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.