The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1998/05/27 - Agenda Packet CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION '!i~: ii:,~+ :! !!~!:A G E N D A WEDNESDAY MAY 27, 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 22, 1998 Adjourned Meeting of April 22, 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. VACATION OF NORTHTOWN AREA ALLEY (V-155) - A request to vacate five portions of alleys generally within the area bounded by Hermosa Avenue/Marine Avenue and 26th Street/Humbolt Avenue, each 20 feet wide and between 125 feet (minimum) to 600 feet (maximum) long - DR 97-35 and V-155 by Northtown Housing Development Company. 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. Aft such opinions shaft be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. Please sign in after speaking. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 15247 - SHIBATA - A request for an extension of a previously approved tentative tract map including design review for the development of 13 condominium units on 1.4 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of 19th Street between Amethyst Street and Hellman Avenue - APN: 201-474-05. Related Tree Removal Permit 91-29. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-37 MODIFICATION - GOOD FELLAS CIGARS -A request to add indoor entertainment and billiards to an existing cigar shop and bar within a leased space of 2,800 square feet in the Virginia Dare Business Center, in the General Commercial District, located at 8034 Haven Avenue, Suite B - APN: 1077-661-02. Related File: Entertainment Permit 98-01 D. ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT 98-01 - GOOD FELLAS CIGARS - A request to add indoor entertainment including dancing, live bands, karaoke, and billiards to an existing cigar shop and bar within a leased space of 2,800 square feet in the Virginia Dare Business Center, in the General Commercial District, located at 8034 Haven Avenue, Suite B - APN: 1077-661-02. Related File: Conditional Use Permit 97-37 Modification. VI. 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. VII. COMMISSION BUSINESS E. DESIGN AWARDS NOMINATIONS (Continued from May 13, 1998) VIII. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 1 f:O0 p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shaft be heard only with the consent of the Commission. Page 2 I, Tficia Ashby, Planning Division Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on May 21, ~998, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at ~ 0500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. Page 3 VICINITY MAP ,..+...,....~.~.~.,~,,,,,,,oo,,,,,o,o.,,o-, ..... :::o ~?i:i:E:E:i:i~E:~:?i:E:!EEEiE:E:E:?E:i:i:iiiiE~:i:E:E:E:E|~:i:i:i:~.:i~!~EE~EEEEE~EEEE~EEEEEi::E~EEE~iEE~E~ ~iiiiii!EEZEEEEEi~EEEEiEiEEE:.E:E:E:!:E:E:i:i:E:E:E:E:E:E:E..:.: ........ ========================================================================================== · °~.~.~~~~.~~.~..~.~~~~~~~~~~~~.~~.~.~.~~.~~~~~~~.~~~.~~~.~~~~~~~~~.~~~.~~~~.~.~..~~~~~~~~~.~~..~.~~~~...~~~~.~~~~~~~~°:. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ...... i: I~::~"""""""' r.& S.F, RR CITY HALL CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: May 27, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer BY: Phillip Verbera, Assistant Engineer SUBJECT: VACATION OF NORTHTOWN AREA ALLEYS (V-155) - A request to vacate five portions of alleys generally within the area bounded by Hermosa Avenue/Marine Avenue and 261h Street/Hambolt Avenue, each 20 feet wide and between 125 feet (minimum) to 600 feet (maximum) long - DR 97-35 and V-155 by Northtown Housing Development Company BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: On January 14, 1998, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 98-02 approving Development Review 97-35 to construct single family residences on thirteen in-fill lots. Northtown Housing Development Company (NTHDC) is currently processing DR 97-35 as phase two of its Infill Housing Program. In conjunction with tkis processing, NTHDC has requested the vacation of certain unimproved alleys that are contiguous to houses proposed for this phase of infill housing. These alleys are either currently not being used for access by adjacent properties or have been fenced in by property owners and are inaccessible. Basically, these alleys are just "paper" alleys that were created with the original North Cucamonga Subdivision in 1887 and are not needed for public use. Utility companies, other agencies and City divisions have been notified of the proposed vacations and were asked fortheir comments. There were no objections to the vacation from any of the groups notified. If the alleys are vacated, half the width (10 feet) will revert to the adjoining and adjacent lots. A majority of the affected property owners have been contacted by NTHDC and none have voiced an unfavorable opinion on the vacation. However, all the affected owners will be notified by mail of this proposed vacation prior to City Council action. The vacation is consistent with the goals and objectives of the circulation element of the general plan. The alleys in this area of the City are also not included or required as "community travel routes" of the general plan. ITEM A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFFREPORT V-155 May27,1998 Page 2 RE MME DA I N: Staff recommends that the Planning Cormnission make the finding through minute action that the proposed vacations conform with the City' s General Plan. This finding will be forwarded to the City Council for further processing and final approval. Respectfully submitted, Senior Civil Engineer DJ:PV:sd Attachments: Legal Descriptions of Vacations (Exhibit "A") V- 155 Map (Exhibit "B ") Northtown Area Alley Vacation Requests EXHIBIT Legal Descriptions Those existing public alleyways as designated on the Map of the North Cucamonga Tract per plat recorded in Book 4, Page 8 of Maps, records of the County Recorder of the County of San Bernardino, State of California, more particularly described as follows: Parcel "A" That 20' wide public alleyway within Block 53 of said North Cucamonga Tract bounded on the west by the southerly prolongation of the east line of the westerly four (4) feet of Lot 23 and the northerly prolongation of the east line of the westerly four (4) feet of Lot 24 and bounded on the east by the southerly prolongation of the west Fine of Lot 1 and the northerly prolongation of the west line of Lot 2. Contains Approximately 1,082 S.F. Parcel "B" That 20' wide public alleyway within Block 54 of said North Cucamonga Tract bounded on the west by the southerly prolongation of the west line of Lot 29 and the northerly prolongation of the west line of Lot 30 and bounded on the east by the southerly prolongation of the east line of Lot 21 and the northerly prolongation of the east line of Lot 22. Contains Approximately 4,900 S.F. Parcel "C" That 20' wide public alleyway within-Block 54 of said North Cucamonga Tract bounded on the north by the easterly prolonoation of the north line of Lot 13 ~-'~ the westerly prolongation of the north line of Lot 12 and bounded on the south by the easterly prolongation of the south line of Lot 13 and the westerly prolongation of the south line of Lot 7. Contains Approximately 3,000 S.F. Parcel "D" That 20' wide public alleyway within Block 54 of said North Cucamonga Tract bounded in the west by the southerly prolongation of the west line of Lot 7 and the northerly prolongation of the west line of Lot 6 and bounded on the east (including the easterly projection thereof onto Center Street) by the southerly prolongation of a line parallel to and 10 feet easterly of the east line of Lot 7 and the northerly prolongation of a line pai'allel to and 10 feet easterly of the east line of Lot 6. Contains Approximately 2,300 S.F. Parcel "E" That 20' wide public alleyway within Block 63 of said North Cucamonga Tract bounded on the north (including the northerly projection thereof onto 241h Street) by the easterly prolongation of a line parallel to and l0 feet northerly of the north line of Lot 12 and the westerly prolongation of a line parallel to and 10 feet northerly of the north line of Lot 13 and bounded on the south by easterly pr01ongation of the south line of Lot 1 and the westerly prolongation of the south line of Lot 14. Contains Approximately 6,200 S.F. See EXHIBIT 'B~ attached hereto and made part hereof. prepared by: ~,, Derbish, Guerra & Associates ~fl' '~.~'~ 8331 Utica Avenue, Suite 150 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (~9) 987-4306 ~..~ ~ ~,~J~. ~, . ,~ _ ~3 L~,:~~" ~-~- ' ~ I~;'~ ~u~T~. ~ =' ~ 1~' - LO~E~ U.C ~ ,~. ... ......... .. _~: ~=,,~ ~ ,~ .: . . . , : ..... : ~: ~ ~1 · '. ::.:':: ':::::' ~, ~: ............ .: :'~ ~ , ....... :~ : '~:' :' :s ~::~.~-~:~'::'. ::::::::::::::::::::::: . :. :t ~ ~ .................... ~ ................ :":' "~ .... ~l ........ :" .............. :""':'_.'::.::::: ~ ............. "'-..:--..:-.-.--. .......... : ....... :....:--.. ~ ......................... :_....:...: ................. : ....... .P.Y..~.~: .... ~.-.: ...... ~ ............. . .......................... ~"""""'-"""-""' ,~o~,v~ ,1 , ~ ,,,,'~, ,~, ~'~' ' 8331 U~ca Avenue, Su&~e 150 CITY OF RANCHO CUCA/VIONGA -- STAFF REPORT DATE: May 27, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Cecilia Gallardo, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVF TRACT 15247 - SHIBATA - A request for an extension of a previously approved tentative tract map including design review for the development of 13 condominium units on 1.4 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of 19th Street between Amethyst Street and Hellman Avenue - APN: 201-474-05. Related file: Tree Removal Permit 91-29. BACKGROUND: Tentative Tract 15247 was approved by the Planning Commission on March 25, 1992. Since that time, the State granted automatic time extensions for several years during the recession. This extended the expiration of the subject Tentative Tract to March 25, 1998. Prior to expiration, the applicant filed an extension request. ANALYSIS: According to Section 66452.6(e) of the Subdivision Map Act, the City may extend the time at which a Tentative Map approval expires by up to three years. However, the Planning Commission approval also included design review for construction of condominium units on the lots. Approval of the time extension would also apply to approvals for the design review. The Development Code limits time extension for design review approvals to one-year increments. There are up to two one-year time extensions available that may be granted by the City. Staff has analyzed the proposed time extension and compared the proposal with current development criteria outlined in the Development Code. Based on this review, the Tentative Tract meets the development standards for the Medium Residential District. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Part I of the Initial Study has been prepared by the applicant. Staff has completed Part II of the Environmental Checklist and found that conditions in the area have not changed appreciably since the Tentative Tract received tentative approval March 25, 1992. Staff recommends adherence to the mitigation measures for noise and tree removal which were included in the original project approval. 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. ITEM B PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TT 15247 - SHIBATA May 27, 1998 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission grant a one-year time extension for the subdivision map and design review for Tentative Tract 15247 through adoption of the attached Resolutions and issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Respectfully submitted, Brad Bulter City Planner BB:CG:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" Letter from Applicant Exhibit "B" Time Extension Letters dated February 8, and June 18. 1996 Exhibit "C" Site Utilization Map Exhibit "D" Site Plan Exhibit "E" Tentative Tract Map Exhibit "F" Elevations & Floor Plans Exhibit "G" Initial Study Part II Exhibit "H" Tree Identification Plan Resolution of Approval - Tentative Tract Time Extension Resolution of Approval - Design Review Time Extension SHIBATA'S n E C E ~ V E 2z~39 Antler Point Drive Henderson, Nevada 8901zF MAR S 3 1998 City ol Rancho Cucarnonga Planning DMsion City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, Calif Attention: Dan Coleman: We would like to request a time extension on the following subject: TT 152z~7 Enclosed with this request are the following items: I. Fee of $ 5~9.00 for time extention 2. Initial Study Part I completed by R Shibata 3. Initial Study Fee of $225.00 plus $30.00 Item #3 is a concern because we didn't pay this fee at the last time extension and it was not mentioned in our phone conversation. Could you please explain this additional fee to us. Thank You, Terry Shibata (702) 263-1872 T H E- C I ~T Y 0 F NC CUCA?iQ QA February 8.1996 Royce Shibata P.O. Box 60579 Boulder City, NV 89006-0579 SUBJECT: TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 15247 Dear Mr. Shibata: The Planning Division has approved your request for a time extension to the above-described project subject to the following findings: 1. There have been no significant changes in the General Plan Land Use Element. Development Code or other applicable specific/community plan; and 2. There have been no significant changes in the Character of the area within which the map is located; and 3. There have been no significant changes in current planning policy or past practice that would cause the approved map to become inconsistent or non-conforming. The new expiration date is as follows: Project New File No. Exairation Date TT 15247 March 25, 1997 If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sincerely. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNI DIVIS ~ r,nc,pa, DC/ds MC'/.$: W[Hia,,'-n J. A~exander .z~= Ccuncitmembe; Paul Bicne ~,'la,t'~: ?:D-Tern Re:< Gu:!er;ez ~?,,rr~,~.~ z Cc,Jnc!!rr'em~,e: james V. Cura~c!o Jack L.sm, AiCP. Ch"/b,,ICns~ar !,nCi rr',,arr;S, er Decree ':~7.': S ,: Ce-,ter C,r;,e · ~.~s. Box a;37 · F~c::cr'a C'scsmo";s CA. 9172~ · (;5g) -?&,:'-1351 FAX (9'29) T H F_ C I T Y 0 F ANCi-IQ CUCAHQNQA June 18. 1996 Royce Shibata P.O. Box 60579 Boulder City, NV 89006-0579 SUBJECT: TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 15247 Dear Applicant: In response to the severe impact of the recession on developers, the Legislature recently amended the Subdivision Map Act by Assembly Bill 711 (Aguiar). This bill extends by 12 months the expiration date of any tentative subdivision and parcel map that had not expired on or before Mary 14, 1996. This extension is in addition to any other extension as provided for in the Map Act. Therefore, the new expiration date for your project is as follows: File # New Expiration Date: TT 15247 March 25, 1998 AB 771 also extends any Conditional Use Permit or DevelopmentjDesign Review application granted in conjunction with your tentative subdivision map. The extensions granted by AB 771 are automatic; no apprication for extension or fee is necessary. ff you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office at (909) 477-2750. Sincerely, COMMUNIT'( DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNIN DIVISION City Planner BB:DC:mlg cc: Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer FOR CONDOMIUM PURPOSES TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15247 \ \ \ \ \ F..:7'=i"7. ~ UIN}:R/D~:VI$:,I,OI'RR Sin St,qlO, RY EIFJI~I31I::311-1[+IL:I ~EIDIqE]E]FJI~I I/aIIJIZlIZ~I?IEIEIE1 FZIlalIrZIIT/,IFJIZIIZIEI City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM · INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 15247 - SHIBATA 2. Related Files: Tree Removal Permit 91-29 3. Description of Project: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 15247 - SHIBATA - A request for an extension of a previously approved tentative tract map including design review for the development of 13 condominium units on 1.4 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of 19th Street between Amethyst Street and Hellman Avenue - APN: 201-474-05. (Related File: Tree Removal Permit 91-29). 4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Royce & Terry Shibata 2439 Antler Point Drive Henderson, Nevada 89014 5. General Plan Designation: Medium Residential 6. Zoning: Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project is surrounded on the north by senior apadments, on the south by single family residences, to the east by a church, and to the west by a single family home and multi- family units. 8. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 9. Contact Person and Phone Number: Cecilia Gallardo (909) 477-2750 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: Cucamonga County Water District Caltrans "G" Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract 15247 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 (X) Transportation/Circulation ( ) Public Services ) Population and Housing ~ Biological Resources (X) Utifities and Service Systems (X) Geological Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources (X) Aesthetics (X) Water ( ) Hazards ( ) Cultural Resources ( ) Air Quality (X) Noise ( ) Recreation ( ) Mandaton/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. (X) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project, or agreed to, by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ( ) I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ( ) I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based upon the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ( ) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1 ) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Signed: ~~2~22~ Cecilia Gallardo Assistant Planner April 27, 1998 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract 15247 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. ~ND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdi~ion over the project? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Induce substantial gro~h in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal resufl in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract 15247 Page 4 Signfficanl PotentiallyUnless Than d) Seiche hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) f) Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) h) Expansive soils? ( ) ( ) ( (X) i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) ( (X) Comments: f) The topography of the site will be altered to accommodate the buildings. The grading will be supervised by a licensed soils engineer or registered geologist to ensure compliance with building code reguirements. 4. WATER. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? ) (X) ( ) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ) ( ) (X) c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? ) ( ) (X) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any ' water body? ( ) ( ) (X) e) Changes in currents. or the course or direction of water movements? ( ) ( ) (X) f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract 15247 Page 5 SignScant i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: a) The absorption rate will be altered because of the paving and hardscape proposed. All waters will be conveyed to appropriate drainage facilities, including a new storm drain and catch basin, designed to handle the flows. 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal; a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Alter air movement. moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result/n: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ( ) (X) ( ) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ( ( ) ( (X) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ( ) ( ) ( (X) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) g) Ra or air traffic impacts? ~) ) (7 ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract 15247 Page 6 Comments: a) The project will generate additional passenger car and truck trips because of the new construction and the resulting residential units. The number of trips, however, is not expected to be significant. Significant 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species' or their habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? ( ) ( ) (X) b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees, eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? (X) ( ) ( ) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., eucalyptus grove, sage.scrub habitat, etC.)? ( ) ( ) (X) d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? ( ) ( ) (x) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: b) The site contains many mature trees which are ~n conflict with the proposed development and improvements. An arborist repod was prepared for this site to determine the significance of the trees and the feasibility of relocating those trees which are in conflict with the proposed development. As a result, the following recommendations have been made (Exhibit "H"): 1 .) Tree Nos. 6-10, 13, 16, 22, 24: Not subject to protection because of size or species. Replacement trees are not required. 2.) Tree Nos. 1, 11, 14, 15, 18, 20, 21: Arborist recommends removal because of poor health, structure, or species of tree. These trees should be replaced with the largest nurse~-grown stock available. 3.) Tree Nos. 4, 5, 12, 17, 19: Arborist recommends prese~ation through transplantation elsewhere on-site. Plotting should be incorporated into the final landscape plan. 4.) Tree Nos. 2, 3, 23: Off-site, conse~able. These trees should be protected during construction because of their proximity to the proposed improvements. Staff has determined that any Significant effects created by the proposed project can be mitigated to a level of insignificance with the relocation and replacement of the existing Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract 15247 Page 7 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposah a) Conflict with adopted energy consedation plans? ) ( ) (X) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and ine~cient manner? ) ( ) (X) · c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? ) ( ) (X) 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including. but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation ptan? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Increased fire hazard in areas with fiammable brush, grass, or trees? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 10. NOISE. Will the proposal result in: a) Increases i~ existing noise levels? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) (X) ( ) ( ) Comments: a) The project involves the development of 13 condominium units. Construction activity is likely to result in an increase in noise levels from associated grading and development activity. Construction hours will be limited per the City of Rancho Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract 15247 Page 8 Cucamonga Municipal Code to lessen any construction related disturbances in noise levels to surrounding properties. The resulting residential project is not likely to produce a significant increase in existing noise levels. b) The residential project fronts 19th Street, designated as a State highway and a secondary road. The General Plan indicates that noise contours in the 60 Ldn range will be present at the site. A noise study was prepared by Gordon Bricken & Associates on April 8, 1991, to determine what mitigation measures would be necessary to reduce the noise levels to a permissible level. To mitigate significant adverse impacts from traffic on 19th Street, the noise study recommends the construction of a sound wall 5 feet in height for the first floor patios that face south. A 4-foot high sound wall for the second floor balconies that front 19th Street is also recommended. Noise from the future Route 30 Freeway will be mitigated by sound wails included in freeway design, the physical separation from Route 30, and the existing three°story apartments to the north. I I Potentially 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Schools? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Other governmental services? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? ( ) ( ) (X) b) Communication systems? ( ) ( ) (X) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ( ) ( ) (X) d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Storm water drainage?i ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract 15247 Page g f) Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments:. e) The project will involve the need for a storm drain and catch basin within 19th Street to accommodate water run-off and drainage from the site. As a condition of tract map approval, construction of a storm drain and catch basin will be required. The storm drain and catch basin will be built in accordance with the City plan for the storm drain system. The resulting impact on services is not likely to be significant. 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposah a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) ( (X) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( ) ( (X) c) Create light or glare? ( ) (X) ( ) Comments: c) New light and glare will be created because the properly is currently vacant. A condition of approval requires the applicant to submit a lighting plan for review and approval to ensure minimal impacts to surrounding prope~ies. Lights provided to illuminate parking areas will be required to reflect away from residential uses and roadways. As a result of these measures, the effects of the new light generated is not expected to be significant. 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposah a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) (X) b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) (X) c) Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) (X) d) Have the potentia~ to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural ( )(X) values? Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract 15247 Page 10 e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses Within the potential impact area? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 15. RECREATION. Would ~e proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or mgiona~ parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) ( ) ( (X) b) Affect existing recreational oppo~unities? ( ) ( ) ( (X) 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate impo~ant examples of the major periods of California histo~ or prebisto~? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Sho~ term: Does the project have the potential to achieve sho~-term, to the disadvantage of long- term, environmental goals? (A sho~-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time. Long- term impacts will endure well into the future.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effe~s of past proje~s, the effe~s of other currant projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) FROM: SHIBATR LND SCP S PHONE NO. : 702+2~1872 May. 14 1998 07:88AM P2 ~ENT BYL R CUCAMO~GA COM DEV; S-t3-g~ 2:35PMj 90~772847 =~ 70~+2681872; ~12/12 Inilia~ Study for T~]~tative Tract 15~47 CIty 0f RanchO ~u~monga ' " "~~ ........ Page 11 environmental ~ects ~ich wilt cause subs~rdial a~verse effe~s on human beings. ~{her directly or indirect/y? ( ) ( ) ( ) ' (X) ' EARLIER ANALYSES Eadier analyses may be use~ where. Dursuant to II~ tiering. program EIR. or oiher CEQA pro~ss. one or more e~cts have ~en adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR Dr Negative ~Ctaration ~r Section 15~3(c)(3)(D). The e~ect8 identified above for this proje~ were within the s~e of and adequately analyzed in th9 following earlier ~oCumOnt(s) pursuant Io applicaole legal standards, and such effects were addresse~ by mlt~gat~0n meas~res based on the eadler analysis. T~ Mlowing earlier analyses were utilized in completing fhjs In;tial 9tudy end ate avella~e for review .tn the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices. 10500 Civic Canter DriVe (ch~k all tha~ apply). (X)General Ran EIR : (Certified April 6, 198 ! ) Master Environmental Assessmen~ for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH ~88020115, c¢ffified January 4, 1969) APPLICANT CERTIFICATION ~ certify that I am the applicant for the ~roJect ~escrl~ed in ~hls Initial Study I a~owledge that I have read th~ initial Study and the proposed mitigation measures. Furlher. I ha~e reviS~ the proje~ plans or propo~ls and/or hereby agree to the propond mitigation measures 1o avo~ the . Signotu' · .Pn , ~ Dm._ ~ ', .. ./.~>~ ..... 'hi N .... ., 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 2fO9f and 21092 of the Public Resources Code. Project File No.: Tentative Tract 15247 Public Review Period Closes: May 27, 1998 Project Name: Project Applicant: Royce &Terry Shibata Project Location (also see attached map): Located on the north side of 19th Street between Amethyst Street and Hellman Avenue - APN: 201-474-05. Project Description: A request for an extension of a previously approved tentative tract map including design review for the development of 13 condominium units on 1.4 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre). Related Tree Removal Permit 91-29. FINDING This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, ac~ing 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. May 27, 1998 Date of Determination Adopted By RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANGHO GUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 13 GONDOMINIUM UNITS ON 1.4 ACRES OF LAND IN THE MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 19TH STREET BETWEEN AMETHYST STREET AND HELLMAN AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 201-474-05. A. Recitals. 1. Royce and Terry Shibata have filed an application for the extension of the approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 15247, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereina~er in this Resolution, the subject Tentative Tract Map request is referred to as "the application." 2. On March 25, 1992, this Commission adopted its Resolution No. 92-55, thereby approving, subject to specific conditions and time limits, Tentative Tract No. 15247. 3. On the 27th day of May 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, Par~ A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on May 27, 1998, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony. this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The previously approved Tentative Tract Map is in substantial compliance with the City's current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans, codes, and policies; and b. The extension of the Tentative Tract Map approval will not cause significant inconsistencies with the current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans, codes, and policies; and c. The extension of the Tentative Tract Map approval is not likely to cause public health and safety problems; and d. The extension is within the time limits established by State law and local ordinance. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TT 15247 - SHIBATA May 27, 1998 Page 2 3. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows: a. That the Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder; that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further. this Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the application. b. That, based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission during the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-1-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby grants a time extension for: Desiqn Review Applicant Expiration Tentative Tract 15247 Royce & Terry Shibata March 25, 1999 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27th DAY OF MAY 1998. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TT15247-SHIBATA May27,1998 Page 3 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 27th day of May 1998, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW I=OR TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15247 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 13 CONDOMINIUM UNITS ON 1.4 ACRES OF LAND IN THE MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 19TH STREET BETWEEN AMETHYST STREET AND HELLMAN AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF- APN: 201474-05. A. Recitals. 1. Royce and Terry Shibata have filed an application for the extension of the approval of Design Review of Tract No. 15247, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Design Review request is referred to as "the application." 2. On March 25, 1992, this Commission adopted its Resolution No. 92-56, thereby approving, subject to specific conditions and time limits, the Design Review for Tentative Tract No. 15247. 3. On the day of 27th day of May 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duty 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 meeting on May 27, 1998, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The previously approved Design Review is in substantial compliance with the City's current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans, codes, and policies; and b. The extension of the Design Review approval will not cause significant inconsistencies with the current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans, codes, and policies; and c. The extension of the Design review approval is not likely to cause public health and safety problems; and d. The extension is within the time limits established by State law and local ordinance. DR FOR TT15247- SHIBATA May 27, 1998 Page 2 3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above, this Commission hereby grants a time extension for: Desiqn Review A~licant Expiration Tentative Tract 15247 Royce & Terry Shibata March 25, 1999 4. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27th DAY OF MAY 1998. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced. passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of!Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 27th day of May 1998 by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ' ~ STAFF RF, PORT DATE: May 27, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Brent Le Count, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-37 MODIFICATION - GOOD FELLAS CIGAR.e. - A request to add indoor entertainment and billiards to an existing cigar shop and bar within a leased space of 2,800 square feet in the Virginia Dare Business Center, in the General Commercial District, located at 8034 Haven Avenue, Suite B - APN: 1077-661-02. Related file: Entertainment Permit 98-01. ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT 98-01 - GOOD FELLAS CIGARS - A request to add indoor entertainment including dancing,. live bands, karaoke, and billiards to an existing cigar shop and bar within a leased space of 2,800 square feet in the Virginia Dare Business Center, in the General Commercial District, located at 8034 Haven Avenue, Suite B -APN: 1077-661-02. Related file: Conditional Use Permit 9%37 Modification. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Backqround: The applicant received approval of a Conditional Use Permit on November 12, 1997, to establish a bar within an existing cigar shop/lounge. The applicant is now proposing to modify the approved Conditional Use Permit to add indoor entertainment. No outdoor entertainment is proposed. B. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoninq: Project Site - Virginia Dare Business Center; General Commercial North - Virginia Dare Business Center; General Commercial South - Vacant Land; Industrial Park/Haven Avenue Overlay East Terra Vista Shopping Center; Community Commercial, Terra Vista Community Plan West Virginia Dare Business Center; General Commercial C. General Plan Desiqnations: Project Site - Commercial North - Commercial South - Commercial East - Regional Commercial (Terra Vista Shopping Center) West - Commercial ITEM C & D PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 97-37 - GOOD FELLAS CIGARS May 27, 1998 Page 2 D. Site Characteristics: Good Fellas Cigars is locatedwithin the Virginia Dare Business Center at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue. It is a mixed use center consisting of offices, a multi-screen theater, and restaurants within the General Commercial District. Good Fellas Cigars is located in the one-story building along the Haven Avenue street frontage within the restaurant courtyard. E. Parkinq Calculations: The building was previously approved for a restaurant use with a parking ratio of one space per 100 square feet o~ floor area. The previous restaurants have closed and the building is now occupied by a legal office and the cigar lounge. The site has sufficient parking to accommodate the proposed uses. ANALYSIS: A. General: The applicant is proposing a small (149.6, square foot) dance floor and a single pool table. Music is proposed to include live performances, DJ music, and karaoke. The business is located within the Virginia Dare Business Center at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue. The adjacent restaurants, Shelley's and Havana Hut, serve alcoholic drinks. Also, Shelley's has an approved Entertainment Permit for dancing and live bands. According to Code Enforcement, no complaints have been filed for the existing businesses. B. Hours of Operation: Currently, the business is open from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. Monday through Thursday, 8:00 a.m. to midnight Friday and Saturday, and 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Sunday. The applicant now wishes to operate from noon to midnight Monday and Tuesday, noon to 2:00 a.m. Wednesday thru Saturday, and noon to 10:00 p.m. on Sunday. Shelley's restaurant is permitted to operate until midnight Monday thru Thursday, and to 1:00 a.m. Friday and Saturday. The Virginia Dare Business Center is not in close proximity to residential uses. The applicant's request to stay open later does not appear to be harmful or conflict with other surrounding uses. C. Security: The applicant is proposing a 10-foot by 6-inch by 14-foot by 3-inch dance floor (149.6 square feet) with no security guard. The Municipal Code requires a licensed, uniformed security guard for dance floors of 150 square feet or larger. The business will have only one pool table and a small bar. Staff does not feel that a security guard is necessary to accommodate the proposed entertainment activities. D. Signs: The business currently has multiple neon signs (beer brands, etc) hanging in windows. The Sign Ordinance permits a maximum of two window neon signs per business which may only display generic name messages such as "Open" or "Pizza" and can not advertise brand name products. A condition of approval requires removal of existing neon window signs consistent with the Sign Ordinance. E. Conclusion: Based upon the above analysis, staff believes that the proposed activity is compatible with the other surrounding uses and complies with the objectives of the Development Code. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 97-37- GOOD FELLAS CIGARS May 27, 1998 Page 3 F. Environmental Assessment: The application is exempt pursuant to Section 15301 of the State CEQA Guidelines. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin. newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 300~foot radius of the project site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit 97-37 Modification and Entertainment Permit 98-01 through adoption of'the attached Resolutions of Approval. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:BLC:mlg Attachments: Exhibit"A" - Applicant's Letter Exhibit "B" - Site Plan Exhibit "C" o Floor Plan Exhibit "D" - Entertainment Permit Application Resolution of Approval- Conditional Use Permit 97-37 Modification Resolution of Approval- Entertainment Permit 98-01 To Whom It May Concern, Good Fellas Fine Cigars is a new business, which opened on 9-EZ-97. Good Fellas is seeking modification to existing CUP 97-37. The modification requested includes an entertainment permit, change of exjsting hours, and a commercial recreation use for the purpose of Billiards tables. The Entertainment Permit will include dancing and live bands. A small dance floor measuring 10 ~ X14 ~/4 will be located in the center'of building as displayed on attached floor plan. All entertainment will take place inside of building so as not to interfere with the other businesses located in the center. Music for dancing will be provided by both DJ and Live Bands. Good Fellas Fine Cigars has become primarily a nighttime business. The ability to be able to provide entertainment for our patrons ~has become an important factor in being able to maximize the potential of our business. An entertainment permit will also enable Good Fellas to expand its existing market base as dancing and live entertainment will add to the over all appeat of our existing business. The extension of closing time has alse become a growing concern. With the addition of alcoholic beverages the majority of our business now takes place in the evening hours. Good Fellas no longer opens at 8:00am as it was not cost effective due to the lack of rooming business and now opens at 12:00pm. Once again in order to maximize the potential and help the long-term success of the business a change of closing time needs to take place, Below are the hours that Good Fellas requests: Sun 12:00-10:00 Mon 12:00-12:00 Tues 12:00-12:00 Wed 12:00-2:00 Thurs 12:00-2:00 Fri 12:00-2:00 Sat 12:00-2:00 At this time Good Fellas Fine Cigars no longer has any Billiards tables, however, we do have future plans for adding a coin-op billiards table and would like to address this issue at the present time. Recreation use for billiards as mentioned on file no. 98-01 is also requested. Sinc~ ~ Danie~cati~ ' Owner Good Fellas Fine Cigars ..... % '~yt~. ~ ~' · ~~i~' ~ r -:'e~>r ~.~".----'~ 1 ~'~ o o .. ~ ,/ ~.~ ~ ' I b i 1~7~/ : ~X ~ ~ ',_. · . ~ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Community Development Department ~"' UNIFORM 10500 Civic Center Drive APPLICATION Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 477-2750 Part I Narn. e Of Proposed Project Location of Project . Legal Description of P~jec~(AsSessofs Panel Legal Owners Name (~ifferent from above) Phone Number Address Type of Review Reques ted (Please Check All Applicable e axes) Q Community Plan Amendment 0 General Plan Amendment Q Tentative Parcel Map Q Conditional Use Permit Q Hillside Development >4 DU Q Tentative Tract Map Conditional Use Permit Q Hillside Development s 4 DU Q Vacation of Public Right-of-Way or (Non-Construction) D Landmarl<Alteration Permit Easement ,3 Dev/Design Review - Cc, rnrn/Indus Q Lot Line Adjuatment Q Variance D Dev/Design Review - Residential Q Minor Development Review Q Use Determination ,3 Development Agreement Q Minor Exception E3 Other: Q DevelopmentDistrfctAmendment Q Preliminary Review ;X~ Entertainment Permit Q Specific Plan Amendment Detailed Description of Proposed Project (Attach Additional Sheets if Necessary) C~oI ~-[f~., P.._ C,.-~. wo.~d I,'l& 4~ ~F~;t,r,:l~,,~,L:' ~=.~.~:~ ~-, c~ ~ ;'4:~.~;.b~~ ~n~ .'~ ~,'~,~F..~I~/,'~l~d~ ~:"~"'u- I certify that I am presently the legal owner of the above-described property. Further, I acknowledge the filing of this application and certify that all of the above information is true and correct. (If the undersigned is different from the legal property owner, a letter of auth~must accop~o'~ this form.) . DatEimeR,ceived Rec,iv,dBy ~ FeesReceived %c71~f~-~I ~ireR,ceiptNo, ~f ~.,~ r~Z. 571 ~ ~D ?' ~;,,=,o,-.,~,~T 'D" ~T~n~ ~,~ APPLICATION FOR AN ENTER TA INMEN T PERMIT This Entertainment Permit application shall be completed and submitted. Planning staff will evaluate the completeness and accuracy of the information submitted. The City Planner shall determine ff the permit compiles with each of the City's Codes and Ordinances prior to scheduling the project for Planning Commission consideration. Information about the applicant(s): Name Name Date of Birth Date of Birth Social Security Number Social Security Number California Driver's License No. Cali ornia river's 'cense %o. St~e~ Add,E ss ~ ~ :~dC ' ' City, State, & Zip ~ City, State & Zip Phone Number Phone Number 2. The proposed and/or current name of the business: 3. - The name, date of birth, Social Security Number, California Driver's License Number, address, and phone number of all persons responsible for the management or supervision of applicant's business and of any entertainment and provide the following information about each one: Name Name Date of Birth Date of Birth EEg- (;5 575'.5'57 Social Security Number Social Security Number California Dr!ver's License ~ ',- California Driver's License No c a.. Let Str,ae~ Address ' treet Addres~ Ci , a e, an i Cit tare Ph6n8 NZmber PhOne flutuber 4. Business address and legal description (Assessor's Parcel Number) where the ente~ainment will be offered: 8tree~ Address ......... Assessor's Parcel Number Phone Number 5. A alelolled desc~plian of the proposed ente~ainmenl, including type of ente~inmenl, and number persons engaged in the ente~ainmenl (may alt~ah separate sheels if necessa~): 6. The date or days of the week, hours, and location of enteriainment (attach floor plan) and the admission fee, if any, to be charged: 7. A statement of the nature and character of the appliCant's business, if any, to be carried on in conjunction with such entertainment, including whether ,or not alcohol will be served as part of such business: 8. Whether or not the applicant or any person responsible for the management or supervision of applicant's business has been. within the previous ten years. convicted of a crime. the nature of such offense, and the sentence received therefor including conditions of parole or probation, if any: 9. W'nether or not the applicant has ever had any permit or license issued in conjunction with the sale of alcohol or provision of entertainment revoked. including the date thereof and name of the revoking agency: Date: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97-37 MODIFICATION TO ADD INDOOR ENTERTAINMENT AND BILLIARDS TO AN EXISTING CIGAR SHOP AND BAR WITHIN A LEASED SPACE OF 2,800 SQUARE FEET IN THE VIRGINIA DARE BUSINESS CENTER, IN THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, LOCATED AT 8034 HAVEN AVENUE, SUITE B, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1077-661-02. A. Recitals. 1. Daniel Bruncati has filed an application for the issuance of modification of Conditional Use Permit No. 97-37, as described in the title of this Resolution. Heroinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit modification request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 27th day of May 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duty 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 May 27. 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 8034 Haven Avenue, Suite B, which is within the Virginia Dare Business Center at the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue; and b. The property to the north of the subject site is developed with a shopping center and multi-screen theater, the property to the south consists of vacant land, the property to the east is developed with the Terra Vista Shopping Center, and the property to the west is developed with a shopping center; and c. The proposed entertainment activities are permitted in the General Commercial district subject to review and approval of an Entertainment Permit; and d. The inclusion of dancing, billiards, live and DJ music, and karaoke with a cigar lounge and bar is consistent with the General Commercial District and the Commercial designation of the General Plan in that it provides a convenient form of commercial recreation while avoiding the creation of nuisance; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 97-37- DANIEL BRUNCATI May 27, 1998 Page 2 e. The application, with the attached conditions of approval, will comply with all applicable standards of the Development Code. 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 I and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. b. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare ,or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. c. The proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. 4. This Commission hereby finds and determines that the project identified in this Resolution is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15301 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 approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below: Planning Division 1 ) All conditions of approval contained in the resolutions for approval for Entertainment Permit 98-01 and Conditional Use Permit 97-37 (approved by City Planner November 12, 1997) shall apply. 2) The days and hours of operation for the entertainment shall be limited to between noon to midnight Monday and Tuesday, noon to 2:00 a.m. Wednesday thru Saturday, and noon to 10:00 p.m. Sunday. Any expansion of days and/or hours shall require modification to this permit. 3) Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with any sections of the Development Code, State Fire Marshal's regulations, Uniform Building Code, or any other City Ordinances. 4) All signs shall be consistent with the City's Sign Ordinance and the Uniform Sign Program for the Virginia Dare Business Center. All non- conforming signs shall be removed prior to initiating any of the activities herein approved. Buildinq and Fire Safety Division: 1 ) An additional $132.00 plan check fee shall be paid prior to final plan approval. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 97-37 - DANIEL BRUNCATI May 27. 1998 Page 3 2) Plans shall be submitted and plans approved prior to initiation of the entertainment activities requested herein in accordance with 1994 UBC, UFC, UPC, UMC, NEC. and RCFD Standards. 3) The applicant shall apply for and seek approval of a public assembly permit, prior to initiation of the entertainment activities requested herein. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF MAY 1998. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker. Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I. Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed. and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 27th day of May 1998. by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT NO. 98-01, A REQUEST TO INCLUDE DANCING, LIVE BANDS, KARAOKE, AND BILLIARDS IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING CIGAR SHOP AND BAR WITHIN A LEASED SPACE OF 2,800 SQUARE FEET IN THE VIRGINIA DARE BUSINESS CENTER IN THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, LOCATED AT 8034 HAVEN AVENUE, SUITE B, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -APN: 1077-661-02. A. RecitalS. 1. On May 21, 1986, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted Ordinance No. 290 providing for the regulation of entertainment. 2. Daniel Bruncati has filed an application for the issuance of Entertainment Permit No. 98-01, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Entertainment Permit request is referred to as "the application." 3. On the 27th day of May 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. Resoluti6n. 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 May 27, 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 8034 Haven Avenue, Suite B, which is within the Virginia Dare Business Center at the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue; and b. The property to the north of the subject site is developed with a shopping center and multi-screen theater, the property to the south consists of vacant land, the property to the east is developed with the Terra Vista Shopping Center, and the property to the west is developed with a shopping center; and c. The proposed entertainment activities are permitted in the General Commercial district subject to review and approval of an Entertainment Permit; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. EP 98-01 - DANIEL BRUNCATI May 27, 1998 Page 2 d. The inclusion of dancing, billiards, live and DJ music, and karaoke with a cigar lounge and bar is consistent with the General Commercial District and the Commercial designation of the General Plan; and e. The application, with the attached conditions of approval, will comply with all applicable standards of the Development Code. 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 I and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. That the conduct of the establishment and the granting of the application would not be contrary to the public health, safety, morals or welfare; and b. That the premises or establishment is not likely to be operated in an illegal, improper or disorderly manner; and c. That the applicant, or any person associated with the applicant, as principal or partner or in a position or capacity involving partial or total control over the conduct of the business for which such permit is sought to be issued, has not been convicted in any court of competent jurisdiction of any offense involving the presentation, exhibition, or performance of any obscene show of any kind or of a felony or of any crime involving moral turpitude or has not had any approval, permit, or license issued in conjunction with the sale of alcohol or the provisions of entertainment revoked within the preceding five years; and d. That granting the application would not' create a public nuisance; and e. That the normal operation of the premises would not interfere with the peace and quiet of the surrounding commercial center; and f. That the applicant has not made any false, misleading, or fraudulent statement of material fact in the required application. 4. This Commission hereby finds and determines that the project identified in this Resolution is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15301 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 approves the application, subject to each and every condition set forth below: Planning Division 1) This approval is only for dancing, live and DJ music, karaoke, and billiards. Any change of intensity or type of entertainment shall require a modification to this permit. c__, F'DId' PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. EP 98-01 - DANIEL BRUNCATI May 27, 1998 Page 3 2) The days and hours of operation for the entertainment shall be limited to between noon to midnight Monday and Tuesday, noon to 2:00 a.m. Wednesday thru Saturday, and noon to 10:00 p.m. on Sunday. Any expansion of days and/or hours shall require modification to this permit. 3) No adult entertainment, as defined in the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, Section 17.04.090, shall be permitted. 4) Entertainment shall be conducted inside the building. 5) When entertainment is being conducted, doors and windows shall remain closed for noise attenuation purposes. 6) Extedor noise levels shall not exceed 65 dB during the hours of 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. and 60 dB during the hours from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. 7) Access to the lounge/entertainment area must be from the main entrance to the primary use and not from a separate exterior entrance. Other exits shall be for "Fire Exit Only." 8) If operation of this Entertainment Permit causes adverse effects upon adjacent businesses. or operations including, but not limited to noise, loitering, parking, or disturbances, the Entertainment Permit shall be brought before the Planning Commission for consideration and possible suspension or revocation of the permit. 9) Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with any sections of the Development Code. State Fire Marshal's regulations, Uniform Building Code, or any other City Ordinances. 10) This permit shall be renewed annually by the applicant per Municipal Code Section 5.12.115. 11 ) All signs shall be consistent with the City's Sign Ordinance and the Uniform Sign Program for the Virginia Dare Business Center. All non- conforming signs shall be removed, prior to initiating any of the activities herein approved. Fire DistrictJBuildinq & Safety Division 1 ) The maximum number of occupants shall not exceed building and fire codes. The maximum occupancy for each room shall be posted as determined by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and/or the City's Fire Prevention Unit Division. 2) An additional $132.00 plan check fee shall be paid, prior to final plan approval. C , lL0 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. EP 98-01 - DANIEL BRUNCATI May 27, 1998 Page 4 3) The applicant shall apply for and seek approval of a public assembly permit, prior to initiation of the entertainment activities requested herein. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF MAY 1998. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 27th day of May 1998, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ' STAFF REPORT DATE: May 27, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller. City Planner BY: Dan Coleman, Principal Planner SUBJECT: DESIGN AWARDS NOMINATIONS (Continued from May 13, 1998) BACKGROUND: Presented annually, the Awards for Design Excellence program honors projects which exemplify superior design and resourceful use of land. Awards may be given in the following categories: residential, commercial, office, institutional, and industrial. The program is intended to recognize a variety of projects such as new Construction. historic rehabilitation. master planning, remodeling, and landscaping. The Commission has established a policy that projects, such as a shopping center or subdivision, should be at least 75 percent complete to be eligible. The Commission also determined that only those projects which were subject to the City's review process were eligible; therefore. public schools are not eligible. ANALYSIS: Attached is a list of projects that were completed during the 1997 calendar year that may be considered for this year's program. The list is quite extensive and we encourage each Commissioner to visit these projects prior to tonight's meeting and bring your list of projects that you feel are wodhy of furlher consideration. If the Commission decides to proceed with the program, staff will tally your lists and bring back a "shod list" of those projects which received a majority vote. In previous years, the Commission has toured together these nominees to decide on award winners. RECOMMENDATION: The Commission should consider the nominations and direct staff whether to proceed with the program. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:DC:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - List of Projects Completed in 1997 ITEM E 1997 COMPLETED PROJECTS (Potential Nominations for Design Awards) I:\DAN\PROJECTS.97 Auto Service Court CUP 91-24 Masi Commerce SWC Foothill & Masi Drive (Mobil, Texaco, Center Partners Bldgs 9 & 10) Dennys CUP 91-24 Masi C.C.P. SWC Foothill & Rochester Bldgs. 4&7 CUP 91-24 Masi C.C.P. SWC Foothill & Roehster Rubios DR 96-14 Lewis TV Town Center Pad 4 Blimplie's Sub DR 96-32 Lewis TV Town Center Pad 15 Tutor Time CUP 96-15 Tutor Time NEC TV Parkway & Ellena West ARCO CUP 96-14 ARCO TV Promenade Carl's Jr. CUP 97-12 Carl's Jr. TV Promenade Oil Max CUP 95-33 Oil Max Foothill Marketplace AMPAC DR 89-14 AMPAC S/s Arrow, E/o I 15 Freeway Hollywood Video DR 96-23 Hollywood Video Foothill Marketplace Rosecrest North Tr 13753 Lewis Homes N/o Ellena West, W/o Kenyon Ridgeview Estates Tr. 14139 Centex NWC Etiwanda &Golden Prairie Exhibit "A" - I - 1997 COMPLETED PROJECTS (Potential Nominations for Design Awards) Briarwood Tr 15732 Lewis Homes NWC Etiwanda & Baseline GTE Switching DR 92-07 Mod. GTE 9415 Milliken Modulars CUP 96-07 A.L.Christian Church 6386 Sapphire Seville II Tr 15725 Lewis Homes S/s TV Pkwy. W/o Belpine Bradshaw Internat. DR 96-21 Bradshaw SEC Buffalo &San Marino Las Casitas DR 95-21 N.H.D.C. 9775 Main Heritage Bag DR 96-22 Heritage Bag N/s 4th, E/o Santa Anita Koll Arrow Center DR 95-33 Capellino/Koll S/o Arrow, E/o White Oak Exhibit "A" - 2 -