/__ Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: G. Site Development 1. The applicant shah 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 shal) be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation and / prior to issuance of building permits. SC - 3/98 3 Project No. DR 97-43 CompJetioni~Date H. Existing Structures 1. Underground on-site utilities are to be located and shown 6n building plans submitted for building / permit application. I. 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. Reciprocal access easements shall be provided ensuring access to all parcels by CC&R's or by / deeds and shall be recorded concurrently with the map or prior to the issuance of building permits, where no map is involved. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, {909) 477-2730, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: K. General Fire Protection Conditions 1. Mello Roos Community Facilities District requirements sha,II 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 hydrant~ shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by the fire department personnel after construction and prior to occupancy. 3. Fire hydrants are required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed and operable prior to delivery of any combustible building materials on site (i.e., lumber, roofing materials, etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire department personnel. 4. Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided prior to water plan approval. Required hydrants, if any, will be determined by the Fire District, Fire District standards require a 6" 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. Project No. DR97~3 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 UBC Note: Special sprinkler densities are required for such hazardous operations as woodworking. plastics manufacturing, spray painting, flammable liquids storage, high piled stock, etc, Contact the Fire Safety Division to determine if sprinkler system is adequate for proposed operations. 7. Sprinkler system monitoring shah be installed and operational immediately upon completion of sprinkler system. 8. A fire alarm system(s) shall be required as noted below: Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15. 9. Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District's fire lane standards, as noted: X All roadways per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 22. X Other: Please provide Fire Department access pattern on plan in accordance with Ordinance No. 22 . 10. Gated/restricted entn/(s) require installation of a Knox rapid entry key system, Contact the Fire Safety Division for specific details and ordering information. 11. Plan check fees in the amount of $ 0 have been paid. An additional $ 677 shall be paid: X P~'ior 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. 12. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1994 UBC, UFC, UPC, UMC, NEC, and RCFD Standards 22 and 15 APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: L. Security Lighting 1. All parking, common, and storage areas shall have minimum maintained 1-foot candle power. These areas should be lighted from sunset to sunrise and on photo sensored cell. 2. All buildings shall have minimal security lighting to eliminate dark areas around the buildings, with direct lighting to be provided by all entryways. Lighting shall be consistent around the entire development, sc- 3~98 5 Project NO, DR 9743 Completion Date 3, Lighting in exterior areas shall be jn vandal-resistant fixtures. M. 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 doul~le cylinder dead bolt shall be used. 2. All roof openings giving access to the building shall be secured with either iron bars, metal gates, or alarmed. N. Security Fencing 1. VVhen utilizing security gates, a Knox box sub-master system security device shall be used since fire and law enforcement can access these devices. O. Building Numbering 1. Developer shall paint roof top numbers 6n 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 loan at the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: April 8, 1998 · TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer BY: Maria E. Perez, Assistant Engineer SUBJECT: A REQUEST TO REMOVE A TREE CONDITIONED FOR PRESERVATION AS A PART OF TRACT 15531, AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF NINETEENTH STREET AND MAYBERRY AVENUE - APN: 1076-141-01. RELATED FILE: TRACT 15531 AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT 97-20. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: On April 14, 1993, the Planning Commission passed Resolution Number 93-25, approving Tentative Tract 15531. Planning Condition #6b of the resolution, requires preservation in place of a Deodar Cedar tree located at the northeast comer of Mayberry, Avenue and Nineteenth Street, per the recommendations of the consulting arborist's study. The arborists report describes conditions which would allow the tree to survive construction, including protecting the tree's root zone to 20' outside of the drip line (canopy edge). Protection measures described as essential for the tree's survival include no trenching and no cut or fill in excess of 6" within this sensitive area. There are significant public improvements proposed and a perimeter walI within the drip line of the tree. Staff is pursuing a solution that will reduce the amount of construction within the root zone. More details will be provided with the oral presentation. Respectfully submitted, Dan Jame~/~'rv"~''~ rn~ Senior Civil Engineer ITEM D Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Vicinity Map Exhibit "B" - Map of lot 30 Copy of Portions of Arborists Report Page 4 of Planning Commission Resolutior/No. 93-25 HIGHLAND AVENUE FINCH STREET STREET ~ ~. ¢n ~ RING AVENUE 19 TH S TRE~ CiTY OF ITEM: W~LK/E~ CITY OF ITEM: RANCH0 GUCAMON6A TITLE: SITE PLAN, LOT 30 ENI~INEERIN(] DIVISION EXHIBIT: 'B" TREE REPORT FOR TRACT NO. M.B. 147/19-23 ARBORIST REPORT Prepared for City of Rancho Cucamonga prepared by Alden Kelley TREE CHARACTERISTICS; ASSESSMENT OF TREE CONDITION The 20 trees on the site which quailified as heritage trees qlobulus (Blue gum), and one Fraxinu~ uhdei (Shamel ash). The individual specimens are described below, with identifying numbers corresponding to those on the accompanying tree location map. Tree values were Calculated by the Replacement Cost Method (Appendix 1). Deodar cedar ( Cedrus deodara ) [ Photo 1 ] . Trunk circumference 83.6 inches. Trunk diameter 26.1 x 27.1 inches at 4.5 feet above ground level; mean caliper 26.6 inches. Height and spread estimated as 65 and 45 feet, re'spectively. Condition Rating !65%, i .e. , mid-average in health, structural soundness and vigor. No significant disease or insect infestation detected. Hazard status (b~:sed on 0 -! 3 for hazard potential, 0-3 for proportion of tree affected, and 0 - 3 for target in event of tree failure): 3. That is, the target area -- a' house, a drive, a public walkway and a major street --: had a rating of 3, but no hazard conditions were detected, so the other hazard factors were rated as zero. Barring Unforeseen acts of nature or undetected root deterioration (unlikely in view of crown appearance) , the hazard potential was judged to be negligible. The tree was estimated to be 55 to 75 years of age, with a remaining . life expectancy in excess of 30 years ( in the absence of man-made or natural. conditions of exceptionally a'dverse kind or degree). - 4 The tree is in an irrigated lawn area. If there is no construction-related invasion of the root zone within 20 feet of canopy edge (drip line), or disposal of phytotoxic chemical wastes within 100 feet of tree base, the tree should be able to tolerate construction activities in the vicinity. The following protective measures are considered essential to effective preservation of the tree: 1. No trenching; no grade cut or fill greater than a 6-inch grade change; no parking or traffic (pedestrian or vehicular); and no stockpiling of construction materials, within 20 feet of canopy edge. 2. No disposal of paints, concrete slurries.or other construction wastes; and no washing of vehicles or construction equipment, within 100 feet of tree base. 3. Installation of a gated fence, 5 - 6 feet in height, of industrial woven wire, at 10 feet or more beyond canopy edge, in the event that construction activities would bring work crews or equipment to the vicinity of the tree. 4. Construction-generated dust is to be washed off the tree on a monthly basis throughout the construction period. 5. Tree condition .is to be monitored during the construction period, with a report to be submitted to city representatives and the primary contractor within ten days of each inspection, the report to include a description of the tree's condition (noting an~ adverse conditions of structure, physiological/environmental impact, insects or diseas]es) with specific recommendations and~ time schedules for appropriate intervention or corrective measures. The monitoring should be performed monthly in the event of construction activities within 50 feet of the canopy edge; and quarterly if construction activities are more than 50 feet from canopy edge. The specimen has a real property value, based on projected costs of replacement in kind (viz. , a transplant of the same species, same size, and equal or greater p~st-transplant condition rating) , of $47,500. Its assessed value, condition, economic and environmental enhancement, expected longevity, and esthetic benefit, all support ' the strong recommendation that the tree be protected and retained in its present location. Shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei) [Photo 2]. Trun :umference 66.0 inches at 4.5 feet above level Trunk diameter 22.9 x 19.3 ; mean caliper inches- Height and s[ estimated as 36 and 30 espectively- Condition rating 20~ , extremely poor condition. The tree was y bed to a height of about 32 feet: nch system stubbed back without regaz appropriate crown ~on techniques, ,y diminishing condition rating 50% or more. The typical aftermath of such mutilative ning of Shamel ash is :the onset and rapid proximal tess of decay from the stubbed branch ends. C~ (Left) Tree no. 1, Deodar cedar (Cedrus deodora) PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 93-25 TT 15531 - HIX DEVELOPMENT April 14, 1993 Page 4 6) Tree Removal Permit No. 92-20 shall be approved subject to the folloWIng conditions in accordance with the . Tree Preservation Ordinance: a) Trees 2-5, 7, 8, 10~12, and 14-16 may be removed as required] to construct public street improvements per the final grading plan and final map. Replacement planting of 15~gallon size .Eucalyptus maculata (Spotted Gum) spaced at a minimum of 8 feet on center, ~roperly staked and irrigated, shall be provided along the east side of the property, outside of any easements. Replacement planting shall be deferred until development of the houses to ensure proper maintenance. b) Trees No. 1, 6, 9, 13, and 17-20 shall be preserved in place per the recommendations of the]consulting arborist's study. All protection and pruning measures specified by the ~arborist, including fences around the perimeter drip lines, shall be administered prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits. The Planning Division shall conduct an inspection to verify if these measures are adequately implemented prior to commencing grading on the property. c) Any wogd infested with longhorn borer beetles shall be chipped, removed, and buried at a dump site or tarped to the ground :for a minimum of six months, sealing' the tarp eages with soil, to prevent emerging borer beetles from reinresting other treas or wood. d) Approval of Tree Removal Permit No. 92-20 shall be valid for a. period of 90 days, subject~to extension. The 90 days shall start ~from the date of final map recordation or grading permits, whichever comes first. e) The Planning Division~ (and if applicable Engineering Division) shall be contacted within 30 days of the planting of the trees to conduct an inspection.