The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1998/04/22 - Agenda PacketCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA WEDNESDAY APRIL 22, 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 April 8, 1998 iV. CONSENT CALENDAR The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non- controversial. They will be acted on by the Commission at one time without discussion. If anyone has concern over any item, it should be removed for discussion. A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-41 - MASTER DEVELOPMENT -A request to construct 8 industrial buildings ranging in size from 10,924 square feet to 28,129 square feet for an total of 129,533 square feet on 6.9 acres of land within Subarea 8 (General Industrial) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the northwest corner of Jersey Boulevard and White Oak Avenue - APN: 209-144-07. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Related File: Parcel Map 15155. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS The following items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice their opinion of the related project. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address the Commission by stating your name and address. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. Please sign in after speaking. B. 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 April 8, 1998) C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USF PERMIT 97-36 - CHEVRON - A request to construct a 2,930 square foot gas station/mini-market facility on a 1.06 acre parcel within the Foothill Marketplace Shopping Center, within the Regional Related Commercial District (Subarea 4 ) of the Focthil} Boulevard Specific Plan, located on the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Marketplace Drive - APN: 229-031-34. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USF PERMIT 97-41 - DELRAHIM - A request to construct a 4,162 square foot service station, an 1,840 square foot auto lube facility, and a 1.400 square foot self serve drive thru car wash on 1.8 acres of land in the General Commercial District, located at the southwest corner of · Arrow Highway and Hermosa Avenue - APN: 209-041-09, 22, and 31. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. VI. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS E. USE DETERMINATION 98-01 - OPPORTUNITY SALES, INC. - A request to determine that a product storage warehouse (grocery, health, and beauty items) is similar to other supply/storage uses and is a permitted use within the General Commercial zone. VII. PUBLIC COMMENTS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Commission. Items to be discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda. VIII. COMMISSION BUSINESS Page 2 ; .,, : IX. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an *t 'I:00 p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission. THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL ADJOURN TO A WORKSHOP IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING IN THE RAINS ROOM REGARDING PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW 98-02 - HMC GROUP AND PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW 98-03 - MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL. THAT WORKSHOP WILL ADJOURN TO 6:30 P.M. ON APRIL 29, 1998, IN THE TRI-COMMUNITIES ROOM FOR A JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING REGARDING A DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL FOR VICTORIA ARBORS - AMERICAN BEAUTY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY. I, Gaff 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 Apd/16, ~998, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54964,2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. / Page 3 ViCiNITY MAP CITY HALL CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ' STAFF REPORT DATE: April 22, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Brent Le Count, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-41 - MASTER DEVELOPMENT - A request to construct 8 industrial buildings ranging in size from 10,924 square feet to 28,129 square feet for an total of 129,533 square feet on 6.9 acres of land within Subarea 8 (General Industrial) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the northwest corner of Jersey Boulevard and White Oak Avenue- APN: 209-144-07. Related File: Parcel Map 15155. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Surroundinq Land Use and Zonincl: North - Vacant land; Subarea 8 (General Industrial) industrial Area Specific Plan South - Vacant land and industrial buildings; Subarea 9 (Minimum impact Heavy Industrial) Industrial Area Specific Plan East Amcast industrial building; Subarea 9 (Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial) Industrial Area Specific Plan West Industrial Buildings; Subarea 8 iGeneral Industrial) Industrial Area Specific Plan B. General Plan Desiqnations: Project Site - General Industrial North General Industrial South - Heavy Industrial East Heavy Industrial West General Industrial C. Site Characteristics: The 6.9 acre vacant site lies to the south and east of the Rancho Cucamonga Business Park which is a large master planned group of industrial buildings similar to the type proposed. The site slopes gently from north to south at approximately 2.5 to 3 percent. ITEM A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 9741 - MASTER DEVELOPMENT April 22, 1998 Page 2 D. Parkinq Calculations: Number of Number of Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces of Use Footaqe Ratio Required Provided Office 12,950 1/250 52 52 Manufacturing 44,376 1/500 89 89 Warehousing 72,207 1/1000 72 72 TOTAL 129,533 213 213 ANALYSIS: A. General: This review is for environmental clearance only. The proposal includes master planning of the vacant parcel to the north consistent with the Rancho Cucamonga Business Park Master Plan. Many of the buildings are proposed to abut one another (zero side/rear setbacks), which is permitted subject to master plan approval by the Planning Commission. The proposed buildings are speculative with a mix of warehousing (56 percent), manufacturing (34 percent), and office area (10 percent) anticipated. Following issuance of a Negative Declaration, the City Planner will conditionally approve the project. B. Desiqn Review Committee: The Committee (Bethel, Macias, Fong) reviewed the project on March 3, 1998, and requested that it be revised and brought back for further review. The Committee (Bethel Macias, Fong) reviewed the revised design on March 31, 1998, and recommended approval subject to conditions (see Exhibit "G"). C. Technical Review Committees: The Committee reviewed the project and recommended approval. D. Environmental Assessment: Part .I of the Initial Study was completed by the applicant and staff completed Part II. Staff identified potential impacts related to fiooding since the storm drain system that serves the site and vicinity does not have adequate capacity to handle increased flows from the added impervious surfaces. Mitigation measures limiting the amount of runoff from the site will mitigate this to a less than significant impact. The primary mitigation will be on-site retention. !If the Planning Commission concurs, then issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration would be in order. 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. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 97-41 - MASTER DEVELOPMENT April 22, 1998 Page 3 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission issue a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Development Review 97-41. Respectfully submitted, Brad Bullet City Planner BB:BLC:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Utilization Map Exhibit "B" - Site Plan Exhibit "C" - Grading Plan Exhibit "D" Landscape Plan Exhibit "E" Elevations Exhibit "F" Perspective Sketches Exhibit "G" Design Review Committee action agendas dated March 3 & 31, 1998 Exhibit "H" initial Study, Part II SITE UTILIZATION MAP :~ , "' ....... "" " " .......... - - , '-' : : (i) : .... ": '= .......... "'::~"'::"' ..... "' ."I ii!,~ji LtlICINITY' MAP : L:" .................. - ..... . ......... ;" ....... ;'""""' WHITE OAK BUSINESS CENTER CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN WHITE OAK BUSINESS CENTER THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA JERSEy "L~ TYPI A SECTtON -~ Preliminary Planting Legend 0 ....... ,-rfTi-1TFTtEF~TTT~ ~]'2::L]" == .............. ~/ ........... ~:~I: " VICINITY MAP ....... WHITE OAK BUSINESS CENTER .!. BUILDING I WEST ELEVA T/ON ,o' ~or ~,~, KEy pI, AN WHITE OAK BUSINESS CENTER ~, WH/TE OAK BIJ~/NE,.,~,5 CENTEft I~',4.~TE~ L)EVELOPA4'ENT CORpO,qAT/ON C/TI/ OF .RANCHO CIJC~AA.'fONGA, C;AL/FC),gN/A GAA ARCHITECT.5' CC)NC~PT ELEVA WH/TE OAK BUS/NESS CENTER BUILDING 4 NOR TH ELEVATION BUiLDiNG 4 E,4ST ELEV,~ TION WHITE OAK BUSINESS CENTER WHITE OAK BUSINESS CENTER M'4STER~DEVL"LOPM~'NT=CORPORA~TION CITY=OF'~R,~IVCFIO~UC,4~OAI~,4, CALIFORNIA GAA ARCHITECTS CONCEPT ELEVATIONS I '7L, ,:T: ~:~ ' WHITE OAK BUSINESS CENTER BUILDING ~' WEST ELEVATION KEY pL,~N WHITE OAK BUSINESS CENTER =MASTER~:~EVEEOPMENT~CORPORA TION CITY OF RANCHO~UC~MONG~C~LIFORNIA GA~CHITEC TS CONCEPT ELEVAT/ONS - .~. / .... :. · . .. .,.. i:' "' I/1//--/ITE 0,4K BUSINESS CEA/TER CO/V~EPT E/_EI/~t F/OAr'S C-- A ARCHITECTS , View looking nodh east on Jersey BIrd. at bldg. 6 ,,,~:~', , .. t~¢tu View looking noah West on Jersey Blvd. at bldg. 8 ~ ~.t / / · View looking West on White Oak Ave. at bldg. 8 DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:40 p.m. Brent Le Count March 3, 1998 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 974'I - MASTER DEVELOPMENT - A request to construct 8 industrial buildings ranging in size from 10,900 square feet to 26,570 square feet for a total of 127,880 square feet on 6.9 acres of land within Subarea 8 (General Industrial) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the northwest corner of Jersey Boulevard and White Oak Avenue - APN: 209-144-07. Desiqn Parameters: The vacant site lies to the south and east of the Rancho Cucamonga Business Park which is a large master planned group of industrial buildingS. The proposal includes master planning of the vacant parcel to the north consistent with the Rancho Cucamonga Business Park Master Plan. Many of the buildings are proposed to abut one another (zero side setbacks), which is permitted subject to Master Plan approval by the Planning Commission. The proposed buildings are speculative with a mix of warehousing, manufacturing, and office area anticipated. The site slopes gently from north to south at approximately 2.5 to 3 percent. There is a vacant parcel to the nodh. the Amcast industrial building to the east, and vacant land and industrial buildings to the south. 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. Planning Commission industrial design policy requires high quality, sophisticated architecture including well articulated building entrances and use of at least two primary building materials. Extensive lengths of straight building walls fronting Jersey Boulevard and White Oak Avenue should have substantial change of plane/variable setbacks. Revise office/entry portion of buildings to project a formal entry statement through variations of plane and creative use of materials including windows organized in a geometric fashion (spandrel glass acceptable). Continue the office/entry enhanced theme around all elevations by significantly increasing the use of sandblasted concrete (a wide band of sandblast wrapping all walls would be acceptable) and introducing more visually interesting surface treatments such as column pop-outs, recesses, and color variations. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issue~ ~ave been addressed. and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. The proposed building area appears to be at or near the maximum that can be accommodated by the site. This results in minimal room for landscaping. While the proposed landscape coverage exceeds the minimum code requirement, there are significant stretches of building wall with no adjacent landscaping and many very narrow planters, While loading areas limit provision of landscaping, provide planters with appropriate shrubs and trees along exposed building walls wherever possible. Also, expand planter width wherever possible. In no case shall a planter be less than 5 feet in width. 2. Provide heavily landscaped, meandering berms within all landscape setback areas to screen parking and loading areas. 3, Increase the height of slopes along the Jersey Boulevard frontage to minimize the apparent height of the buildings. Also, vary the steepness/height of the slopes for a softer, more natural appearance. DRC COMMENTS DR 97-41 - MASTER DEVELOPMENT March 3, 1998 Page 2 4. Provide minimum 6-foot wide landscape fingers every 7 parking spaces on average. 5. Provide minimum 25-foot deep landscape areas on either side of driveways and colored/textured paving at entrances to each parcel. 6. Provide colored/textured paved pedestrian pathways connecting building entries/exits with outdoor plaza areas. 7. Relocate outdoor plaza areas away from loading areas and in closer proximity to building entrances. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. 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, 2. Provide a minimum of two primary building materials per Planning Commission Policy Resolution No. 89-158. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee direct the applicant to redesign the project consistent with the above comments and have the item brought back for further Committee review. Desiqn Review Committee Comments: Members Present: Bill Bethel, Rich Macins, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Brent Le Count The Committee (Bethel, Macins, Fong) recommended that the project be brought back to the Committee with the revisions identified by staff. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Brent Le Count March 31, 1998 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97.-41 - MASTER DEVELOPMENT - A request to construct 8 industrial buildings ranging in size from 10,830 square feet to 26,360 square feet for an total of 127,900 square feet on 6.9 acres of land within Subarea 8 (General Industrial) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the northwest corner of Jersey Boulevard and White Oak Avenue - APN: 209-144-07. Backqround: The Committee reviewed the project on March 3, 1998 and requested that the project be redesigned and brought back for further review. Of primary concern was treatment of exterior elevations. The Committee wished to see the entry/office portion of the buildings reflect a more formal entry statement and that all elevations receive enhanced treatment to be morn visually appealing and interesting. 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 applicant has redesigned the project to include increased change of plane. column-like indents, increased use of sandblasted concrete and glass, and further refinement of color combinations. However, these "enhancements" are only proposed on certain elevations. Staff recommends that the enhanced treatment be carried around all elevations primarily visible from adjacent streets. Staff also recommends additional application of spandrel glass to the of'rice/entry areas for further enhancement. Secondary Issues: The following items were identified by staff at the March 3, 1998 meeting and were agreed to by the applicant: 1. The proposed building area appears to be at or near the maximum that can be accommodated by the site. This results in minimal room for landscaping. While the proposed landscape coverage exceeds the minimum code requirement, there are significant stretches of building wall with no adjacent landscaping and many very narrow planters. While loading areas limit provision of landscaping, provide planters with appropriate shrubs and trees along exposed building walls wherever possible. Also, expand planter wid_tb wherever possible. In no case shall a planter be less than 5 feet in width. 2. Provide heavily landscaped, meandering berms within all landscape setback areas to screen parking and loading areas. 3. Increase the height of slopes along the Jersey Boulevard frontage to minimize the apparent height of the buildings. Also, vary the steepness/height of the slopes for a softer, more natural appearance. 4. Provide minimum 6-foot wide landscape fingers every 7 parking spaces on average. 5. Provide minimum 25-foot deep landscape areas on either side of driveways and colored/textured paving at entrances to each parcel. 6. Provide colored/textured paved pedestrian pathways connecting building entries/exits with outdoor plaza areas. 7. Relocate outdoor plaza areas away from loading areas and in closer proximity to building DRC COMMENTS DR 9741 - MASTER DEVELOPMENT March 31, 1998 Page 2 Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. Provide a minimum of I 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. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee approve the project subject to the modifications as recommended above. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Bill Bethel, Rich Macins, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Brent Le Count The Committee (Bethel, Macins, Fong) reviewed the proposed project and recommended approval subject to the items identified by staff as well as the following: 1. The raised cuNed glass element design is preferred for office entry portions of Buildings 7 and 8. 2. Consider rounding off or "clipping" cantilevered corners of northeast corner of Building 7 and southeast corner of Building 8 to add visual interest and convey a less massive looking cantilevered element. 3. Provide double door design for entry doors facing north or east to mitigate Santa Ann winds. 4. Add two column indent elements and additional sandblasted concrete along the south wall of Building 7. 5. Provide a decorative, 8-foot high loading dock screen wall at northeast corner of Building 8. 6. Provide wider, deeper reveals. 7. Add gray tone matching color of sandblasted concrete along the west elevations of Buildings 2 and 3. 8. Provide glazing on south sides of office entry portions of Buildings 3 and 6 matching the dimensions and treatment of that shown on the east elevation of Building 3 and the west elevation of Building 6 including soffit design. This does not include provision of additional entry door(s). 9. Specify medium finish sandblasted concrete. 10. Provide minimum 25-foot deep landscape areas on either side of driveways and colored/textured paving at entrances to each parcel. The 25-foot dimension shall be based upon the property line. 11. The Committee will accept 6-foot wide planters between Lots 2 and 3, and 5 and 6 with decorative wrought iron fencing down center of planters. City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: DR 97-41 2. Related Files: PR 97-13 3. Description of Project: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-41 - MASTER DEVELOPMENT - A request to construct 8 industrial buildings ranging in size from 10,924 square feet to 28, 129 square feet for an total of 129,533 square feet on 6.9 acres of land within Subarea 8 (General Industrial) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the northwest corner of Jersey Boulevard and White Oak Avenue - APN: 209-144-07 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 15155- MASTER DEVELOPMENT - A subdivision of 6.9 acres of land into 8 parcels in the General Industrial District of the Industrial Area Specific Plan (Subarea 8), located at the northwest corner of Jersey Boulevard and White Oak Avenue - APN: 209-144-07. Staff has prepared an Environmental Notice of Exemption for consideration. Related File: Design Review Permit 97-41 4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Master Development Corporation (Bruce McDonald) 3991 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 215 Newport Beach, CA 92660 (714) 724-8886 5. General Plan Designation: General Industrial 6. Zoning: Subarea 8 (General Industrial) Industrial Area Specific Plan 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The property is surrounded by developed land with similar industrial buildings as are proposed and vacant land to the north. 8. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 9. Contact Person and Phone Number: Brent Le Count (909) 477-2750 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: None EXHIBIT "H" Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 9741 Master Development Page ? ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact;" "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. (/) Land Use and Planning ( ) Transportation/Circulation ( ) Public Services ( ) Population and Housing (V') Biological Resources ( ) Utilities and Service Systems (,/) Geological Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources ( ) Aesthetics (/) Water ( ) Hazards ( ) Cultural Resources ( ) Air Quality ( ) Noise ( ) Recreation ( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: ( ) 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. Brent Le Count Associate Planner April 14, 1998 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 97-41 Master Development 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? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( ) ( ) (v') ( ) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ( ) ( ) ( ) (V') d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Comments: b) The site is located within an area of potential habitat for an endangered species, the Delhi Sands flower loving fly. pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Pursuant to a memorandum of understanding with the County of San Bernardino, a habitat assessment (Impact Sciences, February 3, 1998) has been prepared which indicates that the site does not currently support high quality potential sand fly habitat and that the site does not function as habitat linkage or corridor. 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)? ( ) ( ) ( (~/) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( ) ( ) ( (~') F Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 97-41 Master Development Page 4 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ( ) ( ) b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) ( ) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) ) (V') d) Seiche hazards? ( ) ) (v') e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) ) f) Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( ) ) (f') g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) ) (v') h) Expansive soils? ( ) (v') ( ) I) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Comments: h) General Ran Figure V-2 indicates Tijunga-Delhi soil association for the subject site. The General Plan states, "The Tijunga-Delhi soil association may have soil bearing capacities that could limit some development, Structures proposed on this soil type should be permitted only after a site specific investigation has been performed that indicates the soil can adequately support the weight of the structure." A soils analysis will be required as a condition of approval prior to issuance of grading or building permits. 4. WATER. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? (~") ( ) ( ) 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)? ( ) ( ) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 97-41 Master Development Page 5 f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~/) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~/) I) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Comments: a/b) The storm drain system which serves the subject site and vicinity does not have adequate capacity to handle increased flows. The impervious surfaces associated with the proposed project would add significantly to the demand on the storm drain system. The mitigation measures identified below would mitigate this to a less than significant impact. 5. AIR QUALITY. Wou/d the proposa/: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) (~/) b)' Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) (~/) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ( ) (v') d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) (v') 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 equipme.~:~ ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 9741 Master Development Page 6 ,.._ .., ,.,o...,,o. so_., s,;:;.:, c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ( ) ( ) (~/) 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)? ( ) ( ) (~) g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ( ) ( ) (v') Comments: a) The project will increase the number of vehicle trips in the area, as the site is currently vacant. The impact upon the surrounding street system will be mitigated to a less than significant impact by installing the streets and improving surrounding streets to meet City standards. , .......dso=,..: , 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish. insects, animals, and birds)? ( ) ( ) (v') ( ) b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees, eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? ( ) ( ) (v') c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? ( ) ( ) (v') d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? ( ) ( ) (V) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) (v') ( ) Comments: a/e) The site is located within an area of potential habitat for an endangered species, the Delhi Sands flower loving fly, pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973. A habitat assessment (Impact Sciences, February 3, 1998) has been prepared which indicates that the site does not currently support high quality potential sand fly habitat and that the site does not function as habitat linkage or corridor. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 97-41 Master Development Page 7 Polentialty 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ( ) ( ) ( ) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') c) Result in the toss 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') b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ( ) ( ) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? ( ( ) ( ) (v') d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? ( ( ) ( ) e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? ( ) ( ) ( ) (V') 10. NOISE. Will the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ( ) ( ) (v') b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ( ) ( ) (v') Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 97.41 Master Development Page 8 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? ( ) ( ) ( ) b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) c) Schools? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~/) e) Other governmental services? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') 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? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') b) Communication systems? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') e) Storm water drainage? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') f) Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (t/) 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposah a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) (v') b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( ) (V') c) Create light or glare? ( ) initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 97-41 Master Development Page 9 Potentially SignScant Impact Less Potentjally Unless Than 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposah a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) c) Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') 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 recreational facilities? ( ) ( ) ( (v') b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) ( ) ( (v') 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildfife 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 shod-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.) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 97-41 Master Development Page 10 Potentially Signfficant Impac~ Less PotentiallyUnless Than 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 pFojects, 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): (v') General Plan EIR (Certified April 6, 1981) (v')Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989) (v') Industrial Area Specific Plan EIR (Certified September 19, 1981) Mitigation Measures: A. Item 4. Water: a) Drainage/flood protection facilities shall be provided for the project area to the satisfaction of the City Engineer as follows: a. The runoff (Q100) from the site shall not exceed the capacity of the existing public storm drain system to the south. The amount of on-site retention shall be based on a proration of available capacity on a per acre basis for the area tributary to the cul-de-sac at the south end of White Oak Avenue, just north of the A.T.& S.F. railroad main line. Reference the hydrology/hydraulic study prepared for Parcel Map 12959 to the north on file with the City. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 97-41 Master Development Page 11 b. Easemerfts shall be dedicated and inundation rights dedicated by means of a separate document, prior to recordalien of the parcel map. c. No public water shall be tributary directly to the inundation area d. tn automobile and truck parking and maneuvering areas, pondin9 depths shall not exceed 12 inches and 18 inches, respectively, and shall not exceed 6 inches for more than 4 hours. APPLICANT CERTIFICATION I certify that I am the applicant for the project described in this Initial Study. 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 clearJy no significant environmental effects would OCCUr. Signature: ~//'-'J2_---~ Date: City of Rancho Cucamonga NEGATIVE DECLARATION The following Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with the Cafifornia Environmental Quality Act Section 2109:r and 21092 of the Public Resources Code. Project File No.: Development Review 97-41 Public Review Period Closes: April 22, 1998 Project Name: Project Applicant: Master Development Project Location {also see attached map): Located at the northwest corner of Jersey Boulevard and White Oak Avenue - APN: 209-144-07. Project Description: A request to construct 8 industrial buildings ranging in size from 10,924 square feet to 28,129 square feet for an total of 129,533 square feet on 6.9 acres of land within Subarea 8 (General Industrial) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. Related File: Parcel Map 15155. 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 Nega'dve 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. Date of Determination Adopted By 81/82/1995 82:32 9894815825 PAGE 81 oear N~C~: We respectfull7 r~esC ~C the Plenni~ C~eei~ ~bt~0~e ect~on on ~he a~ve-refe~nc~ ~tter for two wee~ 2or ~he foll~i~ r~eons: 1. ~r a~omey, Jo~ ~n~erino, Co~1eston Net~ng t~lgh~ due to 2. The arCie~, Ra~nd ~e=s~nger, ~e l~ke~ee una~tlable, tot pere~al we a~recla~e you= ~tt~ce ud ~derst~d~ng S~ncerely, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAIV!ONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: April 22, 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. (Continued from April 8, 1998) BACKGROUND: At the April 8, 1998, meeting, the Planning Commission continued the item for the third time at the request of the applicant. 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. In his letter of April 8, 1998, Mr. Masi stated the reason for the continuation was to allow time to complete the seven historic plaques. 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 sub.m_itted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:NF:gss Attachments: Exhibit "A" Letter from Applicant dated April 8, 1998 Exhibit "B" Planning Commission Staff Report dated February 11, 1998 Resolution Recommending Approval to City Council Proposed City Council Ordinance ITEM B 04/08/'1998 15~19 9894815025 PAGE MEMO 'r~ Nancy Fong rim= April 8, 1998 Planning Division ~'~ Jack Mast Mast Commerce Center Panners ee: Auto Court Zone Change Amendment Dear Nancy: We respectfully request that the Planning Cormmission postpone action on the above referenced matter for two weeks. As you 'know, the seven stainless steel plaques (specifically five history of winemaking, one LaFourcade and one Mast Brothers), have not been completed by the mist 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 remains. I request that we have the artist appear before the Planning Commission to give the Commission an upcLate on the stainless steel plaques. We would also like to discuss an additions to the Vinmers' Walk, not required of us in the conditions of approval, that we intorod to present to ~taff m the next few days. We appreciate all your help in this matter. Sincer,'ly, Jack Masi CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- STAFF I PORT 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 3-1ol 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. Appticant's DrODOSaI: 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. With 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 Design 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,' ,."',/,2; ' '~"" 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 hardscape 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 Changes 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, tl, 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 Buller 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 9745) 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 "l" Status of Compliance of Conditions of Approval/Mitigation for Masi Plaza Resolution Recommending Approval to City Council Proposed City Council Ordinance Fe5-04-98 Og:56P P,02 mlglmllaPmk IVl C. 1VI V T,: Nancy Fong, Planning Division o.~.: February 4, t998 City of Rancho Cucamtmgu From: Jack Mast Masi Commerce Center Partners Re; Zomng Amendment to Auto Court Use, Sub-area ~ Dear Nancy: As per your request tc us, I am claril},'ing eta' application in regard to the Iblll~wing: (i) Scope of'he desired zone amendment; (2) Rationale for the chaoge (4) Conuncnts on CUP 9i -24, CUP 94-26 and cdeneral Plan Amendment 93-02B. Proposed Amendment to Aut. Court Use Designation We request to change the definition of the auto court use desi~k'~tion in Sub-area 7 to a[low a Ratirma e for the Chan~.e The current auto court at Masi Pla2a is approximately 3.25 acres (including the gas station); it is composed of four buildings totaling approximately 20.000 sq. ft. occupied by seven users. The auto court is 100% leased and wc }lave much demand :ei:>r addilional lease space, particularly for more specialty users such as Gun'nan auto and Japanese auto specialists. and specialty services (sue,h a-s a!a,'~n installation m:d v'indshiclds). By increasing the pem~issible area oi' the auto court to six acres, we can build an additional 20,000 sq. ft. in three buildings so as to meet the additiona/demand. We believe the larger auto court will allow it to become a recognized sub-regional auto service center, providing a full llne of services ill a single, integrated auto center environmt?nt. As cJvisioncd, the three additional auto court buildings would replace the four single user industrial box buildings at the southwest comer or the Masi pn~ject site that is adjacent to the City maintenance yard at the SporLs Center. These li~ur industfal buildings were previou.~ly aDDroved as part of CUP 91-24. Nancy Fong I"ebr ary 4, tq. gg Page Tw~ We believe this is a higher and better use/br this rear comer o1' the Mast PlaTa site and is more consistent with the commercial development now underway on the si re. Forecast for the Development of the Balance of the Lots Lvinlt to the South of Sebastian WaT As part of CLIP 91-24 (appmved July 22, 1992), we have approval for ten iudustrial buildings at the south side ~1' Sebastian Way. 'llle land devdopment casts. in addithm It} the indebtedness associated with the City assessment district bond Iinaneing, m."dces tile development of ten indusrsial boxc..s economically infeasible. Multi-tenant office/industrial and auto service buildings are a higher and better use. Consequently, the land to the e~kst of the three proposexl auto cclurt buildings. telcling approximately 3-1/2 acres. is probably best utilized ti>r small, mulli-Icnant officeindustrial users. Thc industrial users would have a higher offlee build-nut and a higher parking ratio, Comments on CUP 91-24~ CUP 94-26 and General Plan Amendment 93-02B The CUP for the Mast Plaza Project, specifically CUP 91-24 (approved July 22, 1992). grants approval for ten industrial buildings soulh ~f Sebastian Way and six industrial buildings north of Sebastian Way. DR 93-19 (January 12, 1994) allowed Ibr the consolidation of the six industrial buildings on the north side of Sebastian Way lute w,'o multi-tenant industrial buildings (as well as granted design changes m building #14 and de.sign approval fi~r building ~5). CL p...t}g~7 (appmved Jmmary .,-6, 1995 ), was intended to be a parallel (TLIP to CUP 9 [ -24 tMt allowed for u seven screen theatre on the north side of Sebusti~ Way and an ice skating ril~ oil the south side of Sebastian Way. Due to the 52 screens built in Ontario, the movie theatre at Mast Plea became inlie;tsible. Star Time Cinemas, the then prospective tenant that led us to pursue ,the entitlement for the mt~vie theatre, dropped out of the deal once the 52 greens in Ontario was announced. Additionally. the prospect of an ice skatingrink, either at the Ontario Milks or a.~ a City t~f Ontario sponsored thcility, has gr~afiy diminished interest in the Mast Plaza location. Additionally, the elongated shape of the facility, along with a commercial (rather than industrial) quality of building constructkin. made the proposed facility legs competitive in terms of building cost. It should be noted that Maksl Commerce Center Partners has advertised in national ice skating and roller skating magazines and advertised at national retail conventions in an at'tempt to attracl a skating rink developer or ugr. Additionally, major ice skating developers and operators were contacted and shown the project site; two mot with City Oiltotals (lce-t~-plex and CanInn). IT should also be noted that we spent nearly $75,000 in plusruing, desiga~ and marketing costs trying m promote the movie theatre/ice skating auntopt, bul to no avail. Feb-04-98 09:55P Nancy Fong I;ebnlary 4, I gg~ It should also be noted tha d~e commercial recreation zoning ovcrlay (Gcncnd Phm Amen.d.ment 93-02B) was approved April 7, ! 994, approximately 10 months prior to CLiP 95-07'(ice ~" -' -'-.: (.7'~ rink/movie theatre). It should bc emphasized that the movie theatre/ice rink application was ncve, r ofl~red as pan of, or in conjunction with, or as va~ accompanying example 1o~ lhe c~m~mercia$ recreation zoning overlay application. I think the timing of the submittals and approvals of these two district applications makes this obvious. One $ast important point - if there is interest eventually in the skating rink facility. the developmere of thc three additional auto service buildings does not cmcmach u~m land needed for the skating rink. Please see attached exhibils. I[' you have any questions, please call me at 909481-5020. Sincerclyt Jack Masi '~,ttachments CITY OF RANCH0 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 PARTNERS - A request to consider amending the definition of Auto Service Court in Subarea 7 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. BACKGROUND: The applicant, Mike Scandiffio of Masi Commerce Center, stated that he 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 auto 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 parts. 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~ B~d Bu.U~r, City Planner ~ 11/24/97 Ci(y ofhucho ~r~,,~ Michael Scandj.ffio Masi Cor~znerce Cen~ Pmlnm's (MCCP) -4mtndmcntto~ub, g~7ofl. hdltmCcdg~i~¢ph._ Auto Senice Court Definition Masi Commerc~ Cen~r Pm-Cnc':s ~ropo~ zo amcmd the Amo S~'~-ice Conr~ definition in the Indus~ai Sl~,cific Plan to Cou:L Attached is the proposed mn~dmcm (chmn~s e show~ in i'~jc). We look forward to meei~u~ w{th you and Nangy ~Vag K~ dk~tl.~ We will ~tl ou~ the plan am~dm~t applications and pay the a.s,sociated fees by Tuesday of this w~k. ify0u have any que~e~, please call mc Since:cly, i'oLc / TABLE i1/-2 LAND USE TYPE DEFLNITIONS AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE COURT: .An in .t=ga-aed cluster of related auramotive service activities, which typicalI?' hxclude: ~5%~ r~lll]ll~i 5gT'FiFL $hlljon~, ~ or ~,ril~l/)Ill ~illary 12..¢i ~llgh g~ P2lJ Wlgh~ and food maf~s; general automotive s,,'T?ice and ~pair including mufflers, shocks, all~mcnts, brakes, oil changes, lubrications, me-ups, smog checks, tire repair and replacement,~rammissions; installation of air conditioning, car h es, stcreos. win shie - and hot~; win hield tintlm,,: automobile cleanin and &tat mno paris; automobile rentalAeasing a services. uiornobile palruing at ro, , co,-a7 rerta/, · " e ' ; '. ' ' ,'.'*. ~l,iinimum Size:5 acrei Ma.v,h"lU~ gize:9 acres. Maximum frontage along a major or secondary medal sueel: 300 feet. 7rt;z~Tss to th, c site ~i!/bc permip, t,4 ~'ily 0g'any major se~,~ and pump islnncls .~h~.ll 13e' gtn, t~gl ff6m all major md a~onctm2,.' gicrials throu~ a e~rnbination of betins, landscaping, low wails, and building orientation. An apl:rropriate combination of herins, landscaping, and architectura elements 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 inopergve vehicles, parts, or equipment h prohibited. g_I1 work sh~i be conducted indoom All signage shall be limited to signs appmved und Pro~'a.m. ~ ' ' ' sDRAFT I. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS 97-03 - MASI COMMERCE PARTNERS - A request to consider amending the definition of Auto Service Court in Subarea 7 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. 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 Macins asked what is located between the applicant's properly and the stadium. Brad Buffer, City Planner, stated a maintenance building and some landscaping. He observed that the purpose oftonight'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'fio, Masi Commerce Partners, 1510 Riverside Drive, 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 the 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 Macins 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 entertain other uses at this time. Commissioner Macins 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 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 suppoded, such as theaters and a proposed ice rink on the south side. He explained that the applicant had been unsuccessful in seoudng 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. Planning Commission Minutes -8- ~ l:~ January 14, 1998 ~ UCAMONGA FOOTHILL BOULEVARD .._ EXHItS'IT 1: SITE PLAN ssoluticn No. 94-052 t~age 4 GIIqE~kL PLAN ~AMEqEMENT 93-02B, PAR~ A Recreational C~i~iercial: Devetu!~.lent of recreation facilities and ret~l uses shall be ~ged along Foothill 5Du/ev-~rd surrounding the Rancho Cucamonga Adult S~Drt Park r~r the intersection of RDchester Avenue. The kes~ball stadium and year-r~und sports a~ivities in the Sports Park create a unique ~pportunity to pruvide secor~ry region-serving ..s!Deciality retail uses that are nut ~ajor gener-c/merchandise d.epa~ Llent stores or food or drug stores. ~bay g~ly use apprcucimately 3,500 - 55,000 square feat of g~c~s l~cable area and require sites with high visibility and high traffic coants. ~hese centa~s typically have c~nvenient freeay access and draw the/r custsmers frcm within a five to tan mile radium. Uses in ~ category are regional in nature and not normally found in neighborhood ca~.~ercial centers. The types of occupanc~ies could include d~c~3ant retailers, such as .sporting goods, a.mparel, electroD_ics, furniture, a-~ 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 wilI be permitted directly off any major arterial. 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 ofl5percent of net lot area shah be landscaped. Pedestrian facilities such as plazas or courtyards with appropriate street furnHure shah be provided. Service bays and pump islands shah 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 decoralive walls, building orientation, and architectural elements. Building design shah have 360 degree archHectural treatment. Building entrances shah be well articulated and project an entrance statement. C] FOOTHILL CIVIC CENTER Figure II1~1 SUBAREAS ROW J~_ HAVEN OVERLAy DISTRICT ~ INDUSTRIAL PARK [7~[ GENERAL INDUSTRIAL EEfL~ MINIMUM IMPACT 4th 5e. I~ HEAVy INDUSTRIAL ~ OPEN SPACE HOLT BLVD. RANCHO CUC~N~ Revised: 9/17/86 2/17/88 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 granke plaques for displaying of vintners' families and their wine labels along the Vintner's Walk prior to occupancy of Denny's. GRANITE PLAQUES HA. VE BEEN INSTALLED AS OF JANUA_RY 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 alIowed 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. Attached 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 submining a sample of the aluminum plaques for "the histoDI of wine making" displays. .-tPPLICANT SUBiVlITTED TEXT AND GRAPHICS MOUNTED ON FOAS'I BOARD AND TO TH2E ACTU.--tL SIZE OF THE PLAQUES FOR STAFF REVIEW. STAFF HAS PROOFREAD THE DRAFT AND WILL RETURN THEM TO THE APPLICANT. HE HAS NOT SUItYlITTED A SAMPLE OF THE ALIB'[h'NlrM PLAQUE TO SHOW THAT TIlE TEXT GRAPHICS WILL SHOW WELL FOR READING. THERE IS NO IaNDICATION THAT HE WILL INST.-LLL THE OVERHEAD METAL TRELLIS BETWEEN BUILDING 7 DENNY'S OR PROVIDE ALTERNATIVES TO ADDRESS THE ITEM. 3. Install wood trellis according to the approved plans for the trash enclosures for Buildings 4 and 7. Comment: On October 28, 1997, the applicant signed an agreement stating that he would finish installing the wood trellises above the trash enclosures for Buildings 4 and 7 by November 3, 1997. Staff released occupancy for Bu' ' g on 'o g . 4. Install and complete the La Fourcade entry arch on Building 5, the descriptive plaque for the La Fourcade building, the Vintner's families display, 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. 4 5 7 ,:~' (-,-,% (-,.,% ,., (- .-. --~ -. ........... 'C, C, -<:>: 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 Partners 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 February 11, and continued to March 11, April 8, and April 22, 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 February 11, March 11, April 8, and April 22, 1998, including written and oral staff reports, 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 Cour~ 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 cdteda 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 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. ISPA 98-01 - MASI COMMERCE CENTER PARTNERS April 22, 1998 Page 2 b. This amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the Industrial Area Specific Plan; and 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 22ND DAY OF .APRIL 1998. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chairman ATFEST: 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 22nd 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 INDUSTRIAL AREA 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 Plan Amendment No. 97-01 as described in the title of this Ordinance. Hereinafter in this Ordinance, the subject Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. On February 11, and continued to March 11, April 8, and April 22, 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 all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Par~ 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 Coud 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 1 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 notbe 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 15061 b.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. 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. 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 shah be required.. A mininutm of J5 percent of net lot area shah be landscaped. Pedestrian facilities such as plazas or courtyards with appropriate street funtiture shall be provided. Service bays and pump islands shah be oriented away from street frontages. Service bays attd pump islands subject to public view and view from adjoining properties shah be screened through a combination of berms, landscaping, low decorative wails, building orientation, and architectural elements. - Building design shah have 360 degree architectural treatment. Building entrances shall be well articulated and project art entrance statement. CITY OF RANCHO ' ~ CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: April 22, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller. City Planner BY: Brent Le Count, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-36 - CHEVRON - A request to construct a gas station/mini-market facility on a 1.06 acre parcel within the Foothill Marketplace Shopping Center, within the Regional Related Commercial District (Subarea 4) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located on the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Marketplace Drive - APN: 229-031-34. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoninq: North - Church, offices; Community Commemial District, Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan (Subarea 4) South Retail uses (Costco) within the Foothill Marketplace Shopping Center; Regional Related Commercial District, Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan (Subarea 4) East Freestanding "Pad" restaurants, retail within the Foothill Marketplace Shopping Center; Regional Related Commercial District, Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan (Subarea 4) West Freestanding "Pad" restaurants, mini-lube within the Foothill Marketplace Shopping Center; Regional Related Commercial District, Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan (Subarea 4) B. General Plan DesiGnations: Project Site - Commercial North - Commercial South- Commercial East Commercial West Commercial C. Site Characteristics: The site is one of the few remaining vacant building pads within the Foothill Marketplace Shopping Center. The site is located at the southwest corner of the main entrance to the shopping center and fronts Foothill Boulevard to the north and Marketplace Drive (private driveway) to the east. Full frontage improvements (street, landscaping, sidewalk, curb and gutter) are in-place. A main shopping center monument sign is located at the northeast corner of the site. The site is approximately 5 feet lower than Foothill Boulevard and slopes gently from north to south. ITEM C PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 97-36 - CHEVRON April 22, 1998 Page 2 D. Parkinq Calculations: Number of Number of Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces of Use Footaqe Ratio Required Provided Service Station/ Convenience Mart 2,929 1/250 11.7 15 Car wash 2.5/car wash 2.5 Total t4.2 15 ANALYSIS: A. General: Service stations and car washes are conditionally permitted in the Regional Related Commercial District. The site was included in the original Price Club/Foothill Marketplace Master Plan for development of a service station. The proposal includes a 2,929 square foot service station/convenience mart with 3 pump islands under a 3,230 square foot canopy and a self service drive-thru car wash. The station would operate 24 hours a day with 8 employees, a maximum of 2 of which would be on-site at any given time. The project is subject to the provisions of Resolution No. 88-96, which establishes specific development policies for drive-thru facilities. The Resolution indicates a 45-foot setback from ultimate face of curb for parking and drive-thru lanes. The proposed drive-thru lane would respect a 30- to 41-foot setback from the face of curb on Foothill Boulevard. The Design Review Committee supported the reduced setback with provision of intensified landscaping and berming along the street frontage to mitigate the reduced drive-thru lane setback. B, Desiqn Review Committee: The project was considered by the Design Review Committee (McNiel, Fong) on February 17, 1998, at which time the Committee returned the project for redesign. The project was revised by the applicant and again considered by the Committee (Bethel, Macias, Fong) on March 3. 1998, at which time the Committee recommended that the Planning Commission approve the project subject to minor modification conditions, see Exhibit "H." C. Technical Review Committee: The Technical and Grading Review Committees have reviewed the project and recommend approval subject to the conditions contained in the attached Resolution of Approval. D. Environmental Assessment: Part I of the Initial Study was completed by the applicant and staff completed Part II. Staff identified potential impacts related to traffic circulation. A traffic study (Kimley-Horn and Associates, August 23, 1995) addressed current circulation problems in the Foothill Marketplace Shopping Center and certain methods of mitigation. The study recommends installation of a right hand turn lane on the southbound portion of Marketplace Drive to ensure an adequate balance of capacities between Marketplace Drive and left turn pockets on westbound Foothill Boulevard, thereby avoiding vehicle stacking within the Cs PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 97-36 - CHEVRON April 22, 1998 Page 3 intersection. The Planning Commission previously reviewed this study and conditioned the project on the pad to the west of Chevron to implement the recommendations. Chevron has demonstrated that the project design will not preclude installation of the right turn lane on Marketplace Drive and mitigation measures require the applicant to provide an easement or other right to access agreement to accommodate turn lane implementation and to prepare construction documents for the right turn lane improvements. Staff is not recommending that the applicant be required to actually perform the improvements because the project to the west, Development Review 95-18, has already been conditioned to do so. Development Review 95-18 is not in plan check and will expire on September 13, 1998 unless extended; however, a new Development Review 98-06 for a restaurant has been filed on that site. The Planning Commission may wish to discuss this matter to determine whether or not the Chevron project should be required to actually install the right turn lane. 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 Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 97-36 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with Conditions and issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Brad Bullet City Planner BB:BLC:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" Site Utilization Map Exhibit "B" Site Plan Exhibit "C" Right Turn Lane Concept Exhibit "D" Grading Plan Exhibit "E" Landscape Plan Exhibit "F" Floor Plan Exhibit "G" Elevations Exhibit "H" Design Review Committee Action Agendas dated February 17 and March 3, 1998 Exhibit "I" Initial Study Exhibit "J" Excerpts from Traffic Analysis Resolution of Approval with Conditions I~' '~ PARKING LOTS N II III ,, ,,, ~ ~ { ] c:::~ { } ~ II III ~ ..... ; ~ I~ L .__j I L G / ~ .--.._. T = 22.5; I :3 Foothill Boulevard- North Elavolion ~ East Elevolion at Canopy / Building Eosl Elevation ol BuUdlng South [levoBon West ElevoBon ChEwon ~oo~.,~ .~... ,-,~ DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Brent LeCount February 17, 1998 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-36 - CHEVRON - A request to construct a gas station/mini-market facility on a 1.06 acre parcel within the Foothill Marketplace Shopping Center, within the Regional Related Commercial District (Subarea 4) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located on the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Marketplace Drive - APN: 229-031-34. Related File: Conditional Use Permit 92-17. Backc~round: Chevron originally filed Conditional Use Permit 92-17 for the proposed development of a service station on this parcel on April 15, 1992. The project was processed to the point of review by the Design Review Committee, but the applicant decided to withdraw their application, prior to consideration of the Planning Commission. The new project design is substantially different from that reviewed by the Design Review Committee in 1992. DesicOn Parameters: The project site is a vacant pad within the Foothill Marketplace Shopping Center, directly adjacent to and west of the primary signalized entrance to the shopping center. The pad has been rough graded previously and includes no significant vegetation and no structures. Street scape planting has been planted along the Foothill Boulevard frontage and the east side of the parcel. The site slopes minimally from north to south. 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. Since the previous submittal of Conditional Use Permit 92-17, the Site Plan has been redesigned to provide better vehicular circulation and larger landscaped setbacks along the perimeters of the parcel, especially along Foothill Boulevard. A traffic analysis approved by the Planning Commission on August 23, 1995 recommends a right hand turn lane be installed on Marketplace Drive. Revisions to the Site Plan are necessary to accommodate the additional lane. To date, these revisions have not been provided. 2. The general architectural concept of the building and canopy has been designed to emulate the architecture of other pad buildings within the shopping center by using like colors, finish treatments and accent elements. Staff has no major concerns with the general architectural flavor, but would recommend that the following issues be addressed: a. The tower element and column design should be carefully designed to match that of other pad buildings in the shopping center. b. A trefiis or other architectural enhancement should be added to the north elevation. DRC COMMENTS CUP 97-26 - CHEVRON February 17, 1998 Page 2 Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. Trees and extensive shrub planting combined with berming should be provided along the west property line and in areas of the Street scape adjacent to parking stalls, the car wash drive-thru lane, and the canopy island area to screen vehicular activities from areas of public view. In general, upgraded and dense landscaping should be used at every opportunity for this project. 2. Canopy columns should be enlarged. 3. The trash enclosure should be relocated or faced a different direction as to not block vehicular traffic on the busy drive aisle south of the site. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. Signage should be consistent with the approved Uniform Sign Program for the Foothill Marketplace Shopping Center. 2. The trash enclosure, light standards, pots, trash receptacles, etc., should be consistent in design with the standard designs used throughout the Foothill Marketplace Shopping Center. 3. Above-ground mechanical equipment, such as transformers, should be completely screened from pubtic view through the use of shrub hedges or decorative walls. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee recommend approval of the project to the Planning Commission with the above items as recommended Conditions of Approval for the project. - '- Attachment: Traffic Analysis Desiqn Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Brent LeCount The Committee (McNiel, Fong) recommended that the project be brought back to the Committee with the following revisions: 1. Redesign the building to be more "welcoming" ~nd to be more compatible with the established architectural program in the center. For instance, raise the tower element and bring it out over the entry with more substantial columns; provide colonnade or trellis structures along the east side of the building wrapping to the north and south sides; C_-I DRC COMMENTS CUP 97-26 - CHEVRON February 17, 1998 Page 3 increase number and depth of recesses throughout; use of metal wall trellises on west elevation similar to that used on "Hollywood Video" building; increase use of wainscoting around entire building and avoid having glass run directly to ground level. 2. Resolve canopy setback encroachment (45-foot setback required from face of curb, 34 feet provided). Consider re-orienting canopy in an east-west alignment similar to the previous proposal (from 1992, since withdrawn). The Committee will not suppot1 issuance of a variance for the subject setback encroachment. 3. Relocate trash enclosure to avoid blocking sight lilies of vehicles exiting car wash and to avoid having structure face the main loop street/driveway. 4. Provide sample of "aluminum composite material" for Committee review. 5. Address issues raised by staff including increased landscaping and berms along street frontages to screen canopy, drive-thru lane, and can,rash; design trash enclosure, light standards, pots, trash receptacles, etc., consistent with the design standards used throughout the Foothill Marketplace center; completely screen any above ground equipment through use of shrub hedges and/or decorative walls; signage to be consistent with sign program. ' DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Brent Le Count March 3, 1998 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-36 - CHEVRON - A request to construct a gas station/mini-market facility on a 1.06 acre parcel within the Foothill Marketplace Shopping Center, within the Regional Related Commercial District (Subarea 4) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located on the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Marketplace Drive - APN: 229- 031-34. Related File: Conditional Use Permit 92-17. Backqround: The Committee reviewed the project on February 17, 1998 and requested that the project be redesigned and brought back for further review. The Committee's concerns are as follows: The Committee (McNiel, Fong) recommended that the project be brought back to the Committee with the following revisions: 1. Redesign the building to be more "welcoming" and to be more compatible with the established other architectural program in the center. For instance, raise the tower element and bring it out over the entry with more substantial columns; provide colonnade or trellis structures along the east side of the building wrapping to the north and south sides; increase number and depth of recesses throughout; use of metal wall trellises on west elevation similar to that used on "Hollywood Video" building; increase use of wainscoting around entire building and avoid having glass run directly to ground level. 2. Resolve canopy setback encroachment (45-foot setback required from face of curb, 34 feet provided). Consider re-orienting canopy in an east-west alignment similar to the previous proposal (from 1992, since withdrawn). The Committee will not support issuance of a variance for the subject setback encroachment. 3 Relocate trash enclosure to avoid blocking sight lines of vehicles exiting car wash and to avoid having structure face the main loop street/driveway. 4. Provide sample of "aluminum composite material" for Committee review. 5. Addqe_ss issues raised by staff including increased landscaping and berms along street frontages to screen canopy, drive-thru lane. and carwash; design trash enclosure, light standards, pots, trash receptacles, etc., consistent with the design standards used throughout the Foothill Marketplace center; completely screen any above ground equipment through use of shrub hedges and/or decorative walls; signage to be consistent with sign program. Revised plans will be distributed to the Committee members at the February 25, 1998 Planning Commission meeting. Staffs comments and recommendation will be presented verbally at the Design Review Committee meeting. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Staff Planner: Brent Le Count DRC COMMENTS CUP 97-36 - CHEVRON March 3, 1998 Page 2 The Design Review Committee recommended approval subject to the following: 1. Provide substantial (3-inch) members for metal trellis work. 2. Provide single color for pump island canopy fascia. 3. Eliminate red strip from east elevation. 4. Provide vine pockets or irrigated vine pots at base of trellis columns and train vines to climb trellis work. 5. The proposed right hand turn lane configuration with a 5-foot wide sidewalk and a 6-foot by 9- inch wide landscape area is acceptable to the Committee. City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: Conditional Use Permit 97-36 Chevron 2. Related Files: Conditional Use Permit 92-17 3. Description of Project: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-36 - CHEVRON - A request to construct a gas station/mini-market facility on a 1.06 acre parcel within the Foothill Marketplace Shopping Center, within the Regional Related Commercial District (Subarea 4 ) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located on the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Marketplace Drive - APN: 229-031 4. Project Sppnsor's Name and Address: RFA, Inc (J. Marconi) 2050 South Santa Cruz, #2100 Anaheim. CA 92805 5. General Plan Designation: Commercial 6. Zoning: Regional Releated Commercial District (Subarea 4 ) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Church. offices, retail, to the north, restaurant and retail uses within the Foothill Marketplace shopping center to the east, west, and 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: Brent Le Count (909) 477-2750 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 97-36 Chevron 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 (V') Public Services ( ) Population and Housing ( ) Biological Resources ( ) Utilities and Service Systems ( ) Geological Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources ( ) Aesthetics ( ) Water (¢) Hazards ( ) Cultural Resources ( ) Air Quality ( ) Noise ( ) Recreation ( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: ( ) 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. Brent Le Count Associate Planner March 11, 1998 C % ~ Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 97-36 Chevron 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? ( ) ( ) ( ) (V) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the pro~ect? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ( ) ( ) ( (~) d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community? ( ) ( ) ( (~) 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') 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? ( ) ( ) ( ) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 97-36 Chevron Page 4 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? ( ) ( ) e) Landslides or mudflows?. ( ) ( ) (v') O Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading. or fill? ( ) ( ) (v') g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) ( ) (v') h) Expansive soils? ( ) ( ) (v') i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) (v') 4, WATER. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption ra~es, 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? ( ) ( ) (v') e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ( ) ( ) (v') O Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ( ) ( ) (¢) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) ( ) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 97-36 Chevron Page 5 h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ( ) ( ) (v') i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ( ) ( ) (t/) 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) ( ) ( ) b) Expose sensitive receptors to po[lutants? ( ) ( ) (v') c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ( ) ( ) (¢) d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ( ) (v') 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') ( ) ( ) 0 Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,./) g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ~ .~ / ( ) ( ) ( ) (V') Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 97-36 Chevron Page 6 Comments: I a, b, and e) The proposed service station would increase the number of vehicle trips in and out of this portion of the Foothill Marketplace shopping center: In particular, the station would increase the number of vehicles entering the shopping center off of Foothill Boulevard onto Marketplace Drive. A traffic study (WPA Traffic Engineers, July 1995) documented on-site circulation problems. A second traffic analysis (Kimley-Hom and Associates, August 23, 1995) also confirmed circulation problems in the center, including Marketplace Drive. The study recommends installation of a third southbound lane, dedicated for right turning vehicles, on the west side of Marketplace Drive to accomodate the storage of vehicles coming into the center. This would provide a better balance between the capacities of the left turn pockets on westbound Foothill Boulevard and the southbound portion of Marketplace Drive thereby avoiding vehicle stacking and delays within the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Marketplace Drive and at the intersection of Marketplace Drive and the first on-site east-west circulation aisle. The Planning Commission previously reviewed these traffic studies and conditioned the project .on the pad to the west of Chevron to implement the recommendations. 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including, but not limited to: plants. fish, insects, animals, and birds)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (V') b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees, eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (V') e) W~ldlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (V') 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 97-36 Chevron Page 7 a) Conflict with adopted energy conseNation plans? ( ( ) ( ) (~) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and ine~cient manner? ( ( ) ( ) 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? ( ) ( ) ( ) HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals. or radiation)? ( ) ( ) (~/) ( ) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) (./) ( ) ( ) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') e) Increased fire hazard in areas with ~ammable brush, grass, or trees? ( ) ( ) ( ) (V') Comments: a) The service station activity includes the use of gasoline and possibly other hazardous and ~ammable materials. Special permits will be required from the Fire Prevention District to minimize the potential risk of accidental explosion or hazardous material release. The impact is not considered significant. b) The increased number of vehicles entering the site off of Foothill Boulevard to use the service station, combined with insufficient capacity of southbound lanes on Marketplace Drive could lead to vehicle stacking within the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Marketplace Drive. This could block emergency vehicles on Foothill Boulevard and block emergency vehicles from entering or exiting the Foothill Marketplace shopping center in case of emergency. Compliance with the recommendations of the Traffic Analysis approved by Planning Commission on August 23. 1995 will mitigate this to a less than significant impact. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 97-36 Chevron Page 8 10. NOISE. Willtheproposalresultin: a) Increases in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 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 fo~owing areas: a) Fire protection? ( ) ( ) (v') ( ) b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) c) Schools? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') e) Other governmental services? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Comments: a) The storage, use, and dispensing of gasoline and other potentially fiammable and/or hazardous materials associated with operation of the service station will require processing and issuance of special permits by the Fire Prevention District. The impact is not considered significant. 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or substantial alterations to the fofiowing utfiities: a) Power or natural gas? ( ) ( ) ( ) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 97-36 Chevron Page 9 b) Communication systems? ( ) ( ) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ( ) ( ) d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ( ) e) Storm water drainage? ( ) ( ) O Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) (¢) g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposak a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) ) ( ) (V') b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( ) ) ( ) (v') c) Create light or glare? ( ) ) ( ) (v') 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: 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? ( ) ( ) (v') e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( ) ( ) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 97-36 Chevron Page 10 15. RECREATION. Would the proposah a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~') 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community. reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ( ) ( ) ( ) (V) 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.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (¢) 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.) ( ) ( ) ( ) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 97-36 Chevron Page 11 d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~') EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the 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 (Certified April 6, 1981) (¢) Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH ~88020115, certified January 4, 1989) (~") Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan (SCH #87021615, certified September 16. 1987) Negative Declaration for CUP 90-37 (Foothill Marketplace Master Plan) Approved by City Council August 21, 1992 MITIGATION MEASURES: 6. Transportation: 1. Prior to issuance of building permits, an easement or other form of right to access agreement shall be provided to accommodate the future construction of a third southbound lane on Marketplace Drive between Foothill Boulevard and Street "C" (the first east-west street/driveway south of Foothill Boulevard) consistent with the recommendations of the Kimley-Horn and Associates Traffic Analysis dated August 23, 1995, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall have prepared construction plans for installation of a third southbound lane on Marketplace Drive between Foothill Boulevard and Street "C" (the first east-west street]driveway south of Foothill Boulevard) consistent with the recommendations of the Kimley-Horn and Associates Traffic Analysis dated August 23, 1995, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 97-36 Chevron Page 12 g. Hazards: 1. Prior to issuance of building permits, an easement or other form of right of access agreement shall be provided to accommodate the future construction of a third southbound lane on Marketplace Drive between Foothill Boulevard and Street "C" (the first east-west street]driveway south of Foothill Boulevard) consistent with the recommendations of the Kimley-Hom and Associates Traffic Analysis dated August 23, 1995, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall have prepared construction plans for installation of a third southbound lane on Marketplace Drive between Foothill Boulevard and Street "C" (the first east-west street]driveway south of Foothill Boulevard) consistent with the recommendations of the Kimley-Hom and Associates Traffic Analysis dated August 23, 1995, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 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 OGCUF. s ig na tu re:ZDate: Pr, nt.ameandT,,,e: . .'--,4,,71~, , ~o,'~:/ ,v~,-. City of Rancho Cucamonga NEGATIVE DECLARATION The following Negative Declaration is being circulated for pubtic review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act Section 2109f and 21092 of the Public Resources Code. Project File No.: Conditional Use Permit 97-36 Public Review Period Closes: April 22, 1998 Project Name: Chevron Project Applicant: RFA, Inc. (J. Marconi) Project Location (also see attached map): Located on the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Marketplace Drive-APN: 229-031-34. Project Description: A request to construct a 2,930 square foot gas station/mini-market facility on a 1.06 acre parcel within the Foothill Marketplace Shopping Center, within the Regional Related Commercial District (Subarea 4 ) of the Foothill Boulevard 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 22, 1998 Date of Determination Adopted By substantial deIa, red form internal roadv,'ay (Street C) on its v,,estbound approach to the westernmost driveway (Street A) and on the Wal-Mart access road (Street D) on its approach to Street A. Another problem is the close proximity of two intersections along Street A, at Street C and at Street D. The proximity of the two intersections and the angle of intersection cause cohesion and interruptions in traffic flow because of hesitation on the part of motorists. Frequently, motorists make last second lane changes or abrupt turns, contributing to delays to motorists stopped at stop signs. The main aisle in front of Price Club has been coned off such that vehicular traffic uses the aisle only to access the parking areas but not to get from Street A to Street B. Price Club has installed the cones in order to facilitate.pedestrian movements between ~e store and the parking areas. Some motorists who would use the main aisle are now using Street C or other routes through Foothill Marketplace. It is our understanding that the cones are to be removed soon. If so, some lessening of traffic on Street C can be anticipated. Table 1 presents 'a summary of the intersection capacity analysis. The capacity analysis was performed for existing conditions using software for the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). While the software may overstate the magnitude of the delay in some cases, it highlights where the delay problems occur. Intersection capacity analysis worksheets are in Appendix B. PREVIOUS CONCEPT FOR IhLPROVEMENT In order to alleviate some of the existing circulation problems, the WPA tra~'ic study recommended the installation of all-way stop sign control at the intersection of Street A/Street C, and four-way stop control at the intersection of Street B/Street C. The WPA study also recommended the addition of a southbound lane on Street A on its approach to Street C. It is our opinion that the recommendations of the WPA study would be enhanced by the addition of the follo'~'ing two improvements: 1. Add a third entrance lane on Street A in the southbound direction (entering Foothill Marketplace). The addition of this lane would increase the storage capacity on the entrance and virtually eliminate the possibility of any substantial queues on the entrance. The left lane would be for left-turns only the remain ng two lanes would be for through movements. ' On Street B add a third southbound lane botw°"n Foothill Boul;ward and Street C. The addition of this lane would increase the storage space to accommodate the storage of vehicles coming into the center. The three entrance lanes would be marked one each for left, through, and right ) turninc' vehicl~ The extra stora0e in this section iS esoecially important because the arriving vehiclXs would ~e in p atoons as ~e incoming vehicles are discharged from the left-turn storage pockets on woo/bound Foothill BoUlevard. There are two left-turn lanes on Foothill Boulevard and the combined leno'th of the two left-turn lanes would be the approximate equivalent of the These suggested enhancements are illustrated 7 :~gure 2. 094006. 0O/Foothill. rpt -3- August 23, 1995 iMPROVEMENT CONCEPT Figure 5 presents an improvement concept that entails an extensive revision of the internal roadway system whereby Street C would be realigned southerly at its ,.~'estern terminus such that it would intersect Street A at a common intersection with Street D. The benefit of this configuration would be that two closely spaced 'T' intersections along Street A would be replaced by a sinSic four-legged intersection. The proposed configuration would provide a clear definition to the entry/exit via Street A and would eliminate the confusion associated with the two closely-spaced intersections on Street A. There would be virtually no delay to either southbound (entering) or northbound (exiting) traffic. Delay would nonetheless be encountered by those motorists turning leh from easlbound Street D to northbound Street A, those turning left from Street C to Street A, and those traveling east-west through the intersection. Table 2 presents a ,Zomparison of the existing circul'ation system with the improvement concept. With the improvement concept travel for many motorists within the center would be easier. It is understood that the improvement would not solve all circulation problems in the western portion of Foothill Marketplace. RECO~'IMENT) ATIONS Following are recommendations to improve internai circulation in the western portion of Foothill Marketplace: A. Implement the improvement concept illustrated in Figure 5 because the improvement would: 1. Consolidaie two "T" intersections into one four-legged intersection thereby eliminating confusion and reducing total delay as well as reducing opportunities for vehicular confi icts. 2.Reduce the number of left turns for many motorists. If a four-way stop control is to be implemented at the intersection of B and C Streets, it is recommended that a third southbound lane be added on B Street between Foothill Boulevard and Street C. Tne provision of a third southbound lane ,.,.'ill increase th~ storage capacity on Street B between Foothill Boulevard and Street C by approximately 50%. Without the addition of such storage capacity, there would be a strong possibility that all vehicles entering the Foothill Marketplace during one traffic signal cycle could not be accommodated within the Center. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS At the intersection of Street B/Street C, with the installation of four~way stop control there would be delays to all motorists using that intersection. While outside the scope of the current consideration of the 5,040 square feet retail use, it might be appropriate to analyze the desirability of installing a traffic signal at the intersection of Street B and Street C. With a signal, delay to all traffic at the intersection can be kept at a minimum. With signal timing and operation synchronized with the signal on Foothill Boulevard, efficient ingress and egress can be achieved. Because of the proximity of such a signal to the signal on Foothill Boulevard (controlled by Gaittans), close coordination with Celttans would be needed. · O94006.00/FoothilArp,' -9- A,.ugttst 23, 1995 FIGURE 5 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97-36 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A GAS STATION/MINI- MARKET FACILITY, WITH SELF-SERVE DRIVE-THRU CAR WASH, ON A 1.06 ACRE PARCEL WITHIN THE FOOTHILL MARKETPLACE SHOPPING CENTER, WITHIN THE REGIONAL RELATED COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (SUBAREA 4) OF THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND MARKETPLACE DRIVE. AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 229-031-34. A. Recitals. 1. RFA, Inc. has filed an application for the issuance of Conditional Use Permit No. 97-36, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafier in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 22nd 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 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 April 22, 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 at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Marketplace Drive with a street frontage of 240 feet and lot depth of 160 feet, full frontage street improvements are in-place, and the site is presently vacant; and b. The properly to the north of the subject site is developed with a church, the property to the south consists of retail uses within the Foothill Marketplace Shopping Center, the property to the east is developed with a restaurant in the Foothill Marketplace Shopping Center, and the property to the west is vacant with restaurant and mini-lube operation further to the west within the Foothill Marketplace Shopping Center; and c. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan; and d. The design of the proposed project, together with the conditions of approval, meet all applicable provisions of the Development Code, Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, and the drive- thru policies; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 97-36 - RFA, INC. - CHEVRON April 22, 1998 Page 2 e. The development of the proposed project would not have a significant impact upon the environment. The project has been designed to accommodate a right hand turn lane on Marketplace Ddve consistent with the recommendations of the Kimley-Horn and Associates Traffic Analysis dated August 23. 1995. to help mitigate on-site traffic circulation conflicts; and f, The application proposes a use which serves local needs for automobile related services by providing gasoline dispensing, a car wash, and a convenience market in close and convenient proximity to the 1-15 Freeway and Foothill Boulevard; and g. The project will include landscaped berms along the Foothill Boulevard frontage which will soften views of the drive-thru lane, car wash, and gas pump island area; and h. The proposed parking is adequate to meet code requirements; and i. The proposed use is consistent with the approved Master Plan for the Foothill Marketplace Shopping Center. 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 Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. b. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. c. The proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code and the Foothill Boulevard Specific Rlan. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, together with all wdtten and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Mitigated Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows: a. The Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with 1he California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder, said Mitigated 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 Mitigated 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, ~he Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Mitigated 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 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 97-36 - RFA, INC. - CHEVRON April 22. 1998 Page 3 which wildlife depends. Further, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Mitigated 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 for[h in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Planninq Division 1) The approval is for a 2,929 square foot service station/convenience mart, a 3,230 square foot canopy, and an 850 square foot self-service drive-thru car wash. 2) Provide substantial (3-inch wide minimum) members for metal trellis work. 3) Provide single color for pump island canopy fascia. 4) Eliminate red stripe from east elevation of service station building. 5) Provide vine pockets or irrigated vine pots at base of trellis columns and train vines to climb trellis work. · 6) Provide intensified landscaping and berms within streetscape setbacks to screen canopy island area, drive-thru, and car wash entry as much as possible. 7) Provide minimum 5-foot setback between trash enclosure and west property line. 8) The building materials and colors, signs, design of the trash enclosure, light standards, pots, trash receptacles, and hardscape treatment shall be consistent with the Foothill Marketplace Shopping Center. 9) Above-ground mechanical equipment, such as transformers, shall be completely screened from public view through shrub hedges or low walls. 10) Continue decorative paving from pathway along south project boundary through to handicapped parking stall to provide pedestrian connection to building entry to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Environmental Mitiqation Measures 1) Prior to issuance of building permits, an easement or other form of "right to access agreement" shall be provided to accommodate the future construction of a third southbound lane on Marketplace Drive between Foothill Boulevard and Street "C" (the first east-west street/driveway south of Foothill Boulevard) consistent with the recommendations of the Kimley-Horn and Associates Traffic Analysis dated August 23, 1995, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 97-36- RFA, INC.- CHEVRON April22,1998 Page 4 2) Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall have prepared construction plans for installation of a third southbound lane on Marketplace Drive between Foothill Boulevard and Street "C" (the first east-west street/driveway south of Foot'hill Boulevard) consistent with the recommendations of the Kimley-Horn and Associates Traffic Analysis dated August 23, 1995, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF APRIL 1998. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buffer, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby cedify 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 22nd 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 97-36 SUBJECT: New Chevron service station/car wash/mini-mart APPLICANT: RFA, IncJChevron LOCATION: Southwest corner Foothill Boulevard and Marketplace Drive 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 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. 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, and the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. 2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Project NO. CUP 97-36 II 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 approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 7. A detailed on-site lighting plan, including a photometric diagram, shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and Police Department (477-2800) prior to the issuance of building permits. Such plan shawl indicate style, illumination. location, height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties. 8. The final design, locations, and the number of trash receptacles shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 9. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. For single family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults. 10. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination. D. Shopping Centers 1. A uniform hardscape and street furniture design including seating benches, trash receptacles, free-standing potted plants, bike racks, light bollards, etc., shall be utilized and be compatible with the architectural style. Detailed designs shall be submitted for Planning Division review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 2. Provide for the following design features in each trash enclosure, to the satisfaction of the City Planner: a. Architecturally integrated into the design of (the shopping center/the project). b. Separate pedestrian access that does not require the opening of the main doors and to include self-closing pedestrian doors. c. Large enough to accommodate two trash bins. d. Roll-up doors. e. Trash bins with counter-weighted lids. Project No. CUP 97-36 Completion Date f. Architecturally treated overhead shade trellis. g. Chain link screen on top to prevent trash from blowing out of the enclosure and designed to be hidden from ~;iew. 3. Graffiti shall be removed within 72 hours. 4. The entire site shall be kept flee from trash and debris at all times and in no event shall trash and debris remain for more than 24 hours. 5.All operations and businesses shall be conducted to comply with the following standards which shall be incorporated into the lease agreements for all tenants: a. Noise Level- All commercial activities shall not create any noise that would exceed an exterior noise [evel of 60 dB during the hours of I0 p.m. until 7 a.m. and 65 dB during the hours of 7 a.m. until 10 p.m. b. Loading and Unloading - No person shah cause the loading, unloading, opening, closing, or other handling of boxes, crates. containers, building materials, garbage cans. or other similar objects between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. unless otherwise specified herein, in a manner which would cause a noise disturbance to a residential area. 6. The lighting fixture design shall compliment the architectural program. It shall include the plaza area lighting fixtures, building lighting fixtures (exterior), and parking lot lighting fixtures. 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. F. 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. G. Landscaping 1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in the case of residential development. shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. 2. A minimum of 20% of trees planted within industrial projects, and a minimum of 30% within commercial and office projects, shall be specimen size trees - 24-inch box or larger. SC - 3/98 3 Project No. CUP 97-36 Completion D!te 3. VV~thin parking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-gallon tree for every three parking stalls, sufficient to shade 50% of the parking area at solar noon on August 21. 4. Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent to and along structures at a rate of one tree per 30 linear feet of building. 5. 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. 6. The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shah be included in the required landscape plans and shall be subiect to City Planner review and approval and coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the Engineering Division. 7. Special landscape features such as mounding, alluvial rock, specimen size trees, meandering sidewalks (with horizontal change), and intensified landscaping, is required along Foothill Boulevard per Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. 8. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on the perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer. 9. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas. the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division. 10. Tree maintenance criteria shall be developed and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. These criteria shaft encourage the natural growth characteristics of the selected tree species. 11. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. H. Signs 1. The signs indicated on the submitted plans are conceptual only and not a part of this approval Any signs proposed for this development shaft comply with the Sign Ordinance and shall require separate application and approval by the Planning Division prior to installation of any signs. I. Environmental 1, Mitigation measures are required for the proiect. The applicant is responsible for the cost of implementing said measures, including monitoring and reporting. Applicant shall be required to post cash, letter of credit, or other forms of guarantee acceptable to the City Planner in the amount of $719.00, prior to the issuance of building permits, guaranteeing satisfactory performance and completion of all mitigation measures. These funds may be used by the City to retain consultants and/or pay for City staff time to monitor and report on the mitigation measures. Failure to complete all actions required by the approved environmental documents shall be considered grounds for forfeit. PFoject No, CUP 97-36 Completion Date In those instances requiring long term monitoring (Le,) beyond final certificate of occupancy), the applicant shall provide a written monitoring and reporting program to the City Planner prior to issuance of building permits, Said program shall identify the reporter as an individual qualified to know whether the particular mitigation measure has been implemented, APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-27t0, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: J. Site Development 1, The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, Title 24 Accessibility requirements, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of issuance of relative permits. Please contact the Building and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new commercial or industrial development or addition to an existing development, the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: Transportation Development Fee, Drainage Fee, School Fees, Permit and Plan Checking Fees. 3. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation and prior to issuance of building permits. New Structures 1. Roofing material shall be installed as for wind-resistant roof covering at wind velocity not less than 90 mph. L. Grading 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. 3. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: M. General Fire Protection Conditions 1. Fire flow requirement shall be 3,000 gallons per minute. a. A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department personnel prior to water plan approval. sc - 3~s8 5 Project No, CUP 97-36 /I Compretion Date b. For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional fire flow test of the on-site hydrants shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by the fire department personnel after construction and prior to occupancy. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1994 UBC, UFC, UPC, UMC, NEC, and RCFD Standards 22 and 15. N. Special Permits 1. Special permits may be required, depending on intended use, as noted below: a. General Use Permit shall be required for any activity or operation not specifically described below, which in the judgemerit of the Fire Chief is likely to produce conditions hazardous to life or properby. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: O. Security Hardware 1. All roof openings giving access to the building shall be secured with either iron bars, metal gates, OF alarmed. P. Windows 1. Store front windows shall be visible to passing pedestrians and traffic. Q. Building Numbering 1. Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime visibility. R. Alarm Systems 1. Install a burglar alarm system and a panic alarm if needed, instructing management and employees on the operation of the alarm system will reduce the amount of false alarms and in turn save dollars and lives. SC - 3198 6 I CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: April 22, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Brent Le Count, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONISITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-41 - DELRAHIM - A request to construct a 4,162 square foot service station, an 1,840 square foot auto lube facility, and a 1,400 square foot self serve drive-thru car wash on 1.8 acres of land in the General Commercial District, located at the southwest corner of Arrow Highway and Hermosa Avenue - APN: 209-041-09, 22, and 31. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoninq: North Retail (across Arrow Highway); General Commercial District South - Vacant land; General Commercial District and single family homes further south; Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) East Apartments (across Hermosa Avenue); Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre) West Vacant land; General Commercial District and single family homes; Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) B. General Plan Desiqnations: Project Site - General Commercial North General Commercial South ~ Low Residential East Medium Residential West Low Residential C. Site Characteristics: The 1.8 acre site is a portion of a larger 6.2 acre vacant property. The site slopes at approximately two percent from north to south. The larger overall site is directly adjacent to single family homes to the south and west. This provides a 180 foot separation to the south and a 300 foot separation to the west between the perimeter of the subject 1.8 acre to-be-developed site and the single family neighborhoods. Frontage improvements exist on both Arrow Highway and Hermosa Avenue but not to current standards. ITEM D PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 97-41 - DELRAHIM April 22, 1998 Page 2 D. Parking Calculations: Number of Number of Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces of Use Footacle Ratio ReQuired Provided Service Station/ Convenience Mart 4,162 1/250 17 21 Lube Facility 2 bays 3 + 2 per bay 7 10 Car wash 2.5/car wash 2.5 ._Z7 Total 27 38 ANALYSIS: A. General: Gasoline stations and minor vehicle repair (lube facility) are permitted uses in the General Commercial District; however, car washes require approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The proposal includes a 4,162 square foot gasoline dispensing station and convenience mart with 2 pump islands under a 3,480 square foot canopy, a 2-bay lube facility, and a self service drive-thru car wash. The station would operate 24 hours a day; however, the lube facility and car wash would operate from 8:00 am to 6:00 pm daily. Since the project includes a drive-thru car wash, it is subject to the requirements of Planning Commission Resolution No. 88-96, Drive-Thru Design Policies. The Mediterranean style car wash has been designed in conformance with the Design Policies; the car wash is oriented away from street frontages, ample vehicle stacking room is provided, and vehicle circulation is separated from pedestrian circulation. The applicant has submitted a Master Plan to demonstrate viability of development of the remaining 4.4 acres of vacant property. Tfie applicant has also submitted conceptual design of proposed signs. B. Desiqn Review Committee: The project was considered by the Committee (Bethel, Macins, Fong) on March 31, 1998, at which time the Committee recommended that the Planning Commission approve the project subject to conditions, see Exhibit "1 ." C. Technical Review Committee: The Technical and Grading Review Committees have reviewed the project and recommend approval subject to the conditions contained in the attached Resolution of Approval. D. Environmental Assessment: Part I of the Initial Study was completed by the applicant and staff completed Part II. Staff identified potential impacts related to noise generated by the proposed use given proximity to single family homes to the south and west. A Noise Study was completed for the project (Davy and Associates, Inc., February 1998) and concluded that noise levels generated by the proposed activities would be well below City established PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 97-41 - DELRAHIM April 22, 1998 Page 2 maximum standards relative to single family homes to the south and west, and to apartments to the east across Hermosa Avenue. Furthermore, the Study found that noise levels generated by the proposed use would be less than current ambient noise levels generated by traffic on Hermosa Avenue and Arrow Highway. 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 an expanded notification area, beyond the 300 foot radius, within the single family residential neighborhood to the south and west of the site. The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on December 18, 1997, to which the same property owners that received notice of the public hearing were invited. One individual attended the meeting and expressed concern about the potential noise generated by the project, especially the lube operation if it is to include other types of vehicle repair. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with Conditions and issuance of a Negative Declaration. Brad Buffer City Planner BB:BLC:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Utilization Map Exhibit "B" Master Plan Exhibit "C" - Site Plan Exhibit "D" - Grading Plan Exhibit "E" Landscape Plan Exhibit "F" Elevations Exhibit "G" - Elevations - Signs Exhibit "H" - Business Description Letter Exhibit "1" - Design Review Committee Action Agenda dated March 31, 1998 Exhibit "J" ' - Initial Study Resolution of Approval with Conditions I~_"-~d ' ,VICINITY MAP ALPINE ' .........i::~!! ii ii ,~ (~ ~. x ress/ LUBE/CARWASH CONCEPTUAL SIGN PROGRAM February 24, 1998 Brent Le Count, Associate Planner City ofRancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: CUP 97-41 Completeness Comments Arrow 76 Business Plan SWC Arrow/Hermosa, Rancho Cucamonga Dear Mr. Le Count: Enclosed for your review is a copy of the Arrow 76 Business Plan that was submitted as part of the referenced project filing. The following is provided as supplemental to this material and for the purpose of being responsive to the City's Completeness Comments, Section I A 3: Self-Serve Car Wash: This project component will be very similar to that approved and in operation at the Mobil station located at the SWC of Foothill Blvd and Masi Drive. The proposed facility will not have any exterior finish areas other than the self-service vacuums for use by car wash patrons. Buildin~ A: This project component will be very similar to that approved and in operation at the Mobil station located at the SWC of Foothill Blvd and Masi Drive, and the Shell Station located at the SEC of Foothill Blvd and Vineyard Avenue. The proposed facility will have an interior food counter similar to the Mobil and Shell sites, and will not have a fleestanding fast food operation. We trust the foregoing should be satisfactoD, with providing the clarification sought by the City in this regard. Should you have any questions or need of additional information, please feel flee to contact me at your earliest opportunity. Sincerely, Charles J. Buquet Charles Joseph Associates Enclosure co: David Delrahim D ] '~ Office 909' 481.1822 800. 240.1822 F:L× 909- 481 · 1824 City Center- 106S i Foothill Bl~'d., Suite 395' Rancho CucannonRa, CA'9 731) ARROW 76 BUSINESS PLAN Our primary goal in designing this project is to create a safe, clean, and convenient one- stop shopping and service location. These days, operational efficiency is the key to success for any business. While no one has enough time to do everything, the new businesses are forced to provide the ultimate in convenience, and accommodating the maximum number of services possible under one roof. This proposed project consists of four main services: GASOLINE, MARKET, CAR WASH AND EXPRESS LUBE. GASOLINE The filling station consists of sLx computerized pumps (MPD). They will be operated by the attendant inside the market. It will also provide the convenience of paying at the pumps should the patron prefer. MARKET Today's convenience markets are providing more one-stop services for busy schedules. Gourmet coffee, ice cream, food and other customer service needs are just the beginning of the evolving customer market demand. CAR WASH Only self-service exterior car wash is being offered at this project. This system will provide full-service car wash quality at a fraction of cost and time. There will be a few self-service vacuums available for use by car wash patrons. The self-service exterior car wash function will be similar to that currqntly in place at the Mobil station located at Foothill Blvd. and Masi Drive. As is the case at that location, this business activity will be of minimal operational intensity. As such, vehicle stacking and patrons milling about will be non-existent, in deference to that observed at full-service car wash facilities. The hours of operation will be 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. daily. EXPRESS LUBE The name says it all. This component will allow for work on up to four cars at one time. The hours of operation will be 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. daily. SECURITY Providing a safe and secure environment is essential to the success of this project. Knowing this, we will use every means to ensure this. The project will be equipped with surveillance cameras inside and outside of the buildings. Since the gasoline service component is open 24 hours, we will provide a security window at the market to give us the flexibility of serving people though the window. The market will have a minimum of two attendants from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. daily. Depending upon the business flow, the number of employees may fluctuate for the 8:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. shifts. 2 DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 8:00 p.m. Brent Le Count March 31, 1998 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERM IT 9741 - DELRAH1M -A request to construct a 4,162 square foot service station, an 1,840 square foot auto lube facility, and a 1,400 square foot self serve drive thru car wash on 1.8 acres of land in the General Commercial District, located at the southwest corner of Arrow Highway and Hermosa Avenue - APN: 209-041-09, 22, and 31. Desiqn Parameters: The 1.8 acre site is a portion of a larger 6.2 acre vacant prooerty. The site slopes at approximately two percent from north to south. The larger overall site is surrou,"ded to the south and west by single family homes, to the north across Arrow Highway by a commercial strip mall, and to the east across Hermosa Avenue by apartments. The application includes a master plan to demonstrate viability of development of the remainder of the overall (6.2 acre) site. The applicant has provided conceptual design of proposed signs. The proposed architecture is of a Mission or Mediterranean style. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Major Issues: The following broad design !ssues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: 1. The applicant has worked diligently with staff to resolve major design issues. Staff is of the opinion that there are no major outstanding design issues. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. Increase the height and overall area of berms along both street frontages to effectively screen views of canopy area, mini-lube bay openings, and car wash entrance/exit. 2, Relocate service/loading door on east ~lev~tion of convenience mart building to an area less visible from the public right-of-way. 3. Provide low walls or very dense landscaping around proposed vacuum and pay phone areas along west property line to screen these items from view of the street and surrounding property. 4. The monument sign should be designed such that only the sign copy is illuminated rather than having the entire cabinet face illuminated. Policy Issues: The following items are '~ matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. Eliminate all ancillary sign copy such as "Express Lube and Car Wash," etc. The Sign Ordinance prohibits use of subordinate or advertizement relatedi information on signs. 2. Any above ground utilities and/or rooffop equipment shall be completely screened from surrounding streets and properties. 3. The trash enclosure design shall match the style of the proposed buildings. DRC COMMENTS CUP 97-41 - DELRAHIM March 31, 1998 Page 2 Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee approve the project subject to the modifications as recommended above. Desiqn Review Committee Action: Members Present: Bill Bethel, Rich Macias, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Brent Le Count The Committee (Bethel, Macias, Fong) reviewed the proposed project and recommended approval subject to the items identified by staff as well as the following: 1. Replace paved area along north and east sides of gas station/mini mart building with landscaping. 2. Provide illuminated bollards at main entry of gas station/mini mart building to protect pedestrians from vehicles in vicinity of gas pumps. City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND '1. Project File: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-41 2. Related Files: PRELIMINARY REVIEW 97-09 3. Description of Project: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USF PERMIT 97-41 - DELRAHIM - A request to construct a 4,162 square foot service station, an 1,840 square foot auto lube facility, and a 1.400 square foot self serve drive thru car wash on 1.8 acres of land in the General Commercial District, located at the southwest corner of Arrow Highway and Hermosa Avenue - APN: 209-041-09, 22, and 31. 4, Project Sponsor's Name and Address: David Delrahim 30245 Canwood Street Agoura Hills, CA 91031 5. General Plan Designation: General Commercial 6. Zoning: General Commercial District 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Commercial strip mall to the north across Arrow Highway, General Commercial District, Apartments to the east across Hermosa Avenue, Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre), and vacant land and single family homes to the south and west, Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre). 8. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 9. Contact Person and Phone Number: Brent Le Count (909) 477-2750 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: None Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 97-41 - Delrahim Pa~le 2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages, ( ) Land Use and Planning (v') Transportation/Circulation ( ) Public Services ( ) Population and Housing ( ) Biological Resources ( ) Utilities and Service Systems (v') Geological Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources ( ) Aesthetics ( ) Water (V') Hazards ( ) Cultural Resources ( ) Air Quality (V) Noise ( ) Recreation ( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: (v') I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ( ) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project, or agreed to, by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ( ) I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment. and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ( ) I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based upon the 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. Brent Le Count, AICP Associate Planner March 26, 1998 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 9741 - Delrahim Page 3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an explanation is required for alJ "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. Potentially 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposah a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) ( ) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( ) ( ) (v') c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ( ) ( ) d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community? ( ) ( ) 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g.; through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving.' a) Fault rupture? ,E~ ~b ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 97-41 - Delrahim Page 4 Potenttaffy Signrficant Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Impact Less PotentiallyUnless Than d I ct b) Seismic ground shaking? c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') d) Seiche hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) ( ) ( ) f) Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') h) Expansive soils? ( ) ( ) (V) ( ) i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) ( ) Comments: h) The site falls within the Tujunga-Delhi soils association as identified by Figure V-2 of the General Plan. This soil association may have soil bearing capacities that could limit some development. Structures placed on this soil type should be permitted only after a site specific investigation has been performed that indicates the soils can adequately support the weight of the proposed structures. A soils report will be required prior to issuance of a grading permit. The impact is not considered significant. 4. WATER. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? (v') b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? 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? ( ) ( ) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 97-41 - Deirahim Page 5 Signeficant ImpacI Less Potentially Unless Than 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? ( ) ( ) ( ) 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) ( ) ( ) (V') c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ( ) ( ) ( ) d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ( ) ( ) 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)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (t/) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ( ) ( ) ( ) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) ( ) ( ) (t/) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 97-41 - Delrahim Page 6 e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ) ( ) ( ) (~/) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ) ( ) ( ) (v') g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ) ( ) ( ) (v') Comments: a) The project will increase the number of trips simply because the site is now vacant. The project does not involve a change of allowed or conditionally allowed uses per the General Plan or Development Code. The project has been designed to minimize traffic potential traffic congestion. 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish, insects. animals, and birds)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees, eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? ( ) ( ) (v') d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? ( ) ( ) (V) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) ( ) (v') Signfficant Impac[ Less PotentiallyUnless Than 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal.' a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ~..~ ( ) ( ) () (v') Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 97-41 - Delrahim Page 7 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') PotentiaIly PotentiallyUnless Th~n 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)? ( ) ( ) (t/) ( ) 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? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') e) Increased fire hazard in areas with fiammable brush, grass, or trees? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Comments: a) The project includes storage and dispensing of gasoline and automobile lubrication products. These materials could result in explosion should they be accidentally released. The Fire Prevention District requires special permits to ensure safe storage and handling of hazardous materials. The impact is not considered significant. 10. NOISE. Willtheproposalresultin: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) ( ) (¢) ( ) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) ( ) (v') ( ) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 97-41 - Delrahim Page 8 Comments: a/b) The project includes various mechanical components such as blowers and car vacuums associated with the carwash facility and will introduce vehicle start ups and door closings to an area that is now vacant. There are single family homes to the south and west of the site and apartments to the east which may by vulnerable to noise generated by the use; however, they am buffered from the project site by vacant undeveloped land. A noise study was conducted (Davy and Associates, Inc. February 1998) to address this issue. The study concluded that the levels of noise generated by the proposed and anticipated uses and activities would fall well below City established thresholds. FurLhermore, the study found that noise levels generated by the project would be less than existing noise levels generated by traffic on Arrow Highway and Hermosa Avenue, The impact is not considered significant. 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? ( ) ( ) ( ) b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) c) Schools? ( ) ( ) ( ) (t/) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') e) Other governmental services? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Potentially SignScant Impact Less PotentiallyUnless Than d ct 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or substantial alterations to the loftowing utilities: a) Power or natural gas? ( ) ( ) b) Communication systems? ( ) ( ) (v') c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ( ) ( ) (v') d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ( ) (v') e) Storm water drainage? E),~ ( ) ( ) (v') Initial Study for : City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 97-41 - Delrahim Page 9 ,........ ,.,_.t,o..o.,...: f) Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) ( ) g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) ( ) ( ) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( ) ( ) ( ) (V) c) Create light or glare? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal.' a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) ( ) ) c) Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) ( ) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( ) ( ) (v') e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( ) ( ) (v') Irnpac~ Less Potentially Unless Than 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) b) Affect existing recreational oppo~unities? ( ) ( ) ( ) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 97-41 - Deltahim Pa~e 10 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE, a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ( ) (t/) 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 welI into the future.) ( ) c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? CCumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) ( ) 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 thatapp,y>: Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga CUP 9741 - Detrahim Page 11 (V) General Plan (Certified April 6, 1981 ) (V') Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH #88020115, cerHfied January 4, 1989) APPLICANT CERTIFICATION I certify that I am the applicant for the project described in this Initial Study. I acknowledge that I have read this Initial Study and the proposed mitigation measures. Further, I have revised the project plans or proposals and/or hereby agree to the proposed mitigation measures to avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant environmental effects would OCCUr, Print Name and Title: ./'/" 72 _ ~, z ,~4 ~ f ~ I:\BREN'RCUP9741 E.WPD 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 97-41 Public Review Period Closes: April 22, 1998 Project Name: Project Applicant: David Deltahim Project Location (also see attached map): Located at the southwest corner of Arrow Highway and Hermosa Avenue - APN: 209-041-09, 22, and 31. Project Description: A request to construct a 4,162 square foot service station, an 1,840 square foot auto lube facility, and a 1,400 square foot self serve drive thru car wash on 1.8 acres of land 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 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 22, 1998 Date of Determination Adopted By RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNJA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97--41 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A GAS STATION/MINI- MARKET, AN 1,840 SQUARE FOOT AUTO LUBE FACILITY, AND A 1,400 SQUARE FOOT DRIVE-THRU CAR WASH ON 1.8 ACRES OF LAND WITHIN THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF ARROW HIGHWAY AND HERMOSA AVENUE - APN: 209-041-09, 22, and 31. A. Recitals. 1. David Delrahim. has filed an application for the issuance of Conditional Use Permit No. 97-41, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereina~er in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 18th day of December 1997, the applicant conducted a neighborhood meeting at which surrounding residents were invited to a presentation and discussion of the proposed project. 3. On the 22nd 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. 4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found. determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. 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 22, 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 at the southwest corner of Arrow Highway and Hermosa Avenue with a street frontage of 240 feet on Hermosa Avenue 320 feet on Arrow Highway and is presently vacant; and b. The property to the north of the subject site is developed with a commercial strip mall, the property to the south consists of vacant land with single family homes beyond, the property to the east is developed with an apartment complex, and the property to the west is vacant land with single family beyond; and c. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code; and d. The design of the proposed project, together with the conditions of approval, meet all applicable provisions of the Development Code and the drive-thru policies; and e. The development of the proposed project would not have a significant impact upon the environment. A noise study was conducted which concluded that noise levels generated by the PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 97-41 - DELRAHIM April 22, 1998 Page 2 proposed use would fall below City established maximum standards relative to surrounding residences and apartments. f. The application proposes a use which serves local needs for automobile related services by providing gasoline dispensing, a convenience market, a lube facility, and a car wash in close and convenient proximity to homes and businesses. g. The project will include substantially landscaped berms along the Arrow Highway and Hermosa Avenue frontages and with reverse plotting of the gasoline pump island, which will soften views of the gas pump island area, lube facility, drive-thru lane, and car wash. h. The proposed parking is adequate to meet code requirements. i. The proposed project site is buffered from residences to the south and west by more than 150 feet of vacant land. 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 propedies 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 appfication, 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 headng, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 97-41- DELRAHIM April22,1998 Page 3 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 heroin by this reference. Planning Division: 1 ) Replace paved area along north and east sides of gas station/mini mad building with landscaping as shown on the approved Site Plan. 2) Provide illuminated bollards at main entry of gas station/mini mart building to protect pedestrians from vehicles in vicinity of gas pumps. 3) Provide low walls or very dense landscaping around proposed vacuum and pay phone areas along south and west property lines to screen these items from view of public rights-of-way and surrounding property. 4) The monument sign shall be designed such that only the sign copy is illuminated rather,than having the entire cabinet face illuminated. 5) Eliminate all ancillary sign copy such as "Express Lube and Car Wash," etc. 6) The trash enclosure design shall match the style of the project. 7) Increase the height and overall area of betins along both street frontages to effectively screen views of canopy area, mini-lube bay openings, and car wash entrance/exit. Berms shall be approximately 3 feet in height. 8) The Master Plan, including Master Plan grading is approved in concept only. Any proposal for development of the remainder property shall be subject to the Development/Conditional Use Permit processes per the Development Code. 9) If operation of the facility causes adverse effects upon adjacent businesses or operations, the Conditional Use Permit shall be brought before the City Planner for consideration and possible termination of the use. 10) The facility shall be operated in conformance with the performance standards as defined in the Development Code including, but not limited to, noise levels. Enqineerinq Division: 1) An on-site drive aisle shall be provided, with reciprocal access easements recorded by separate document, between the gas station and the surrounding development across the north/south property line to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Planner. 2) A lot line adjustment shall be processed concurrent with the development application. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 97-41 - DELRAHIM April 22, 1998 Page 4 3) The Arrow Highway and Hermosa Avenue frontages shall be posted R26 "No Parking" and R26S" No Stopping," respectively. 4) An under-sidewalk drain shall be provided to drain site runoff. 5) An in-lieu fee as contribution to the future undergrounding of the existing overhead utilities (telecommunications and electrical, except for the 66 kV electrical) on the opposite side of Arrow Highway shall be paid to the City, pdor to the issuance of building permits. The fee shall be one-half the City adopted unit amount times the length as measured from the center line of Hermosa Avenue to the west project boundary. 6) An in-lieu fee as contribution to the future undergrounding of the existing overhead utilities (telecommunications and electrical, except for the 66 kV electrical) on the project side (full fee) of Hermosa Avenue shall be paid to the City, prior to the issuance of building permits. The fee shall be the city adopted unit amount times the length from the northerly pole extending to the south project boundary. 7) The section of Hermosa Avenue shall be constructed with a 12-inch curb face and a curb adjacent 6-foot sidewalk with a monolithic curb to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 8) The driveway shall be flood proofed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF APRIL 1998. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller. Secretary I, Brad Buffer, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced. passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of April 1998, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: D '~ ~ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT #: Conditional Use Permit 9741 SUBJECT: New service station/lub facility/car wash APPLICANT: David Deltahim LOCATION: Southwest corner Arrow Highway and Hermosa Avenue ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 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. 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. 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. SC - 3Yg8 Project No. CUP 97-41 Completion Diate 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 shah be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. 4. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 7. A detailed on-site lighting plan. including a photometric diagram, shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and Police Department (477-2800) prior to the issuance of building permits. Such plan shall indicate style, illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties. 8. All trash pick-up shall be for individual units with all receptacles shielded from public view. 9. Trash receptacle(s) are required and shall meet City standards. The final design, tocations, and the number of trash receptacles shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 10. 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. 11.All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination. 12. 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. Shopping Centers 1. The Master Plan is approved in concept only. Future development for (each building pad/parcel) shall be subject to separate Development/Design Review process for Planning Commission approval. Modifications to the Shopping Center Master Plan shall be subject to Planning Commission approval. 2. A uniform hardscape and street furniture design including seating benches, trash receptacles, free-standing potted plants, bike racks, light bollards. etc., shall be utilized and be compatible with the architectural style. Detailed designs shall be submitted for Planning Division review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. Project No, CUP 97-41 Comoletion Date 3. Provide for the following design features in each trash enclosure, to the satisfaction of the City Planner: a. Architecturally integrated into the design of (the shopping center/the project). b. Separate pedestrian access that does not require the opening of the main doors and to include self-closing pedestrian doors. c. Large enough to accommodate two trash bins. d. Roll-up doors. e. Trash bins with counter-weighted lids. f. Architecturally treated overhead shade trellis. g. Chain link screen on top to prevent trash from blowing out of the enclosure and designed to be hidden from view. 4. Graffiti shall be removed within 72 hours. 5. The entire site shall be kept free from trash and debris at all times and in no event shall trash and debris remain for more than 24 hours. 6. Signs shall be conveniently posted for "no overnight parking" and for "employee parking only." 7. All operations and businesses shall be conducted to comply with the following standards which shah be incorporated into the lease agreements for all tenants: a. Noise Level - All commercial activities shall not create any noise that would exceed an exterior noise level of 60 dB during the hours of 10 p.m. until 7 a.m. and 65 dB during the hours of 7 a.m. until 10 p.m. b. Loading and Unloading - No person shall cause the loading, unloading, opening, closing, or other handling of boxes, crates, containers, building materials, garbage cans, or other similar objects between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. unless other,vise specified herein, in a manner which would cause a noise disturbance to a residential area. 8. Hours of operation for the car wash and lub facility shall be restricted to 8:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. 9. Textured pavement shall be provided across circulation aisle, pedestrian walkway, and plaza, They shall be of brick/tile pavers, exposed aggregate, integral color concrete, or any combination thereof. Full samples shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 10. The lighting fixture design shall compliment the architectural program. It shall include the plaza area lighting fixtures, building lighting fixtures (exterior), and parking lot lighting fixtures. 11. Any outdoor vending machines shall be recessed into the building faces and shall not extend into / the pedestrian walkways. The design details shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits. Project NO. CUP 97-4t CompletiOn Date E. 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. F. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans) 1. All parking lot landscape islands shalF have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet and shall __/__ __ contain a 12-inch walk adjacent to the parking stall (including curb). 2. Textured pedestrian pathways and textured pavement across circulation aisles shall be provided __/__ __ throughout the development to connect dwellings/units/buildings with open spaces/plazas/recreational uses. 3. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances, __/__ __ and exits shall be striped per City standards. 4. 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. 5, Motorcycle parking area shall be provided for commercial and office facilities with 25 or more parking stalls. Developments with over'100 parking stalls shall provide motorcycle parking at the rate of one percent. The area for motorcycle parking shall be a minimum of 56 square feet. 6. Bicycle storage spaces shall be provided in all commercial, office, industrial, and multi-family __ residential projects or more than 10 units, Minimum spaces equal to five percent of the required automobile parking spaces or three bicycle storage spaces, whichever is greater. After the first 50 bicycle storage spaces are provided, additional storage spaces required are 2.5 percent of the required automobile parking spaces. Warehouse distribution uses shall provide bicycle storage spaces at a rate of 2.5 percent on the required automobile parking spaces with a minimum of a 3-bike rack. In no case shall the total number of bicycle parking spaces required exceed 100. Where this results in a fraction of 0.5 or greater, the number shall be rounded off to the higher whole number. G. 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 Planne[ review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. 2. A minimum of 20% of trees planted within and a minimum of 30% within commercial and office projects, shall be specimen size trees - 24-inch box or larger. 3. Within parking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-gallon tree for every three parking stalls, sufficient to shade 50% of the parking area at solar noon on August 21. sc-3~sB 4 Project No CUP 97-41 Completion Date 4. Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent to and along structures at a rate of one tree per 30 linear feet of building. 5. For multi-family residential and non-residential development, property owners are responsible for the continual maintenance of all landscaped areas on-site, as well as contiguous planted areas within the public right-of-way. All landscaped areas shaft 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 shaft be replaced within 30 days from the date of damage. 6. The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to City Planner review and approval and coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the Engineering Division. 7. Special landscape features such as mounding, alluvial rock, specimen size trees, meandering sidewalks (with horizontal change), and intensified landscaping, is required at the northeast corner of the site fronting Arrow Highway and Hermosa Avenue. 8. All wails shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division. 9. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. Signs 1. The signs indicated on the submitted plans are conceptual only and not a part of this approval. Any signs proposed for this development shall comply with the Sign Ordinance and shaft require separate application and approval by the Planning Division prior to installation of any signs. 2. A Uniform Sign Program for this development shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: I, Site Development 1. The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, Title 24 Accessibility requirements, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of issuance of relative permits. Please contact the Building and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new commercial or industrial development or addition __ / to an existing development, the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: Transportation Development Fee, Drainage Fee, School Fees, Permit and Plan Checking Fees. 3. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official. after tractJparcel map recordation and __ / prior to issuance of building permits. SC , 3/98 5 Project No, CUP g7-4t Completion Date 4. Construction activity shall not occur between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. Monday through Saturday, with no construction on Sunday. J. New Structures 1. Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for the property line clearances considering use. area, and fire-resistiveness of existing buildings, 2. Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for required occupancy separation(s). 3, Roofing material shall be installed as for wind-resistant roof covering at wind velocity not less than 90 mph. 4. Plans for food preparation areas, if any, shall be approved by County of San Bernardino Environmental Health Services prior to :issuance of building permits. K. Existing Structures 1.Existing sewage disposal facilities shall be removed, filled and/or capped to comply with the Uniform Plumbing Code and Uniform Building Code. 2. Underground on-site utilities are to be located and shown on building plans submitted for building permit application. L. 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 repor~ 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: M. Dedication and Vehicular Access 1. Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets (measured from street centerline): 44 total feet on Hermosa Avenue. 2. Corner property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards. N. Street Improvements 1. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including. but not limited to: Project No. CUP 97-41 Compietion Date Street Name Gutter Pvmt walk Appr. Lights Trees Trail Island Trail Hermosa Avenue X X X X X X E Arrow Highway X X X Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement reconstruction and ovedays will be determined during plan check. (c) If so marked, sidewalk shall be curvilinear per STD. 114. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu of construction fee shall be provided for this item. (e) Transition per Standard Drawing No. 406 to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 2. Improvement Plans and Construction: a. Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. b. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any other permits required. c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR, or any other locations apprOved by the City Engineer. Notes: (1) Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200 feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer. (2) Conduit shall be 3-inch (at intersections) or 2-inch (along streets) galvanized steel with pull rope or as specified. e. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. SC - 3/98 7 Project NO. CUP 97-41 Completion Date g. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards, except for single family residential lots. h. Street names shall be approved by the City Planner prior to submittal for first plan check. 3.Street trees. a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in accordance with the City's street tree program. 4. Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with adopted policy. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project intersections, including driveways, Local residential street intersections and commercial or industrial driveways may have lines of sight plotted as required. O. Public Maintenance Areas 1. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. P. Utilities 1. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. 2. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bemardino. A letter of compliance from the CCWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. Q. General Requirements and Approvals 1. The separate parcels contained within the project boundaries shall be legally combined into one parcel prior to issuance of building permits. 2. A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated operating costs for all new street lights for the first six months of operation, prior to final map approval or prior to building permit issuance if no map is involved. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: R. General Fire Protection Conditions 1. Fire flow requirement shall be 3,000 gallons per minute. a. A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department personnel prior to water plan approval. b. For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional fire flow test of the on-site hydrants shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by the fire department personnel after construction and prior to occupancy. Proiect No. CUP 97-41 Completion Date 2. Fire hydrants are required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed and operable prior to delivery of any combustible building materials on site (i.e., lumber, roofing materials, etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire department personnel. 3. 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. 4. Prior to the issuance of building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be submitted to the Fire District that an approved temporary water supply for fire protection is available, pending completion of required fire protection system. 5. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for all hydrants and instaXied prior to final inspection. 6. An automatic fire extinguishing system(s) will be required as noted below: Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15. Note: Special sprinkler densities are required for such hazardous operations as woodworking. plastics manufacturing, spray painting, flammable liquids storage, high piled stock, etc. Contact the Fire Safety Division to determine if sprinkler system is adequate for proposed operations. 7. Sprinkler system monitoring shall be installed and operational immediately upon completion of sprinkler system. 8. 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. 9. Plan check fees in the amount of $677.00 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. 10. 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: S. 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 sensorer 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 9 Project No, CUP 97-41 Completion Date 3. Lighting in exterior areas shall be in vandal-resistant fixtures. T. Security Hardware 1. One-inch single cylinder dead bolts shall be installed on all entrance doors. If windows are within 40 inches of any locking device, tempered glass or a double cylinder dead bolt shall be used. 2. All garage or rolling doors shall have slide bolts or some type of secondary locking devices. 3. All roof openings giving access to the building shall be secured with either iron bars, metal gates. or alarmed. U. Windows 1. Store front windows shall be visible to passing pedestrians and traffic. V. Building Numbering 1. Numbers and the backgrounds shall be 'of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime visibility. W, Alarm Systems 1. Install a burglar alarm system and a panic alarm if needed. Instructing management and employees on the operation of the alarm system will reduce the amount of false alarms and in turn save dollars and lives. sc- 31se 10 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ' ~ STAFF R PORT DATE: April 22, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Elline Garcia, Associate Planner SUBJECT: USE DETERMINATION 98-01 - OPPORTUNITY SALES, IN~,,. - A request to determine that a product storage warehouse (grocery, health, and beauty items) is similar to other supply/storage uses and is a permitted use within the General Commercial Zone. ANALYSIS: A. Backqround: Opportunity Sales Inc. is interested in establishing a warehouse use in an existing building located at 9456 Roberd Street. The applicant has indicated that he is interested in occupying the bottom floor of the building for the storage of grocery, health, and beauty items. The business consists of the purchase of overruns from manufacturers and resale to grocery and discount stores; however, the building at 9456 Roberd Street is proposed to be used solely as a warehouse. Opportunity Sales, Inc. customers include 99¢ Discount Stores. The applicant wishes to occupy approximately 14,000 square feet of the lower level of the structure, with hours of operation between 9:00 am to 5:00 pm. Pick up and deliveries will vary on average to approximately 5-6 deliveries during the week. The applicant currently houses their products at their Upland warehouse, which contains approximately 6,000 square feet of storage space. The structure at 9456 Roberd Street was originally built as a warehouse; however, the current zoning is General Commercial. The building is not of significant historical value. B. Use Requlations: After careful analysis of the permitted and conditionally permitted uses in ' the zone, it does not appear that there exist uses similar enough to allow warehousing as a primary use. The question is to weigh the benefits of allowing the continuance of a non- conforming use with restrictions imposed through the Conditional Use Permit process, or disallowing the use and potential like uses in the future, with the potential for the building to remain vacant for an undetermined amount of time. Exhibit "E" contains excerpts from the General Commercial Land Use Tables. As with most uses in the General Commercial zone, some storage is allowed as incidental to the primary use. In weighing the merits of this Use Determination application, it must be pointed out that use of structures for warehousing in the General Commercial zone may bring some unwelcome problems to areas zoned for commercial uses. The City may begin experiencing additional applications for the same type of use. With no point of sales or outlet activities, warehousing does not bring additional sales tax or a greater number of jobs and impacts streets with additional truck traffic. On the other hand, taken on a case-by-case basis, this particular building was originally built as a ITEM E PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT UD 98-01 - OPPORTUNITY SALES, INC. April 22, 1998 Page 2 warehouse, resting adjacent to the Southern Pacific Red Line. The applicant wishes to utilize only the lower level of the building, and will use only one 16-foot bobtail truck for pickup and delivery approximately 5-6 times weekly. C. Non-Conformance: The purpose behind the Non-Conformance Section of the Development Code is to discourage and discontinue uses incompatible with current zoning standards. However, many uses permitted in the General Commercial zone, such as retail establishments or health clubs, may actually be more intense than the warehousing use being proposed. Until such time as parcel consolidation and master planning of the area takes place, these issues will continue to be of concern. The former occupant was Scheu Manufacturing, a manufacturer of portable heaters, who closed out their business license in December of 1996 when they relocated to another location. They obtained another business license 'as a commercial property owner, but it appears the building has been vacant for approximately 16 months. Section 17.02.130 D. of the Development Code pertaining to Non-Conforming Uses & Structures outlines that if a non-conforming use has been discontinued for a continuous period of 180 days, the Non- Conforming Use shall not be reestablished, with any new uses in conformity with current zoning standards. However, Section 17.02.130 E., Change of Non-Conforming Use, allows the Planning Commission to "Consider and approve, or conditionally approve a request to change a Non- Conforming Use to a different Non-Conforming Use provided that 1) there is no new structure, 2) said use is not of greater intensity (e.g. traffic, noise, density, parking demand, odor, light) and 3) said use complies with Section 17.02.130-C2, subject to a Conditional Use Permit as specified in Section 17.04.030." If the building remains vacant for a significant amount of time, additional maintenance and code enforcement problems will most likely become prevalent. Staff believes that the application is more appropriately addressed through a Change of Non-Conforming Use through the processing of a Non-Construction Conditional Use Permit. Some maintenance and additional site clean up may be imposed as reasonable conditions upon the use. As the applicant has represented his business operations, the continuation of this Non-Conforming Use may actually be less intense than many permitted or conditionally permitted uses in the General Commercial Zone. Therefore, a compromise solution is to direct the applicant to work with staff to process a Non- Construction Conditional Use Permit to which the City Planner may impose reasonable conditions addressing site maintenance. If, in the future, the applicant wishes to expand or alter the use in any way. a new Conditional Use Permit shall be required in which full improvements are required in order to bring the site and use into conformance with all development standards required in the General Commercial Zone. Options: Given these issues, the Planning Commission has the following options in addressing Use Determination 98-01: 1. Approve the Use Determination by resolution based upon the fact that some uses allowed in the General Commercial Zone allow storage as part of the primary use; PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT UD 98-01 - OPPORTUNITY SALES, INC. April 22, 1998 Page 3 2. Deny the Use Determination without prejudice, acknowledging the fact that the business has been discontinued for more than 180 days, and determining that the use is actually a Change of Non-Conforming Use. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission deny Use Determination 98-01 without prejudice, determine that the use is more appropriately a Change in Non-Conforming Use, and direct the applicant to utilize the Non-Construction Conditional Use Permit process, whereby reasonable conditions may be imposed addressing site maintenance while continuing to restrict the Use. Respectfully submitted, Bra uller City Planner BB:EG:mlg Attachments: Exhibit"A" - Applicant's letter Exhibit "B" Floor Plan Exhibit "C" - Assessor's Map Exhibit "D" - Zoning Map Exhibit "E" - General Commercial Land Use Table Exhibit "F" Development Code - Non-Conformance Exhibit "G" - Site Photograph Resolution of Denial 2975 LEOPOLD AVENUE. SUITE 101 . HACIENDA HEIGHTS, CALIFORNIA 91745 ~ ~ ~/.C.~.D 968-!357 · FAX # (81S) 961-7475 March 19, 1998 ~ E C E I V E D Cky of~cho Cucam~ga City o~ ~ancho CucamonVa PI~g Di~sion ~lannin9 Division Mr. Brad BulIer 10500 Ci~c Center Drive ~cho Cucamonga, CA 9]730 Dear Mr. Buller, We are appl~g for a cky Iicense for ~orage of our pr~u~s at 9456 Roberd Str~, c~ of ~cho Cucamonga. Our retentions are to l~se ~py only ~e b~om floor of~is build~g. ~pon~ Sales, hc. is a small comply ~at buys ~d sells household ~ems such as grocer' ~ems, h~ ~d b~y kems ~d gfle~l merch~se kems ~at are ~ocked by ~oce~ ~d ~sco~t ~ores. We do not ~k flmble kems or ~y hanrdous mte~als. Our o~ces are l~ated at 2975 Leopold Avenue, Suite 101, ~cien& Hei~ts, CA 91745. selling ~d all business is done at ~is l~ation. We cu~tly ~ore our pr~um at 123 S. 3'a Av~ue, Upl~d, CA. We have ben here for 3 y~rs ~d have never expe~enc~ ~y problems. ~is warehouse is ju~ too small for our n~s. We have a 16 f~ bo~il ~ck ~at we use for pic~g up ~e pr~u~s ~at we purchase ~d ~e s~e track delivers ~e pr~u~s ~at we sell to our cu~omers, ~erefore, ~ere should be no si~ific~t impa~ on ~e l~al tra~c. We are ~clos~ a check for $325.00 for ~e pl~g f~ It is our hope ~ ~e C~y of ~cho Cu~monga ~d e~ecially ~e PI~g D~am~ ~rove our proposed use at ~s buil~g at ~eir ne~ m~g. If more ~fo~ation is n~d~ to gmt ~is r~ pl~se conm~ me. Sincerely, John F. McEuen, President ;q ' National Network of Sales Specialists )rnesTec2c~ Mssoclarlon Rancho Cucamonga City 202-b1~:t · 6/46 Tax Rate Area 15004 STREETs."- Assessor's Map Book 202 Page 09 San Bernardino County Z~J'tfi & r' '~ "o b n Ranclio Cucamonga Development Code Sections ] 7. l O. O.10 & 17. 10. 020 CHAPTER 17.10 Commercial/Office Districts Section 17.10.010 - Purposes and General Plan Consistency A. The following objectives have been formulated for the commercial anc~ office districts for the implementation of the General Plan goals and objectives. 1. Provide appropriately located areas for office uses, retail stores, and service establishments to meet the needs of the communib/. 2. Promote and encourage ofi'~ce and commercial locations and designs to be conveniently accessible by bicycle and foot, as wall as by-automobile. 3. Promote and encourage office and commercial uses to be designed in centers or like groups for the convenience of the public and to avoid creating nuisances among adjacent land uses. 4. Use and promote open spaces and landscaping to create a visually pleasing env tonmont. as well as to distinguish city and neighborhood boundaries. 5, intensified or regional-related commercial uses shall be organized and designed to promote maximum opportunity for transit usage. 6, I~ is intended that commercial/o~ce uses shall be organized and designed to promote maximum opportunity for transit usage. 7. Commercial and office development shall exhibit the highest standards of site planning, architecture, and landscape design. Section 17.10.020 o Commercial Office Districts These districts have been created for implementaton of the goals, objectives, and land use designations of the General Plan. A. Pffice/Professional District (OP/. This district is intended primarily for the development of professional/administrative offices and personal services rather than commodities. Site development regulations and performance standards are designed to make such uses relatively compatible with residential uses. B. Neiohborhood Commercial District (NC), This district is intended to provide areas for immediate day-tcFday convenience shopping and services for the residents of the immediate neighborhood. Site development regulations and performance standards are intended to make such uses 17.10-1 3/95 r"£ ' Rancko Cucarnonga Deveto. zvment Code Sections ] 7. ] O. 020 & ] 7. l O. 030 compatible to and harmonious with the character of surrounding residential or less intense land use area. C. General Commercial District (GC/. This district [s intended for general commercial activities and services of a more intensive nature. These uses would be located primarily along maior transpo~ation routes and would include major shopping facilities, major service-oriented uses, maior financial and corporate headquarters which are designed to seNe the City or the region as a whole. Section '17,'10,1:]30- Use Regulations Uses listed in Table 17.10.030 shalI be allowable in one or more of the commercial districts as indicated in the columns beneath each commercial district. Wnere indicated with the letter "P," the use shall be a permitted use in that district. V~nere indicated with ~he te':ter "C," the use shaIl be a conditional use subject to the Conditional Use Permit process. In the event there is di~cul~ in categorizing a given use in one of the districts, the procedure outlined in Section 17.02L040 shah be followed. Table 17.10.030 - Use Regulations for Commercial/office Districts Use OP NC GC A. Offices and Reta.:ed Uses 1. Administra.tive and executive offices. P P P 2. Artist and photographic studios, not including p p p the sale of equipment or supplies. 3. Clerical and professional offices. P P P 4. Financial seNices and institutions. including p p p drive-through banks. 5. Medical. dental, and related health sen;ices (non-animal related). including [abor_atodes and p p p clinics; only the sale of articles clearly incidental to the services provided shall be permi~.ed. 6. Prescription pharmacies, (also when located within a building containing the offices of 5 or P P P more medical practitioners) 7. Public buildings (ci.,-/and count'/builc:in;s. p p p special districts, and pas~ 8. Public utility seNice o,=jces P P P P = Permitted Use C -' Conditional Use ,~e,,'m.t't required 17.10-2 3/95 Ra~c]~o Cucamonga Development Code Section J 7. ]0. 030 9. Public safety facility (police, fire, ambulance and paramedics). C C C 10. Related commercial uses (b ueprintjng, stationary, quick copy. etc.) when incidental to P p p an office building or complex, B. General Commercial Uses 1. Antique shops, p p 2. Animal Care Facility (animal hosp tal, veterinarian, commercial kennel, grooming). a. Excluding exter or kennel. Dens, or runs. C P p b. Including exterior kennel, pens, or runs, C 3. Apparel stores. I P P 4. Art, music. and photographic studios and supply stores. P P P 5. Appliance stores and repair. ~ p p 6. Arcades (see special requirements per Section 17.10.030 F.). C C 7. A~hletic and Health Club, gyms. and weight reducing clinics. P P P 8. Automotive sales and services (including motorcycles, boats. trailers, and campers). c. Repairs (major eng ne work, muffler shops. painting, body work, and C upholstery). d, Coin-op washing. ] C C C e. Automatic washing. I C C C f. Service or gasoline dispensing stations (including minor repair such as tune-ups, C C P brakes, bakeries, tires. mufflers), P =Perrnitted Use C = Condittbnal Use Pen~it required 17.10-3 3/93 Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Section J 7. ] O. 030 Use OP NC GC g. Par~s and supplies. P p h. Tire sales and service (no outdoor storage). P 9. Bakeries (retail only). P p 10. Barber and beauty shops. P p p 11. Bicycle shops. P p 12. Blueprint and photocopy services. P p p 13. Book, gift and stationary stores (other than p p p adult related material). 14. Candy stores and confectionaries. p p 15. Catering establishments. p 16. Cleaning and pressing establishments. P P p 17. Carpenter shop or cabinet shop. P 18. Cocktail lounge (bar, lounge, tavern)including related entertainment. a. Operated independent of a restaurant. C ~ ~ C b. Accessory to a restaurant. C ~ C I C 19. Commercial recreation facilities. a. indoor uses such as bowling, theaters, C C P billiards, etc. b. Outdoor uses such as golf, tennis, C C C basketball, baseball, trampolices, etc. 20. Dairy product stores. P p 21. Delicatessens. p p 22. Department stores. P 23, Drive-in businesses. including theaters. (other C C than fast food restaurants). 24. Drug stores and pharmacies. P p p P = Permitted Use C = Conditional Use Permit required 17.10-4 3/96 Rancho Cucarnonga Development Code Section J 7. 10. 030 · 25. Equipment rentai yards. C 26. Electronic goods (i.e. TV's, stereos, radios, VCR's) sales and service. P P 27. Fast-food restaurants· C C P 28. Feed/Tack stores. p p 29. Florist shops. p p p 30. Food stores and supermarkets. p p 31. Furniture stores, repair and upholstery. I P P 32. General retail stores· p p 33. Hardware stores. f p p 34. Home improvement centers· a. Material stored and sold within enclosed buildings. P P b, Outdoor storage of material such as lumber and building materia!s, C 35. Hotels and Motels. 1 C P 36. Ice Machines (outdoor). p p 37. Janitorial services and supplies, p p 38. Jewelry stores. I P P 39. Laundry self-sen,ice . _ p p 40. Liquor stores. ~ C C 41. Kiosks for key shops, film drops. et:, in parking lots, P P 42. Locksmith shop. p ~ p 43. Massage establishments. I C 44, Mini-storage for public use (no outdoor storage), C 45. Menuaries and cemeteries· C C I C P = Penwitted Use C =Condttienaf Use Permzt required 17.10-5 3f96 Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Section ] 7. ] O. 030 Use OP NC GC 46. Music, dance, and martial ar~s studio. P P 47. Newspaper and magazine stores. P P P 48. Nurseries and garden supply stores; provided, in the NC district, all equipment, supplies and material are kept within an enclosed area, and P P provided that fertilizer is stored in packaged form only. 49. Office and business machine stores. P P P 50. Office supply stores. P P 51. Parking facilities (commercial) where fees are P P charged. 52. Pet shop. P P 53. Political or philanthropic headquarters. P P P 54. Plumbing shop and supplies. P 55. Photocopy. P P P 56. Printing shops. P 57. Recreational Vehicle Storage Yard. C 58 Restaurants (other than fast food). a. WIth ente~ainment and/or cocktail [ounge C C C and bar. b. Incidental serving of beer and wine but without a cocktail lounge, bar, P P P entertainment, or dancing. 59. Shoe stores. sales and repair. P P 60. Second-hand stores and pawn shops. P 61. Shopping Center subject to provisions in C C Section 17.10.030-F.4. 62. Spiritualist readings or astrology forecasting. P 63. Sporting goods stores. P P 6,4. Stamp and coin shops. P P Permitted Use Conditional Use .-~e.,'m, it required : 17.10-6 3/96 ,Rancho Cucambnga Development Code Section ] Z 10. 03 t~ Use OP NC GC 65. Swimming pool supplies. p p 65. Taibr. p p 67. Taxidermists. p 6& Toy stores. p p 69. Travel agencies. p p p 70. Transporlation facilities (train and bus, taxi depots). C C C 71. Truck and trailer rental. sa2es and service. C 72. Variety stores. p p C. Public and semi-public uses 1. Day Care Facilities. C C C 2. Convalescent facilities. p p 3. Hospitals. C C 4. Private and public clubs and lodges. including YMCA, YVVCA, and similar youth group uses. C C C 5. Educational institutions, parochial, private (including colleges and universities). C C C 6. Libraries & museums, public or private. p p p 7. Parks and recreation facilities. public or private. C C C 8. Public utility installations. C C C 9. Vocational or business trade schools. C C C 10. Churches, convents, monasteries, and other religious institutions. C C C D. _A, ccessorv Uses 1. ~ccessory structures and uses customarily rncidental to a permitted use and contained on P p p the same site. Permitted Use ConditkPna/ Use Permit required 17. I 0-7 3/96 Rancho Cucarnonga Development Code Section J 7. ] O. 030 Use I OP NC GC 2. Accessory structures and uses customarily incidental to a conditional use and contained on C C C the same site. 3. Caretakers residence. P P P 4. Amusement Devices, per Section 17.10.030-F. P P P E. TemporaN Uses 1. Temporary uses as prescribed in Section P P P 17.04.070 and subject to those provisions. 2. Temporary o~ce modules, subject to C C C provisions in Section 17.10.030-F.3. P = Permitted Use C = Conditional Use P.~rrnit required F. Special Use Requlafions 1. Amusement Devices. The use of amusement devices, as defined in Chapter 17.02, as an accessory use to a permitted use. shaft be regulated based on the following criteria. a. No more than three devices, but not to exceed 5 pe_rcent of the pubtic floor area, may be permitted per business without approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Each machine and playing area occupies a minimum of 10 square feet. b. The devices shall not obstruct or crowd entries. exits, or aisles. c. Adult super,vision is required and the devices must be placed in an area which is visible to the supervisor at all times. 2. Arcades. In consideration of a request for an arcade. as defined in Chapter 17.02. the following criteria will be considered and application material requested. a. The Commission shall consider, but not be limited to, the need for adult supervision, hours of operation, proximity to schools and other community uses, compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood and businesses, noise attenuation, bicycle facilities, and interior waiting areas. b. The applicant shall submit with his application, three sets of typed gummed labels. listing the name and address of all businesses within a shopping center and all landowners within a 300-foot radius of the shopping center or arcade. c. Each application shall contain a description of the types of machines, a floor plan, and hours of operation. 17,10-8 3196 Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Sections .l Z 02. ]20 & ] Z 02. ]30 G. Administration. Any act creating or permiXing the creation of a noise disturbance as defined by '.".'~' this Code, not otherwise excluded by the preceding section of this Code, shall constitute a violation of this Code and shall be abated as such. H. Prima Facie Violation. Any noise exceeding the noise level standards for a designated noise zone as specified in this Section shall be deemed to be pdma facie evidence of a violation of the provisions of this Section. · Section 17.02.130 - Non-Conforming Uses & Structures A. Purpose. This section is intended to limit the number and extent of non-conforming uses by regulating their enlargement, their reestabiishment after abandonment, and the alteration or restoration after destruction of the structures they occupy. In addition, this section is intended to limit the number and extent of non-conforming structures by prohibiting their being moved, altered, or enlarged in a manner that would increase the discrepancy between existing conditions and the standards prescribed in this Code. B. Continuation and MaintenancP 1. A use lawfully occupying a structure or a site that does not conform with the use regulations or the site area regulations for the district in which the use is located shall be deemed to be a non-conforming use and may be continued, except as otherwise limited in this Section· 2. A structure lawfully occupying a sit~ that does not conform with the standards for front yard. side yards. rear yard, height. coverego. distances between structures. and parking facilities for the district in which the structure is located. shatt be deemed to be a non- conforming structure and may be used and maintained. except as limited provided in this Section. 3. Routine maintenance and repairs may be performed on a non-conforming use or structure. C. Alterations and Additions to Non-Conformina Uses and Structure~ · 1. No non-conforming use shall be enlarged or extended in such a way as to occupy any part of the structure or site or any other structure or site which it did not occupy at the time it became a non-conforming use, or'in such a way as to displace any conforming use occupying a structure or site, except as permitted in this Section. 2. No non-conforming structure shall be altered or reconstructed so as to increase the discrepancy between existing conditions and the standards for front yard, side yards, rear yard, height of structures, distances between structures. and parking facilities as prescribed in the regulations for the district in which the structure is located. '"~ D. Discontinuation of Non-Conformino Us~ Whenever a non-conforming use has been changed to a conforming use or has been discontinued for a continuous period of 180 days or more, the non-conforming use shall not be reestablished. and the use of the structure pr site thereafter shall be in conformity. with the regulations for the distdct in which it is located, provided that this section shah not apply to non-conforming dwelling units. Discontinuation shatt include termination of a use regardless of intent to resume the use. - - 17.02-17 3/96 R~2nclTo CucQrn. ongg De~,alomrnanr Co~e Saclions 17. 02. !~0 ~: ] ~. 02. JS5 ~ E. Chance of Non-Conformino Use. The Planning Commission may consider and approve, or conditionally approve, a request to change a non-ccnfor, ming use to a different non-conforming use, provided that 1) there is no new structure, 2) said use is not of greater intensity (e.g., traffic, noise, densi~, parking demand, odor. light), and 3) said use complies with the provisions of Section 17.02.130-C-2, subject to a Conditional Use Permit as specified in Section 17.04.030. F. Roe{oration of a Damaoed Structure 1. Winenever a structure which does not comply with the standards for front yard, side yards, rear yard, height of structures; distances between structures, and parking facilities as prescribed in the regulations for the district in which the structure is located, or the use of which does not conform with the regulations for the district in which it is located, is destroyed by fire or other calamity, by act of God, or by the public enemy to the extent of 50 percent or tess, the structure may be restored and the non-conforming use may be resumed, provided that restoration is started within one year and diligently pursued to completion. W'nen the destruction exceeds 50 percent or the structure is voluntarily razed or is required by law to be razed, the structure shall no~ be restored except in full conformity with the regulations for the district in which it is located and the non-conforming use shall not be resumed. 2. The extent of damage or partial destruction shot[ be based upon the ratio of the estimated cost of restoring the structure to its condition prior to such damage or partial destruction to the estimated cost of duplicating the entire structure as it existed prior thereto. Estimates for this purpose shall be made by or shall De reviewed and approved by the Building O~cial and sha~[ be based on the minimum cos~ of construction in compliance with the Building Code. G. Cit,: Planner. Any request for alteration. expansion or restoration of a non-conforming use or structure shall be reviewed by the Cit'/Planner to determine compliance with the provisions contained in this section or refer it to the Planning Commission as specified in Section 17.02.130-H. The Cb/Planner shall notif'/the apptican~ and surrounding propert,/owners of the decision. The decision of the City Planner may be appealed by any aggrieved party v;ithin ten calendar days of the decision. H. Plannina Commission Review. The Planning Commission shall conduct a public hearing pursuant to Section 17.02.110. The Planning Co_remission shall review each case and all makers of fact. The Commission may grant the request. ~cram the request with modi~ca:ion. or deny the request. The Commission shall state that the request will or will not be detrimental to the goats and obiectives of the General Plan and thai such request will or will not be detrimental to the public health, safe.."/, or welfare or materially injurious to prope~ies or improvements in the vicini,.'y. Section 17.02.135 - General Development Standards The provisions of this section shall apply to all development within the Ci,'y of Poncho Cucamonga. unless otherwise specified heroin. A. Water Conser,'ation. Landscaping and irrigation must be designed .'.c consoNe water through using the principles of Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.15 of the Poncho Cucamonga MunicipaI Code. excep~ where exempted therein. 17.02-iB 3/95 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE USE DETERMINATION NO. 98-01, A REQUEST FOR A USE DETERMINATION TO ALLOW A PRODUCT STORAGE WAREHOUSE WITHIN THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONE. A. Recitals. 1. Opportunity Sales, Inc. has filed an application for Use Determination No. 98-01, as described in the title of this Resolution. Heroinafter in this Resolution, the subject use Determination is referred to as "the application." 2. On April 22, 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public headrig 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 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 April 22, 1998, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The use in question is not of a similar nature, operation, and intensity as other uses permitted, or conditionally permitted in the same district. b. The use in question does not meet the purpose and the intent of the distdct in which it is proposed. c. The use in question does not meet and conform to the applicable goals and objectives of the General Plan. d. The use in question does comply with the Development Code Section 17.02.130, pertaining to Non-Conforming Use and Structures, which allows the Planning Commission to consider and approve, or conditionally approve a request to change a Non-Conforming use to another Non-Conforming Use. 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 denies the requested Use Determination, and directs the applicant to process a Non-Construction Conditional Use Permit to change a Non-Conforming Use to another Non-Conforming Use. 4. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. UD 98-01- OPPORTUNITY SALES, INC. April22,1998 Page 2 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY O,F 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 22nd day of April 1998, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSB'NT: COMMISSIONERS: